![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I had twice modified the entry about Protection Racket, some time ago. Investigating, I read that it was removed due to lack of citations. Eventually, I got around to finding several citations, and reposting. Again, my edit was removed, without any reason I could see. Not sure if this was the same person.
I tried looking at your topic and editing guidelines, but nothing seemed quite on target.
thanks, AuntyMM —Preceding unsigned comment added by AuntyMM ( talk • contribs) 02:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi!
1. I am a Wiki newbie from Singapore.
2. When I first created the above page, I wrote it more as an opinion piece. As I'm not technie, I didn't know how to create links for citations or to upload files. So the Wiki panel of editors/reviewers put in their qualifications and alerts. ArbiterOfTruth was even rude (I thought) by putting on the talk page that I have contorted and put "damned lies" when I haven't figured out how to insert citation links. One reviewer (don't know who) even went so far as to tag my page as "contains hoaxes"!
3. Another Wiki editor/reviewer with the moniker of Kimchi was more helpful with the specifics. Hence, with Kimchi's guidance and some help from another friend in Singapore who is more technie, I overcame some of the HTML know-how constraints.
4. Hence, I put in a whole slew of citation links to substantiate my article and facilitate Wiki verifiability.
5. My last version was starting to shape up and I just needed some time to clean it up further. I even put in a request on Kimchi's talk page to ask if the banner of alerts preceding my page could be reduced since I have made substantive clean-up.
6. However, today the whole piece was taken down. Could I appeal pls? I'd like to have your guidance as to why the cleaned-up version is still not considered acceptable. Or was it auto-deleted because of some embedded deadline and the original Wiki reviewers did NOT re-visit my cleaned-up version?
7. I find Singapore's system to be oppressive - there is little tolerance for dissent or alternative views. As Wikipedia is an internet portal, I do not know if some of the Wik reviewers of my page were intolerant if the Wiki page states facts which are not flattering to the Singapore Government's laws, policies or consequent social climate.
8. Hence, I'd like to appeal for re-instatement of my Wiki page with some specific advice on how else to make it better and more compliant to Wiki's standard pls.
Thank you.
SINPariah (
talk)
05:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
(
SINPariah (
talk)
10:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC))
(
SINPariah (
talk)
10:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC))
This article has been deleted twice already and has been edited again. Can you take the tags away and help me to put it back on? I would also like to learn how I can ad, in chapter Collections, the link to the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris. 1027E ( talk) 19:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I wish to change the name of this new page to reflect revised spellings and name variant. Suggested new name: Jarnović, Ivan Mane (also Giovanni Mane Giornovichi). Regards. Blarcrean —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blarcrean ( talk • contribs) 19:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a request to start documentation on 8 high-risk templates, entering some standard code. Then protection. The combined request is in full here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#High-risk templates unprotected. Maybe an administrator is already bizzy with it, so it may take some coordination. Bye, - DePiep ( talk) 12:03, 12 April
Australian dollar ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In the article on the Australian Dollar, there is a list of the most traded currencies in the world with the Aussie dollar listed as the sixth most traded and the US dollar listed as the most traded. However in the table that appears with the article, this seems to have been vandalized with the Turkish lira listed as the most traded currency. I do not have a list of the percentages but this appears to be a deliberate act of sabotage. Romperlevis ( talk) 12:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Here
Rob Van Dam a fresh user filled a date of death in ~10 edits. (first April 4, finally April 10 2009 = friday). As I cannot revert multiple edits (don't know how), and because it may be unreferenced, could someone check the edits? Thanx. -
DePiep (
talk)
02:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
User:Croctotheface keeps trying to control this article by removing anything he feels doesn't belong in it without having a discussion about it on the talk page. Someone added the subject matter of the Final Jeopardy! question she answered incorrectly, which I believe is pertinent, because it caused her to lose the championship. How could it not be a valid bit of information if the only reason she has a Wikipedia article in the first place is because she was a Jeopardy! champion? Croctotheface removed it, calling it "unnecessary" but not explaining why he thinks it is. The editor who put this information in explained why he did on the talk page, so shouldn't Croctotheface at least have the courtesy to respond instead of just deciding the info doesn't belong? He acts as if he's the only one allowed to edit this article. Am I wrong to think he's wrong? Thank you for your help. 67.79.157.50 ( talk) 14:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Sea glass (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Sea pottery ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi,
I am concerned about a double standard that is being enforced by an editor on the Sea Glass and Sea Pottery pages. I recently posted a link to a website for sea glass collectors called Sea Glass Artists & Sea Glass Collectors this link was removed by an editor yet another link to a website with a commercial interest called Sea Glass Lovers was allowed to stay. I fully respect Wikipedia and apologize if I posted a link inappropriately. However, there is a double standard as the Sea Glass Lovers link was allowed to stay. It only seems fair that if both links are not allowed to stay than neither should be allowed to stay. I am sure that the Wikipedia community wants to be fair and would appreciate any help I can get on this.
Thanks,
Lisl Armstrong16:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaglassmermaid ( talk • contribs)
There is something of an edit war going on because someone called Haldraper is refusing to accept that the FDA is a trade union, and that it is called the FDA. There was a page called "FDA (trade union)", which had a disambiguation page because the FDA is a well known acronym for the Food and Drug Administration. Haldraper has changed that to "First Division Association", and is also removing any reference to the FDA being a trade union, because s/he says that its members are "bosses" and not "workers". S/he is not interested in the facts, which is that the FDA is a trade union under legislation and under the rules of the TUC. The details of that are on the Talk page Talk:FDA (professional association) S/he is also not interested in the fact that the FDA changed its name 9 years ago from "The Association of First Division Civil Servants" to the FDA.
Haldraper is making a mess of lots of wikipedia pages, including that of the General Secretary of the FDA - Haldraper has just removed the reference to him being a trade union leader - because of this obsession with the FDA, which makes no sense.
I have tried to show the facts on the talk page - the FDA is a trade union, and is named the FDA.
Please can someone help and stop this silly dispute? Guineveretoo ( talk) 21:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The fact is that the FDA is a registered trade union, which is an internationally known term, and was shown as such on all the pages on wikipedia which detailed trade unions. "Professional association" has no real meaning, whereas "trade union" does. Haldraper changed lots of pages to remove any reference to the FDA being a trade union. This is wrong, because the FDA is a trade union. The definition of a trade union is shown on the link above, and I even linked to the Certification Officer, which is the body which registers trade unions, to show that its legal registered name is FDA. Guineveretoo ( talk) 22:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's going to end. I give in: if you want to kid yourself that the FDA is a trade union and its members workers, don't let me stop you. Haldraper ( talk) 08:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, the dispute appeared to have ended, but now almost the entire page has been deleted, and I don't understand why. Something about resources not being enough? Can anyone advise, please?
Guineveretoo (
talk)
15:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I have misunderstood the whole premise of wikipedia, and that I might just have to stop editing pages, because this is all too bewildering for me! Can anyone tell me what is going on, and what was wrong with the page on the FDA trade union, which has been deleted? Guineveretoo ( talk) 15:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Or you could just state that you don't work for FDA and never have. Haldraper ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC).
