This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Is anyone able to verify the notability of this store ( Shorebazaar)? Cause I picked it up on newpages patrol, and while I can't verify its notability or not, the author has avoided making untenable claims on the page, so it doesn't fall under advert. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there a policy regarding red links to names of people who do not have articles? For details please see my edit history. 173.170.157.188 ( talk) 20:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Marguerite Ross Barnett ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
On July 30, the editor Racepacket made an edit to the article Marguerite Ross Barnett in which he/she added what appeared to be copyrighted text which was a word-for-word duplication of text published in the article's lone reference which can be viewed here. The actual edit can be viewed here. As a response, I removed the copyrighted text, and left a message on the user's talk page as a notification. I then received a message on my talk page regarding this here. It appeared to be somewhat uncivil. The conversation ensued.
If read, it can be seen that the editor claims the text is in fact not copyrighted because it is not literary expression. What plan of action should I take? I've tried to somewhat reword the text on the article page since, but was I wrong to believe this was a copyright violation to begin with?
Thanks for your help.
-- Brian Reading ( talk) 22:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, the question has been answered. If you want to make a sockpuppet report, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance will explain the process. If you want report copyright violations then Wikipedia:Copyright problems is the place. If you want to hurl accusations about then WP:Editor assistance/Requests IS NOT the place for it. Jezhotwells ( talk) 08:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Should you summarily delete as copyright infringement:
I don't think so. 66.173.140.100 ( talk) 19:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
:
The article in question is Precognition I have recently overhauled it in order to provide more objective and representative information on the topic as it is presently scientifically investigated, and has been traditionally conceived. Perhaps my overhaul was too radical, all at once, but this does not seem to have concerned other editors. Instead, contention is almost singularly expressed as to my dissociation of this article from those articles on the subject of the "paranormal" - which, on WP's pages, comprises the likes of Atlantis, Big Foot, Elvis-as-a-cucumber-in-Arkansas, the Yeti, etc. I have tried to communicate the following reason for this: essentially, the concept of precognition, since the 1970s (at least) no longer needs to reference the "paranormal"; theories of its occurrence - as an ostensible or veridical fact - have been given in classical psychological and physical terms, in peer-reviewed forums; and I have provided dot-pointed and, I trust, well referenced information on this in the article, with more elaborate slices thereof in discussion. Perhaps there is a precedent here being feared - that if precognition falls outside WP's weird family of the paranormal, then other parapsychological constructs will do the same. That might well have to happen; the discipline grows; the understandings advance; and, accordingly, the encyclopedia must go through its editions. But a non-partisan approach to representing this information is called for. I recognize that WP must not promote "fringe" theories, and that it obliges itself to give the edge to the consensus, but in this domain of enquiry, the edges are presently not so simply drawn, and I have hoped to represent what is at least consistent with the present literature on this topic. In any case, the disputant of my approach has been silent for about a week, and I wonder when or if it is time to remediate the dispute, in terms of the content of the article. Rodgarton 10:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgarton ( talk • contribs)
User:Deepmath and User talk:Deepmath are listed on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion and the discussion is still active. Deepmath removed the templates from his user page and his talkpage, and I restored them. Then I began to wonder if it was appropriate to restore the templates. On the English Wikipedia, I understand that the general rule is that users are allowed to remove templates from their own user and talk pages. On the other hand, this is an ongoing matter and the templates are not only directed at Deepmath but are also used to communicate with others that visit the pages. Sjö ( talk) 18:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Somebody keeps restoring content of Matthew McKenzie that's been deleted as spam on a userpage in violation of WP:UP. What's to be done about it? The page is User:Matthew McKenzie (Check page history) Seb az86556 ( talk) 09:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Jeopardy! ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have been part of an ongoing discussion about the lack of sources for very intricate detailed information. The following is the unsourced statement:
There is a 66-game disparity between the show numbers assigned to first-run Jeopardy! episodes and the actual number of Trebek-era games played...However, all 65 reruns in Season 1 (1984-1985) were given new show numbers despite not being new games.
I have repeatedly asked for a source regarding this statement. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Each time a reference is requested, Robert K S provides a similar argument that "Season 1 began on September 10, 1984 and ran for 195 episodes (see Richmond). Season 2 began on September 9, 1985 with show #261. 260 - 195 = 65," usually stressing the arithmetic function that results in "65." However, no source for the episode number of the Season 2 premiere or the episode number of a repeat showing the disparity has been provided.
My original argument was that this information is not encyclopedic and more along the lines of minutiae/trivia. Because the user insists upon including the information, I've tried to determine if there is an actual source for this or if this is merely a testament by an individual based on their own assumption or unverifiable research, but I have been unsuccessful in my attempt.