I had just a quick question about consensus. Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis there's been a months-long discussion between various editors about whether to use Miami (the county name and name used by most media sources) or Key Biscayne (the village location). Everyone has agreed on the former save for one editor, though I know (through reading about this) that numbers alone don't make consensus. An editor just tried for Mediation, but that one editor disagreed and refused mediation. I am just wondering what the next step should be towards resolving this issue and moving forward. Thanks in advance for help. Alonsornunez Comments 04:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
(rolled this thread into the previous one as they're intricately related —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 09:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC))
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding wikipolicy here, in advance. Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis we have been engaged in a discussion about the location names for various tournaments. My question actually deals with the actions of one involved user (Tennisexpert) who is continuing to edit articles relating to this discussion ( here, here and here). This seems disruptive in light of the ongoing discussion I mentioned. He has stated that he has turned to the individual pages to build consensus, but when I reverted his change he did not take the discussion to any of the Talk pages (which, under BRD, seems like the next productive step). Am I misunderstanding something here? He has refused mediation, which is within his right, but seems (IMO) to be acting against a consensus rather than towards. Help! Alonsornunez Comments 04:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I often notice articles that are rated Start class, but have been improved beyond Start class. Where can I find some information about the various quality classes and the criteria that apply to each one; and about promoting articles from one class to the next? (In particular, promoting a Start class article to whatever class comes next.) Dolphin51 ( talk) 03:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Energy and Environment ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello, a couple of times this morning I have corrected your page on the journal Energy and Environment, not least because of factual errors but also because the original poster only gave one side of the story: I added some balance. On each occasion my veresion stayed up for a short while, then was replaced by the older, wrong, unbalanced version. Why is this? n —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary4444 ( talk • contribs) 11:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I recently searched Wikipedia and found a Fighting Chance article for a song, however, Fighting Chance is also the name of a cancer care center in my neighborhood and I wanted to create a listing for them. I have created the article in my user space, and added references from their website and verifiable third party websites. I would like to have an editor review the page just to make sure I have created the article properly. Also, I need to know where this should be posted as there will now be two "Fighting Chance" listings.
Thanks!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Swimlej/Fighting_Chance
--
24.189.110.45 (
talk)
21:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes hi want need help editing this i want make Mountain house high school wikki students from Mountain House attend Tracy and West high schools , since there is no high school in Mountain House, high school age children from Mountain House attend West High School in Tracy under the management of the Tracy Joint Unified School District. In 2009, if and when Kimball High School is completed as planned, high school age children from Mountain House will attend Kimball High School instead of West High School. Millenium Charter High School in Tracy is another option for high school age children. There is a grass roots push right now to build our own High School in Mountain House. On March 25,2009 Lammersville Elementary School District unveiled a timeline of when they hope to break way from Tracy Unified and open the district’s own high school, as well as two new elementary schools.In May 2009 officials will meet with Tracy school district administrators and begin designing the future Mountain House High School In June 2009, Lammersville will meet with the San Joaquin County Office of Education to negotiate unification. The district will file to receive state money to build the high school in July 2010 and hope to finish athletic fields by March 2011 that include,two baseball fields, two softball fields football stadium like West High’s with artificial turf, all-weather track and 4,000-seat bleachers. Mountain House High school will have an opening date of July 2013 it estimated that the Mountain House high school could open with as many as 800 students acccroding to Lammersville Elementary School District and the tracy press and cost between $70 and 80 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K.w 2009 ( talk • contribs) 00:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Gee I made a mess here Category:Assassins by ethnicity. Involves the template Subst:cfr (cat for rename). Could someone take a look & an action into the part to the discussion? (create the right link). Thanx. - DePiep ( talk) 07:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
San Antonio Taxi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello,
I am trying to build a page for San Antonio Taxi. The company is historically tied to the first city transportation going back to horse and carriages. An administrator marked it for speedy deletion and will not respond to my messages regarding the page. It is my sincere desire to build a page that is informative and conforms with Wiki policy.
Any assistance is greatly appreciated.
Many thanks,
Robert W. Gaines General Manager San Antonio Taxi —Preceding unsigned comment added by SanAntonioTaxi ( talk • contribs) 16:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Georgia (country) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Geography of Georgia (country) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello editors, if I can kindly seek somebody's assistance with an issue, I recently included some thoroughly referenced statements on the Georgia (country) and the Geography of Georgia (country) article and sought other editors opinions on the reliability of them here WP:RSN. I took on board the advice and filtered out the iffy ones, leaving the most reliable ones in place with the statements to match them. I successfully requested page protection after they were being deleted en-masse - Talk:Georgia_(country). I spend a considerable amount of time sourcing and editing this information to improve the article while keeping true to WP:AGF, WP:RELIABLE, and good Wiki procedure such as using the talk page, requesting opinions, and resisting edit warring. Unfortunately, a user Kober ( talk · contribs) has reverted the cited statements on both articles in a 'couldn't care less' manner, without any respect for Wiki conduct guidelines. Your help in this situation would be greatly appreciated. Izzedine ( talk) 19:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
BC-STV ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dear Wikipedai,
BC is having a referendum soon to change how our provincial politicians are elected. A referendum gag law is in place that bans any political comment when advertising STV, or any election advertisng that covers STV. This STV Referendum gag law is a fact, and can be validated by visiting BC Elections webpage.
Some person with the tag The Tom keeps erasing it. If he has issues, he should have editted it, and not deleted complete mention of the gag law. The gag law is real and is something Wikipedai should not help censor. Wikipedai stands up for freedom, and this is such an issue. Did The Tom do this because he had a political agenda?
Thank you, Haida chieftain (sad and confused) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haida chieftain ( talk • contribs) 22:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Very (album) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello This starts with this is the 7th album of 5 previously unreleased material. This does not make sensee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.119.134 ( talk) 21:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
la|article title goes here}}
.Nousics ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article Nousics is a believe a hoax or a spoof.
It starts "Coined by philosopher Tony Montano, the word Nousics ...". I can find no philosopher of that name on Google or elsewhere. However, Wikipedia does have an article for Tony Montana a fictional drug lord who is the lead character from the film Scarface. (Montano is a common mispelling of Montana--for example, "Tony Montano (Al Pacino) prank calls Thug Wannabe" on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fT_bjjFv8o)
There is no mention of Nousics in Google scholar, SIS Web of Knowledge, Philosophers Index, OED, British Humanities Index. Indeed, I can find independent source for Nousics on google except those that derive from this page.
The article claims that "word Nousics (from the Greek, nous, meaning "soul")", However, nous in Greek is usually translated as "Mind, intellect; intelligence; intuitive apprehension".
The article content is non sequitur. For example, it mentions xenotransplantation as subject of "nousics debates" but none of those involved uses this description. It makes spurious "see also" links to # cognitive neuropsychology # cognitive neuroscience # neural networks # neuropsychology # computational neuroscience.
I do not want to get involved with dispute over this article. But I think it should be looked into. This is my only posting.-- LittleHow ( talk) 18:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
prod2}}
'ed it as, having browsed through the article, it's nothing but a
dictionary definition of the word, plus a whole lot of
original research on
bioethics. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
20:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Cistercian Order of the Holy Cross ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please help me. Regards: The Cistercian Order of the Holy Cross article. Someone has been repeatedly vandalizing the article. Please just take it down. Remove any reference to the article. The lies are creating a lot of hurt and difficulty in the lives of our members. I am the Abbot General of the Cistercian Order of the Holy Cross. Thank you, The Most Rev. Oscar Joseph OCCO Abbot1 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC).
Andy Murray ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Rambling Man has added the "fansite" tag to innumerable tennis biographies in the last few days. He is aware that WP:Summary encourages the forking, i.e., moving, of information from a too long article instead of deleting that information. At first, he used the following false and exaggerated edit summary: "completely over the top level of detail for every match, every score, every tiebreak... not SUMMARY style in any way". After I objected to that summary because of its inaccuracy and the damage that might be caused by other editors misinterpreting the tag, he agreed to use the following edit summary instead: "please see WP:SUMMARY for further details, thank you". That was a very good development. However, we have now encountered the first instance of where the tag has caused an inexperienced editor ( Alan16) to delete 7kb+ of information from the Andy Murray article instead of moving it to a new article. At first, he strongly objected to the tag but under strong pressure from The Rambling Man and especially from LeaveSleaves, Alan16 has refused to reinstate the information (either in the original article or in a new article). Worse, he is being backed now by tag team edit warring from LeaveSleaves, who even refuses to acknowledge that WP:BRD has relevance in Wikipedia. You can see the whole sordid story here. I would appreciate your comments on the Andy Murray discussion page. Thanks! Tennis expert ( talk) 05:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm growing tired of being accused of using "tactics". I want these articles to shape up a little and that requires bold editors to remove excessive trivia, per the {{ fansite}} template's recommendation. I am also bored (although not surprised at your own tactics) of being continually reminded of your massive swath of "evidence" of my "disruption" which has already been dismissed as simply disagreement over editing. I fail to see how your tactics here help this particular issue, namely the absolute requirement to reduce excessive trivia in pretty much all major tennis biographies. I still fail to see where I applied any pressure to anyone. I linked an example of what happens when excessive trivia is allowed to go unchecked, the Billie Jean King article which is in need of a major overhaul. Instead of pointing me back to WP:SS, perhaps you could suggest the fansite tag is changed since all I have ever said is that we must remove excessive trivia. And that goes for forks as well, they should be pertinent and summarising, not rambling and full of intricate detail that would only be of interest to the most avid tennis fan. And goodness me, what relevance does Alan16's age have in this discussion? I'm deeply shocked that you would openly discriminate against someone due to their age. Whatever next. The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
←I've stepped in at Talk:Andy Murray and tried to summarize the content dispute and offer some outside perspective. If that doesn't help, I think either an RFC or actual mediation would be helpful. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 18:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Gilad Atzmon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I brought this to WP:BLPN and only one neutral person replied and he was ambivalent. Also just left at WP:RSN. Any more definitive answers? Tired of having to revert this over and over again. Comments in the talk section would help a lot.
This year old web site has three editors listed here and does accept admissions mentioned here. It has been assumed the editors don't edit each other. Gilad Atzmon is one of the editors. Three related questions:
Thanks! CarolMooreDC ( talk) 13:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, there is clearly an ongoing dispute about the content of this article. You could ask for an WP:RfC, or ask for a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Please don't carry on the dispute here. Jezhotwells ( talk) 00:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
For reference, relevant threads from other noticeboards: WP:RSN#Use of personal attack from professor’s blog, WP:BLPN#Insistence on using self-published critical article, and out of context, WP:NPOVN#Gilad Atzmon, WP:ECCN#Gilad Atzmon. This is quite a long issue, and WP:3O is definitely not appropriate as it involves more than two editors. I'm going to read up on some of this and try to give a suggestion. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 23:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Orb (photographic) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello,
I made a comment alleging vandalism and self-promotion based on an incomplete examination of all intermediate versions of the article on photographic orbs. After reexamining which change was made when, I see the mention of the Orb Zone was made after the deletion of the majority of the article, not at the same time or by the same IP. The owner of the website has asked I remove my comment, which is a reasonable request. However, I think this might require an administrator.
Thank you. Antije ( talk) 14:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
(cur) (prev) 13:04, 17 April 2009 Antije (talk | contribs) (4,433 bytes) (Reverted vandalism by 99.232.209.29, who is apparently self-promoting their website The Orb Zone. Appears to be legitimate site however.) (undo)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Orb_(photographic)&action=history
Taiwan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello, I'm having a dispute with a a fellow editor about which term to describe a certain group of people in Taiwan when it comes to people who's ties originated from outside Taiwan. We are disputing about using either the term "Waishengren" or "Extra-Provincial People". He claims that "Extra-Provincial People" is a made up term therefore cannot be used for Wikipedia, while I claim that based on the Wikimanual that we're supposed to be writing in English, not in a foreign language. He claims that "waishengren" is a commonly used term in English, while I argue that it is not and that "extra-provincial people" is used a lot as well, it's just not used by him or his peers. When googling, it's impossible to tell which has more results, because "extra-provincial people" means "people from outside the province" and is used in more context then "waishengren" is. "waishengren" is Chinese, so it's only used in terms when talking about people in provinces of China. How should we proceed in this case? Liu Tao ( talk) 03:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
TrueCrime26 ( talk · contribs) seems to not understand Wikipedia's relevant guidelines and policies by removing maintenance tags from articles without addressing any of the issues [15], [16], and [17]. User has also made a personal attack at me in the first diff (see edit summary). MuZemike 16:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
uw-tdel1}}
, {{
uw-tdel2}}
, {{
uw-tdel3}}
, {{
uw-tdel4}}
, followed by
AIV if it continued. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
17:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Jesus Hopped the 'A' Train ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is a very serious issue concerning an artist I represent - Salvatore Inzerillo. He is properly placed as a living artist in a substantial production in this article - Jesus Hopped the 'A' Train.
The above Article links him to this Article Salvatore Inzerillo.
This is not the same person; it is defamatory, wrong, misleading and insulting.
When I attempted to create a new Article for the living Salvatore Inzerillo, it was refused, and yet there are articles I sited within Wikipedia as well as extremely reputable sites throughout the Internet.
I refuse to accept this abomination of my clients character and hope that Wikipedia can restore Salvatore Inzerillo's name as a separate person in a separate Article before I continue with legal action.
On Wikipedia My client is properly cited: Jesus Hopped the 'A' Train and LAByrinth Theater Company.
Salvatore Inzerillo is not a dead heroin trafficking murderer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Promethius11 ( talk • contribs) 12:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
uw-legal}}
issued and user admonished to retract legal threats. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
14:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Stephen Barrett ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I was involved in a discussion with an editor, Fyslee/BullRangifer here, who decided to hat our discussion (and it is presently hatted as you can see), because he decided it was "distracting" and wanted to continue the discussion as a closed discussion on his talk page. He did not ask me, just hatted the discussion with the message "discussion closed, do not modify". This also hides all my comments.
Imo, the discussion had degraded to a point where I had no wish to discuss anymore anyway, but I do not want my comments hidden. The way I understand Wiki Policy, when another editor just archives your comments without your permission, this is going against WP:talk - do not overstrike/modify other people's comments (without discussion).
When I try to remove the hat, he puts it back on, once because I did not respond quick enough to his request to continue the discussion on his talk page.
Now, when I try to remove the hat, a second editor, Verbal, who had no involvement in the discussion is reverting my attempts to remove the hat.
I am a new editor on a controversial page, and the other editors have been there a while.
Is this proper behavior? or am I getting tag-teamed? Don't I have the right to remove another editor's hat of my comments?
(and is this the right place to ask this? or should I be asking this on the admin noticeboard?)
Thank you for any assistance you can give me in this matter.
-- Stmrlbs ( talk) 09:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
When discussions become personal, circular, and distracting to the existing thread, it is common practice to put a hat on it. There is no firm policy on this, but that's what happens, and I see that another editor also feels the same way.
I am also a new editor of that article. See WP:TALK for guidelines on removing or collapsing off-topic or fruitless discussions. Verbal chat 09:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
no editor may unilaterally take charge over an article or part of an article by sending no-edit orders.
Serena Williams ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Over on the Talk Page at Serena Williams a discussion is going nowhere about a particular tag, and I'm hoping for some editor assistance on the matter. I don't expect anyone to necessarily jump in (though you're welcome to!), I just wanted to see if I'm understanding tagging correctly. One editor tagged an article section for NPOV, and moved the discussion to the Talk page. A second editor removed the tag, while engaging on the Talk page. A third editor (myself) reinstated the tag because of similar concerns I have had with the section. Removed by editor, undone, etc. My understanding (in the two months I've been here) has been that tags should not be removed until discused and resolved (as opposed to BRD edits). Is this correct? And is this editor in violation in 3RR? My understanding about both guidelines is shaky and I wanted some clarification. Thanks. Alonsornunez Comments 13:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Eldridge Street Synagogue ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am having an issue with someone who continues to revert to earlier edit, eliminating proper credits and attributing credit for work done on the Restoration of the Eldridge Street Synagogue. Clearly this is being done as an outward act of vandalism and it is becoming tiresome to watch and correct this page over and over. Please help me in determining an appropriate way to block these continuous edits.
Thanks Lifflefacts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlefacts ( talk • contribs) 17:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Louis Blériot ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Would like some input re: the "bicycle homage" section of Talk:Louis_Blériot. Minor edit war in the past w/ a protective user. I see a clear violation of WP:SOAP personally (parts 4&5), in the posting of an image of a product commercially branded w/ the subject of the article, and the product has nothing to do with the subject's life (it's a bicycle). However, due to protective user would like 2nd opinion. Zabby1982 ( talk) 00:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Rockall ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It contains the visit to Rockall in 2005, and the almost successful one in 2009. It is obvious that the person constantly deleting it, wishes have no mention of any recent or recently attemped visits. To suit their own agenda. This person claims that it is unnotable! Furthermore, has a history of edit wars. To gain support, I have started a new section on the discussion page. However if do not receive any support, I am willing to abide by an administrators or neutral third party's decision. Sulasgeir ( talk) 01:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm starting on a new article with a lot of unsourced, poorly sourced and WP:OR material. I went through and got rid of the worst and replaced some with WP:RS info, a section at a time so people could deal with debate on changes easily. But one very POV editor I've dealt with else where came along and just reverted the whole thing with no explanation at all. I've reverted it back for now.
But what do you do when say you even just do one section at a time, replacing unsourced material with sourced material and they just keep reverting like that? What's best resource? (Also he tends to follow me around and comment on every question like this and I may have to start keep track and reporting it as harassment.) CarolMooreDC ( talk) 17:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dear Sir / Madam,
I have issue with the article on Syed Ahmed.
There are several factual errors of unverifiable and misquoted content which I have corrected an number of times.
These specifically relate to
These have been blithely restored and I have received a level 3 warning. I am not an expert at wikipedia. I have no idea who these people (Tnxman307, Jeff G., Nubiatech) are who revert the article and re-instate incorrect and libellous information. Or how they can issue a warning on what grounds and with what rights.
I would appreciate some assistance in remedying this.
Thank you
Kind Regards, Richard Harris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amicaveritas ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a hierarchy, which means that no "rights" are necessary to issue a warning, and indeed you could issue warnings yourself, if you had a mind to. Such warnings would only be enforced to the extent that they coincide with Wikipedia policy.
Wikipedia receives legal threats several times a day, which is why we have this policy on them. You would be well advised to explore dispute resolution as the fastest, simplest and cheapest way to address any concerns you might have about Wikipedia content. You should go to dispute resolution equipped to prove that the information in question is "incorrect" and "libellous".— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 20:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
uw-legal}}
for the legal threat.
Amicaveritas ( talk) 20:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad you felt you were helped by this. You're welcome to post here again if you have another issue, or contact me on my talk page which you can reach by clicking the link in my signature.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 21:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Section rolled into parent as disputes are identical or intricately related. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 11:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I am having a persistent issue with Daedalus969 (this user is also harassing me) restoring content (titilating and defamatory) that is the subject of an arbitration request. I believe the policy of Wikipedia is to remove questionable items from the Biography of Living person. I asked that the content is removed and he is prevented from restoring it pending the outcome of arbitration.
If this is not the right place to raise this please advise how I do. I've been here one day and aside from assistance here on this page, my experience is significantly less than positive.
Thank you. Amicaveritas ( talk) 11:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I was only fighting for the inclusion of the sourced material because, at the time, the user was warned against it's removal by an admin and several other experienced editors. Now that Gwen sees that the material is a BLP problem, I have no further purpose here. I have already un-watched the user and article pages. I'm also going to unwatch this one, so don't expect me to respond any further.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 22:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Tilahun Gessesse ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sirs, Concerning Tilahun Gessesse's date of birth, the correct date is September 27, 1941. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.74.98 ( talk) 13:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi - do you have a source for that? The best I can find is 29 September 29, 1940. Jezhotwells ( talk) 14:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
List of civilian nuclear accidents ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:Crath has made multiple conflicting edits to List of civilian nuclear accidents that can't be simply undone and which would take hours to revert manually. The edits include entries that do not meet the list criteria, changing dashes to unknown characters in multiple entries and adding linkspam to a particular book. It would be quicker if the article could be rolled back to the "21:46, 9 April 2009" version.
Nailedtooth ( talk) 17:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Rebecca Ruter Springer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rebecca Ruter Springer contains a large quote from the introduction from Springer's book, Intra Muros. This information is about the author, so it is appropriate. However, I'm not sure how to format it properly to indicate the source. Already, another editor has included a different source to verify some of the information contained within this quote. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
1911}}
for when we include verbatim text from
Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. But, yeah, Jezhotwells is right in that the PD-nature of that text needs to be confirmed. In my opinion, the easier method would be to just use the information in the quote to write the article, and reference the quote's source like you would with any other article. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
00:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I had twice modified the entry about Protection Racket, some time ago. Investigating, I read that it was removed due to lack of citations. Eventually, I got around to finding several citations, and reposting. Again, my edit was removed, without any reason I could see. Not sure if this was the same person.
I tried looking at your topic and editing guidelines, but nothing seemed quite on target.
thanks, AuntyMM —Preceding unsigned comment added by AuntyMM ( talk • contribs) 02:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi!
1. I am a Wiki newbie from Singapore.
2. When I first created the above page, I wrote it more as an opinion piece. As I'm not technie, I didn't know how to create links for citations or to upload files. So the Wiki panel of editors/reviewers put in their qualifications and alerts. ArbiterOfTruth was even rude (I thought) by putting on the talk page that I have contorted and put "damned lies" when I haven't figured out how to insert citation links. One reviewer (don't know who) even went so far as to tag my page as "contains hoaxes"!
3. Another Wiki editor/reviewer with the moniker of Kimchi was more helpful with the specifics. Hence, with Kimchi's guidance and some help from another friend in Singapore who is more technie, I overcame some of the HTML know-how constraints.
4. Hence, I put in a whole slew of citation links to substantiate my article and facilitate Wiki verifiability.
5. My last version was starting to shape up and I just needed some time to clean it up further. I even put in a request on Kimchi's talk page to ask if the banner of alerts preceding my page could be reduced since I have made substantive clean-up.
6. However, today the whole piece was taken down. Could I appeal pls? I'd like to have your guidance as to why the cleaned-up version is still not considered acceptable. Or was it auto-deleted because of some embedded deadline and the original Wiki reviewers did NOT re-visit my cleaned-up version?
7. I find Singapore's system to be oppressive - there is little tolerance for dissent or alternative views. As Wikipedia is an internet portal, I do not know if some of the Wik reviewers of my page were intolerant if the Wiki page states facts which are not flattering to the Singapore Government's laws, policies or consequent social climate.
8. Hence, I'd like to appeal for re-instatement of my Wiki page with some specific advice on how else to make it better and more compliant to Wiki's standard pls.
Thank you.
SINPariah (
talk)
05:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
(
SINPariah (
talk)
10:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC))
(
SINPariah (
talk)
10:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC))
This article has been deleted twice already and has been edited again. Can you take the tags away and help me to put it back on? I would also like to learn how I can ad, in chapter Collections, the link to the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris. 1027E ( talk) 19:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I wish to change the name of this new page to reflect revised spellings and name variant. Suggested new name: Jarnović, Ivan Mane (also Giovanni Mane Giornovichi). Regards. Blarcrean —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blarcrean ( talk • contribs) 19:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a request to start documentation on 8 high-risk templates, entering some standard code. Then protection. The combined request is in full here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#High-risk templates unprotected. Maybe an administrator is already bizzy with it, so it may take some coordination. Bye, - DePiep ( talk) 12:03, 12 April
Australian dollar ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In the article on the Australian Dollar, there is a list of the most traded currencies in the world with the Aussie dollar listed as the sixth most traded and the US dollar listed as the most traded. However in the table that appears with the article, this seems to have been vandalized with the Turkish lira listed as the most traded currency. I do not have a list of the percentages but this appears to be a deliberate act of sabotage. Romperlevis ( talk) 12:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Here
Rob Van Dam a fresh user filled a date of death in ~10 edits. (first April 4, finally April 10 2009 = friday). As I cannot revert multiple edits (don't know how), and because it may be unreferenced, could someone check the edits? Thanx. -
DePiep (
talk)
02:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
User:Croctotheface keeps trying to control this article by removing anything he feels doesn't belong in it without having a discussion about it on the talk page. Someone added the subject matter of the Final Jeopardy! question she answered incorrectly, which I believe is pertinent, because it caused her to lose the championship. How could it not be a valid bit of information if the only reason she has a Wikipedia article in the first place is because she was a Jeopardy! champion? Croctotheface removed it, calling it "unnecessary" but not explaining why he thinks it is. The editor who put this information in explained why he did on the talk page, so shouldn't Croctotheface at least have the courtesy to respond instead of just deciding the info doesn't belong? He acts as if he's the only one allowed to edit this article. Am I wrong to think he's wrong? Thank you for your help. 67.79.157.50 ( talk) 14:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Sea glass (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Sea pottery ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi,
I am concerned about a double standard that is being enforced by an editor on the Sea Glass and Sea Pottery pages. I recently posted a link to a website for sea glass collectors called Sea Glass Artists & Sea Glass Collectors this link was removed by an editor yet another link to a website with a commercial interest called Sea Glass Lovers was allowed to stay. I fully respect Wikipedia and apologize if I posted a link inappropriately. However, there is a double standard as the Sea Glass Lovers link was allowed to stay. It only seems fair that if both links are not allowed to stay than neither should be allowed to stay. I am sure that the Wikipedia community wants to be fair and would appreciate any help I can get on this.
Thanks,
Lisl Armstrong16:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaglassmermaid ( talk • contribs)
There is something of an edit war going on because someone called Haldraper is refusing to accept that the FDA is a trade union, and that it is called the FDA. There was a page called "FDA (trade union)", which had a disambiguation page because the FDA is a well known acronym for the Food and Drug Administration. Haldraper has changed that to "First Division Association", and is also removing any reference to the FDA being a trade union, because s/he says that its members are "bosses" and not "workers". S/he is not interested in the facts, which is that the FDA is a trade union under legislation and under the rules of the TUC. The details of that are on the Talk page Talk:FDA (professional association) S/he is also not interested in the fact that the FDA changed its name 9 years ago from "The Association of First Division Civil Servants" to the FDA.
Haldraper is making a mess of lots of wikipedia pages, including that of the General Secretary of the FDA - Haldraper has just removed the reference to him being a trade union leader - because of this obsession with the FDA, which makes no sense.
I have tried to show the facts on the talk page - the FDA is a trade union, and is named the FDA.
Please can someone help and stop this silly dispute? Guineveretoo ( talk) 21:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The fact is that the FDA is a registered trade union, which is an internationally known term, and was shown as such on all the pages on wikipedia which detailed trade unions. "Professional association" has no real meaning, whereas "trade union" does. Haldraper changed lots of pages to remove any reference to the FDA being a trade union. This is wrong, because the FDA is a trade union. The definition of a trade union is shown on the link above, and I even linked to the Certification Officer, which is the body which registers trade unions, to show that its legal registered name is FDA. Guineveretoo ( talk) 22:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's going to end. I give in: if you want to kid yourself that the FDA is a trade union and its members workers, don't let me stop you. Haldraper ( talk) 08:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, the dispute appeared to have ended, but now almost the entire page has been deleted, and I don't understand why. Something about resources not being enough? Can anyone advise, please?
Guineveretoo (
talk)
15:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I have misunderstood the whole premise of wikipedia, and that I might just have to stop editing pages, because this is all too bewildering for me! Can anyone tell me what is going on, and what was wrong with the page on the FDA trade union, which has been deleted? Guineveretoo ( talk) 15:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Or you could just state that you don't work for FDA and never have. Haldraper ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC).
I had just a quick question about consensus. Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis there's been a months-long discussion between various editors about whether to use Miami (the county name and name used by most media sources) or Key Biscayne (the village location). Everyone has agreed on the former save for one editor, though I know (through reading about this) that numbers alone don't make consensus. An editor just tried for Mediation, but that one editor disagreed and refused mediation. I am just wondering what the next step should be towards resolving this issue and moving forward. Thanks in advance for help. Alonsornunez Comments 04:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
(rolled this thread into the previous one as they're intricately related —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 09:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC))
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding wikipolicy here, in advance. Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis we have been engaged in a discussion about the location names for various tournaments. My question actually deals with the actions of one involved user (Tennisexpert) who is continuing to edit articles relating to this discussion ( here, here and here). This seems disruptive in light of the ongoing discussion I mentioned. He has stated that he has turned to the individual pages to build consensus, but when I reverted his change he did not take the discussion to any of the Talk pages (which, under BRD, seems like the next productive step). Am I misunderstanding something here? He has refused mediation, which is within his right, but seems (IMO) to be acting against a consensus rather than towards. Help! Alonsornunez Comments 04:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I often notice articles that are rated Start class, but have been improved beyond Start class. Where can I find some information about the various quality classes and the criteria that apply to each one; and about promoting articles from one class to the next? (In particular, promoting a Start class article to whatever class comes next.) Dolphin51 ( talk) 03:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Energy and Environment ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello, a couple of times this morning I have corrected your page on the journal Energy and Environment, not least because of factual errors but also because the original poster only gave one side of the story: I added some balance. On each occasion my veresion stayed up for a short while, then was replaced by the older, wrong, unbalanced version. Why is this? n —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary4444 ( talk • contribs) 11:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I recently searched Wikipedia and found a Fighting Chance article for a song, however, Fighting Chance is also the name of a cancer care center in my neighborhood and I wanted to create a listing for them. I have created the article in my user space, and added references from their website and verifiable third party websites. I would like to have an editor review the page just to make sure I have created the article properly. Also, I need to know where this should be posted as there will now be two "Fighting Chance" listings.
Thanks!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Swimlej/Fighting_Chance
--
24.189.110.45 (
talk)
21:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes hi want need help editing this i want make Mountain house high school wikki students from Mountain House attend Tracy and West high schools , since there is no high school in Mountain House, high school age children from Mountain House attend West High School in Tracy under the management of the Tracy Joint Unified School District. In 2009, if and when Kimball High School is completed as planned, high school age children from Mountain House will attend Kimball High School instead of West High School. Millenium Charter High School in Tracy is another option for high school age children. There is a grass roots push right now to build our own High School in Mountain House. On March 25,2009 Lammersville Elementary School District unveiled a timeline of when they hope to break way from Tracy Unified and open the district’s own high school, as well as two new elementary schools.In May 2009 officials will meet with Tracy school district administrators and begin designing the future Mountain House High School In June 2009, Lammersville will meet with the San Joaquin County Office of Education to negotiate unification. The district will file to receive state money to build the high school in July 2010 and hope to finish athletic fields by March 2011 that include,two baseball fields, two softball fields football stadium like West High’s with artificial turf, all-weather track and 4,000-seat bleachers. Mountain House High school will have an opening date of July 2013 it estimated that the Mountain House high school could open with as many as 800 students acccroding to Lammersville Elementary School District and the tracy press and cost between $70 and 80 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K.w 2009 ( talk • contribs) 00:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Gee I made a mess here Category:Assassins by ethnicity. Involves the template Subst:cfr (cat for rename). Could someone take a look & an action into the part to the discussion? (create the right link). Thanx. - DePiep ( talk) 07:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
San Antonio Taxi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello,
I am trying to build a page for San Antonio Taxi. The company is historically tied to the first city transportation going back to horse and carriages. An administrator marked it for speedy deletion and will not respond to my messages regarding the page. It is my sincere desire to build a page that is informative and conforms with Wiki policy.
Any assistance is greatly appreciated.
Many thanks,
Robert W. Gaines General Manager San Antonio Taxi —Preceding unsigned comment added by SanAntonioTaxi ( talk • contribs) 16:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Georgia (country) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Geography of Georgia (country) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello editors, if I can kindly seek somebody's assistance with an issue, I recently included some thoroughly referenced statements on the Georgia (country) and the Geography of Georgia (country) article and sought other editors opinions on the reliability of them here WP:RSN. I took on board the advice and filtered out the iffy ones, leaving the most reliable ones in place with the statements to match them. I successfully requested page protection after they were being deleted en-masse - Talk:Georgia_(country). I spend a considerable amount of time sourcing and editing this information to improve the article while keeping true to WP:AGF, WP:RELIABLE, and good Wiki procedure such as using the talk page, requesting opinions, and resisting edit warring. Unfortunately, a user Kober ( talk · contribs) has reverted the cited statements on both articles in a 'couldn't care less' manner, without any respect for Wiki conduct guidelines. Your help in this situation would be greatly appreciated. Izzedine ( talk) 19:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
BC-STV ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dear Wikipedai,
BC is having a referendum soon to change how our provincial politicians are elected. A referendum gag law is in place that bans any political comment when advertising STV, or any election advertisng that covers STV. This STV Referendum gag law is a fact, and can be validated by visiting BC Elections webpage.
Some person with the tag The Tom keeps erasing it. If he has issues, he should have editted it, and not deleted complete mention of the gag law. The gag law is real and is something Wikipedai should not help censor. Wikipedai stands up for freedom, and this is such an issue. Did The Tom do this because he had a political agenda?
Thank you, Haida chieftain (sad and confused) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haida chieftain ( talk • contribs) 22:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Very (album) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello This starts with this is the 7th album of 5 previously unreleased material. This does not make sensee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.119.134 ( talk) 21:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
la|article title goes here}}
.Nousics ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article Nousics is a believe a hoax or a spoof.
It starts "Coined by philosopher Tony Montano, the word Nousics ...". I can find no philosopher of that name on Google or elsewhere. However, Wikipedia does have an article for Tony Montana a fictional drug lord who is the lead character from the film Scarface. (Montano is a common mispelling of Montana--for example, "Tony Montano (Al Pacino) prank calls Thug Wannabe" on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fT_bjjFv8o)
There is no mention of Nousics in Google scholar, SIS Web of Knowledge, Philosophers Index, OED, British Humanities Index. Indeed, I can find independent source for Nousics on google except those that derive from this page.
The article claims that "word Nousics (from the Greek, nous, meaning "soul")", However, nous in Greek is usually translated as "Mind, intellect; intelligence; intuitive apprehension".
The article content is non sequitur. For example, it mentions xenotransplantation as subject of "nousics debates" but none of those involved uses this description. It makes spurious "see also" links to # cognitive neuropsychology # cognitive neuroscience # neural networks # neuropsychology # computational neuroscience.
I do not want to get involved with dispute over this article. But I think it should be looked into. This is my only posting.-- LittleHow ( talk) 18:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
prod2}}
'ed it as, having browsed through the article, it's nothing but a
dictionary definition of the word, plus a whole lot of
original research on
bioethics. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
20:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Cistercian Order of the Holy Cross ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please help me. Regards: The Cistercian Order of the Holy Cross article. Someone has been repeatedly vandalizing the article. Please just take it down. Remove any reference to the article. The lies are creating a lot of hurt and difficulty in the lives of our members. I am the Abbot General of the Cistercian Order of the Holy Cross. Thank you, The Most Rev. Oscar Joseph OCCO Abbot1 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC).
Andy Murray ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Rambling Man has added the "fansite" tag to innumerable tennis biographies in the last few days. He is aware that WP:Summary encourages the forking, i.e., moving, of information from a too long article instead of deleting that information. At first, he used the following false and exaggerated edit summary: "completely over the top level of detail for every match, every score, every tiebreak... not SUMMARY style in any way". After I objected to that summary because of its inaccuracy and the damage that might be caused by other editors misinterpreting the tag, he agreed to use the following edit summary instead: "please see WP:SUMMARY for further details, thank you". That was a very good development. However, we have now encountered the first instance of where the tag has caused an inexperienced editor ( Alan16) to delete 7kb+ of information from the Andy Murray article instead of moving it to a new article. At first, he strongly objected to the tag but under strong pressure from The Rambling Man and especially from LeaveSleaves, Alan16 has refused to reinstate the information (either in the original article or in a new article). Worse, he is being backed now by tag team edit warring from LeaveSleaves, who even refuses to acknowledge that WP:BRD has relevance in Wikipedia. You can see the whole sordid story here. I would appreciate your comments on the Andy Murray discussion page. Thanks! Tennis expert ( talk) 05:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm growing tired of being accused of using "tactics". I want these articles to shape up a little and that requires bold editors to remove excessive trivia, per the {{ fansite}} template's recommendation. I am also bored (although not surprised at your own tactics) of being continually reminded of your massive swath of "evidence" of my "disruption" which has already been dismissed as simply disagreement over editing. I fail to see how your tactics here help this particular issue, namely the absolute requirement to reduce excessive trivia in pretty much all major tennis biographies. I still fail to see where I applied any pressure to anyone. I linked an example of what happens when excessive trivia is allowed to go unchecked, the Billie Jean King article which is in need of a major overhaul. Instead of pointing me back to WP:SS, perhaps you could suggest the fansite tag is changed since all I have ever said is that we must remove excessive trivia. And that goes for forks as well, they should be pertinent and summarising, not rambling and full of intricate detail that would only be of interest to the most avid tennis fan. And goodness me, what relevance does Alan16's age have in this discussion? I'm deeply shocked that you would openly discriminate against someone due to their age. Whatever next. The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
←I've stepped in at Talk:Andy Murray and tried to summarize the content dispute and offer some outside perspective. If that doesn't help, I think either an RFC or actual mediation would be helpful. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 18:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Gilad Atzmon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I brought this to WP:BLPN and only one neutral person replied and he was ambivalent. Also just left at WP:RSN. Any more definitive answers? Tired of having to revert this over and over again. Comments in the talk section would help a lot.
This year old web site has three editors listed here and does accept admissions mentioned here. It has been assumed the editors don't edit each other. Gilad Atzmon is one of the editors. Three related questions:
Thanks! CarolMooreDC ( talk) 13:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, there is clearly an ongoing dispute about the content of this article. You could ask for an WP:RfC, or ask for a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Please don't carry on the dispute here. Jezhotwells ( talk) 00:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
For reference, relevant threads from other noticeboards: WP:RSN#Use of personal attack from professor’s blog, WP:BLPN#Insistence on using self-published critical article, and out of context, WP:NPOVN#Gilad Atzmon, WP:ECCN#Gilad Atzmon. This is quite a long issue, and WP:3O is definitely not appropriate as it involves more than two editors. I'm going to read up on some of this and try to give a suggestion. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 23:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Orb (photographic) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello,
I made a comment alleging vandalism and self-promotion based on an incomplete examination of all intermediate versions of the article on photographic orbs. After reexamining which change was made when, I see the mention of the Orb Zone was made after the deletion of the majority of the article, not at the same time or by the same IP. The owner of the website has asked I remove my comment, which is a reasonable request. However, I think this might require an administrator.
Thank you. Antije ( talk) 14:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
(cur) (prev) 13:04, 17 April 2009 Antije (talk | contribs) (4,433 bytes) (Reverted vandalism by 99.232.209.29, who is apparently self-promoting their website The Orb Zone. Appears to be legitimate site however.) (undo)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Orb_(photographic)&action=history
Taiwan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello, I'm having a dispute with a a fellow editor about which term to describe a certain group of people in Taiwan when it comes to people who's ties originated from outside Taiwan. We are disputing about using either the term "Waishengren" or "Extra-Provincial People". He claims that "Extra-Provincial People" is a made up term therefore cannot be used for Wikipedia, while I claim that based on the Wikimanual that we're supposed to be writing in English, not in a foreign language. He claims that "waishengren" is a commonly used term in English, while I argue that it is not and that "extra-provincial people" is used a lot as well, it's just not used by him or his peers. When googling, it's impossible to tell which has more results, because "extra-provincial people" means "people from outside the province" and is used in more context then "waishengren" is. "waishengren" is Chinese, so it's only used in terms when talking about people in provinces of China. How should we proceed in this case? Liu Tao ( talk) 03:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
TrueCrime26 ( talk · contribs) seems to not understand Wikipedia's relevant guidelines and policies by removing maintenance tags from articles without addressing any of the issues [15], [16], and [17]. User has also made a personal attack at me in the first diff (see edit summary). MuZemike 16:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
uw-tdel1}}
, {{
uw-tdel2}}
, {{
uw-tdel3}}
, {{
uw-tdel4}}
, followed by
AIV if it continued. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
17:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Jesus Hopped the 'A' Train ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is a very serious issue concerning an artist I represent - Salvatore Inzerillo. He is properly placed as a living artist in a substantial production in this article - Jesus Hopped the 'A' Train.
The above Article links him to this Article Salvatore Inzerillo.
This is not the same person; it is defamatory, wrong, misleading and insulting.
When I attempted to create a new Article for the living Salvatore Inzerillo, it was refused, and yet there are articles I sited within Wikipedia as well as extremely reputable sites throughout the Internet.
I refuse to accept this abomination of my clients character and hope that Wikipedia can restore Salvatore Inzerillo's name as a separate person in a separate Article before I continue with legal action.
On Wikipedia My client is properly cited: Jesus Hopped the 'A' Train and LAByrinth Theater Company.
Salvatore Inzerillo is not a dead heroin trafficking murderer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Promethius11 ( talk • contribs) 12:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
uw-legal}}
issued and user admonished to retract legal threats. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
14:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Stephen Barrett ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I was involved in a discussion with an editor, Fyslee/BullRangifer here, who decided to hat our discussion (and it is presently hatted as you can see), because he decided it was "distracting" and wanted to continue the discussion as a closed discussion on his talk page. He did not ask me, just hatted the discussion with the message "discussion closed, do not modify". This also hides all my comments.
Imo, the discussion had degraded to a point where I had no wish to discuss anymore anyway, but I do not want my comments hidden. The way I understand Wiki Policy, when another editor just archives your comments without your permission, this is going against WP:talk - do not overstrike/modify other people's comments (without discussion).
When I try to remove the hat, he puts it back on, once because I did not respond quick enough to his request to continue the discussion on his talk page.
Now, when I try to remove the hat, a second editor, Verbal, who had no involvement in the discussion is reverting my attempts to remove the hat.
I am a new editor on a controversial page, and the other editors have been there a while.
Is this proper behavior? or am I getting tag-teamed? Don't I have the right to remove another editor's hat of my comments?
(and is this the right place to ask this? or should I be asking this on the admin noticeboard?)
Thank you for any assistance you can give me in this matter.
-- Stmrlbs ( talk) 09:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
When discussions become personal, circular, and distracting to the existing thread, it is common practice to put a hat on it. There is no firm policy on this, but that's what happens, and I see that another editor also feels the same way.
I am also a new editor of that article. See WP:TALK for guidelines on removing or collapsing off-topic or fruitless discussions. Verbal chat 09:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
no editor may unilaterally take charge over an article or part of an article by sending no-edit orders.
Serena Williams ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Over on the Talk Page at Serena Williams a discussion is going nowhere about a particular tag, and I'm hoping for some editor assistance on the matter. I don't expect anyone to necessarily jump in (though you're welcome to!), I just wanted to see if I'm understanding tagging correctly. One editor tagged an article section for NPOV, and moved the discussion to the Talk page. A second editor removed the tag, while engaging on the Talk page. A third editor (myself) reinstated the tag because of similar concerns I have had with the section. Removed by editor, undone, etc. My understanding (in the two months I've been here) has been that tags should not be removed until discused and resolved (as opposed to BRD edits). Is this correct? And is this editor in violation in 3RR? My understanding about both guidelines is shaky and I wanted some clarification. Thanks. Alonsornunez Comments 13:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Eldridge Street Synagogue ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am having an issue with someone who continues to revert to earlier edit, eliminating proper credits and attributing credit for work done on the Restoration of the Eldridge Street Synagogue. Clearly this is being done as an outward act of vandalism and it is becoming tiresome to watch and correct this page over and over. Please help me in determining an appropriate way to block these continuous edits.
Thanks Lifflefacts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlefacts ( talk • contribs) 17:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Louis Blériot ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Would like some input re: the "bicycle homage" section of Talk:Louis_Blériot. Minor edit war in the past w/ a protective user. I see a clear violation of WP:SOAP personally (parts 4&5), in the posting of an image of a product commercially branded w/ the subject of the article, and the product has nothing to do with the subject's life (it's a bicycle). However, due to protective user would like 2nd opinion. Zabby1982 ( talk) 00:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Rockall ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It contains the visit to Rockall in 2005, and the almost successful one in 2009. It is obvious that the person constantly deleting it, wishes have no mention of any recent or recently attemped visits. To suit their own agenda. This person claims that it is unnotable! Furthermore, has a history of edit wars. To gain support, I have started a new section on the discussion page. However if do not receive any support, I am willing to abide by an administrators or neutral third party's decision. Sulasgeir ( talk) 01:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm starting on a new article with a lot of unsourced, poorly sourced and WP:OR material. I went through and got rid of the worst and replaced some with WP:RS info, a section at a time so people could deal with debate on changes easily. But one very POV editor I've dealt with else where came along and just reverted the whole thing with no explanation at all. I've reverted it back for now.
But what do you do when say you even just do one section at a time, replacing unsourced material with sourced material and they just keep reverting like that? What's best resource? (Also he tends to follow me around and comment on every question like this and I may have to start keep track and reporting it as harassment.) CarolMooreDC ( talk) 17:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dear Sir / Madam,
I have issue with the article on Syed Ahmed.
There are several factual errors of unverifiable and misquoted content which I have corrected an number of times.
These specifically relate to
These have been blithely restored and I have received a level 3 warning. I am not an expert at wikipedia. I have no idea who these people (Tnxman307, Jeff G., Nubiatech) are who revert the article and re-instate incorrect and libellous information. Or how they can issue a warning on what grounds and with what rights.
I would appreciate some assistance in remedying this.
Thank you
Kind Regards, Richard Harris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amicaveritas ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a hierarchy, which means that no "rights" are necessary to issue a warning, and indeed you could issue warnings yourself, if you had a mind to. Such warnings would only be enforced to the extent that they coincide with Wikipedia policy.
Wikipedia receives legal threats several times a day, which is why we have this policy on them. You would be well advised to explore dispute resolution as the fastest, simplest and cheapest way to address any concerns you might have about Wikipedia content. You should go to dispute resolution equipped to prove that the information in question is "incorrect" and "libellous".— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 20:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
uw-legal}}
for the legal threat.
Amicaveritas ( talk) 20:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad you felt you were helped by this. You're welcome to post here again if you have another issue, or contact me on my talk page which you can reach by clicking the link in my signature.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 21:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Section rolled into parent as disputes are identical or intricately related. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 11:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I am having a persistent issue with Daedalus969 (this user is also harassing me) restoring content (titilating and defamatory) that is the subject of an arbitration request. I believe the policy of Wikipedia is to remove questionable items from the Biography of Living person. I asked that the content is removed and he is prevented from restoring it pending the outcome of arbitration.
If this is not the right place to raise this please advise how I do. I've been here one day and aside from assistance here on this page, my experience is significantly less than positive.
Thank you. Amicaveritas ( talk) 11:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I was only fighting for the inclusion of the sourced material because, at the time, the user was warned against it's removal by an admin and several other experienced editors. Now that Gwen sees that the material is a BLP problem, I have no further purpose here. I have already un-watched the user and article pages. I'm also going to unwatch this one, so don't expect me to respond any further.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 22:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Tilahun Gessesse ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sirs, Concerning Tilahun Gessesse's date of birth, the correct date is September 27, 1941. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.74.98 ( talk) 13:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi - do you have a source for that? The best I can find is 29 September 29, 1940. Jezhotwells ( talk) 14:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
List of civilian nuclear accidents ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:Crath has made multiple conflicting edits to List of civilian nuclear accidents that can't be simply undone and which would take hours to revert manually. The edits include entries that do not meet the list criteria, changing dashes to unknown characters in multiple entries and adding linkspam to a particular book. It would be quicker if the article could be rolled back to the "21:46, 9 April 2009" version.
Nailedtooth ( talk) 17:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Rebecca Ruter Springer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rebecca Ruter Springer contains a large quote from the introduction from Springer's book, Intra Muros. This information is about the author, so it is appropriate. However, I'm not sure how to format it properly to indicate the source. Already, another editor has included a different source to verify some of the information contained within this quote. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
1911}}
for when we include verbatim text from
Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. But, yeah, Jezhotwells is right in that the PD-nature of that text needs to be confirmed. In my opinion, the easier method would be to just use the information in the quote to write the article, and reference the quote's source like you would with any other article. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
00:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)