Can you please provide insight? Sottolacqua ( talk) 20:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want admin help to protect the page, then Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is the appropriate place to ask. Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Party in the U.S.A. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:70.108.112.176 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has repeatedly moved the lead section into other parts of the page. I tried to explain to him/her that I felt it was an unnecessary change and reverted it, but s/he continued to make those changes. Additionally, this user has linked to a screengrab (on Twitpic) of a copyrighted TV program on the talk page, and after I removed explaining that it was a copyright violation, s/he continued to add it in. This user also was acting uncivil on the talk page, claiming that I didn't know what I was doing. POKERdance talk/ contribs 03:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
This is really a matter of opinion. The brief lede seems better to me. Toddst1 ( talk) 03:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Why exactly? Aren't leads supposed to summarize main details from the article? There are so many things in the article that the current lead doesn't discuss... the song's chart performance, the performance at the Teen Choice Awards, the controversy following the performance at the Teen Choice Awards? POKERdance talk/ contribs 04:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Because it's supposed to be a brief summary: "a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article". The brief version does it. 20 years from now nobody will give a rats's ass about Teen choice awards. There you go. Toddst1 ( talk) 04:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Please look at GA-status song articles such as Just Dance which give a summary of mostly everything important in the article. Maybe it won't be notable in 20 years, but it's fairly notable right now. POKERdance talk/ contribs 04:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
You're rejecting the assistance you've requested. I didn't come here to argue with you. That's why you're here in the first place. Toddst1 ( talk) 04:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not trying to argue. I just disagree with your opinion. Perhaps we can take this to Talk:Party in the U.S.A. for further discussion, but I would appreciate some more opinions before this is considered resolved. POKERdance talk/ contribs 04:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The short lead is definitely better. Dougweller ( talk) 05:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) In my opinion, the longer lead is too specific and goes into too much detail. The shorter lead is marginally better, but it's way too short and doesn't summarize the article. Powers T 12:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Pokerdance, the article's lead just summarizes the rest of the info in the page and moving all of that is unnecessary. Those sections are not well done, it took what as already well written and well patterned into unnecessary sections. And as far to the uncivil comments 70.108.112.176 has used bad language and Pokerdance was not threatening the user, he only warned him some users have been blocked for that. Bottom line: The article needs to be reverted back to the way it was previously. -- Ipodnano05 ( talk) 14:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Ive repeatedly read that leads should be concise. Major points of the article may be touched upon, but very detailed details shouldnt be in the intro. The lead as poker had it had alot of info--& the info was on Miley's 1 performance of the song--not about the song! @ipodNano: your bottom line is your opinon. Have you read the opinion posted before yours? 70.108.112.176 ( talk) 17:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.53.177 ( talk)
I think that summarizes it to the main aspect and is not too extensive. -- Ipodnano05 ( talk) 19:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)"Cyrus performed the song at the 2009 Teen Choice Awards and was met with much controversy, saying that it was too sexual for a teen-oriented event because for a short portion of the performance, she was dancing onto what appeared to be a dance pole. Some have defended Cyrus, claiming that people should not focus on the 'pole-dancing,' rather than on her accomplishments that night, winning six awards at the show."
Hi ipodNano. Right now it is current. Miley has plans to promote the song in other performances( GMA 4 ex), & if she does the pole routine again, will that performance detail too be added. I feel that having the controversy in the lead extensively takes away in that the explanation is so long. This article is about the song afterall. How about this:
This way it is mentioned but the details are in the article, not the lead. 70.108.112.176 ( talk) 21:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.111.183 ( talk)
To save time I have cut and pasted my comments from the edit war issues. I have come to this page on advice from S Marshall.
Mr. McGeddon creatively edits the Stoern page by playing up Stoern claims, without criticism in the first part of the article. In doing so, he placed subject matter in places it does not belong--such as the jury of scientists Stoern hired in the first and third section, but does not mention, until the Jury section, that in fact Stoern's claims of scientific legitimacy was not supported by the Jury. Moreover, the McGeddon appears to be very selective in his editing, e.g., he will allow Stoern's unsupported claim ("Steorn disputed the jury's findings[6] and said that, due to difficulties in implementing the technology, the jury had only been provided with test data on magnetic effects for study." THIS STATEMENT HAS NO EFFECT--WHAT SUBSTANTIAL CLAIM CAN BE MADE BY STEORN. Without any reason behind Stoern statement to doubt the jury's finding, Stoern is rebutted the jury's finding or at least left doubt in the readers mind. This is a misdirection of the truth.) to exist while claiming that a search on the University of Alberta's (U of A)website that returns no results as to Mr. McDonald's association is not supported by a 3rd source. I accept McGeddon's edits if it is applied equally to all contributors. However, he is selective in his edits.
Furthermore, I doubt the legitimacy of McGeddon as a person without an interest in Stoern. Reviewing his editing over the YEARS of Stoern, he has made changes at all times, shortly after others have made editing changes. This appears to be a company hire to protect the editing of the Stoern Wikipedia page or Stoern itself then an altruistic in Wikipedia. (p)Evidence of Year of Editing and editing within shortly after other's editing (cur) (prev) 14:29, 26 July 2009 McGeddon (talk | contribs) m (19,037 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 68.126.61.224; Rv placeholder (?). using TW) (cur) (prev) 14:25, 26 July 2009 68.126.61.224 (talk) (19,104 bytes) (→Jury) a matter of minutes.
(cur) (prev) 11:15, 6 July 2007 GDallimore (talk | contribs) (33,405 bytes) (not in source.) (cur) (prev) 11:11, 6 July 2007 Boldra (talk | contribs) (33,418 bytes) (→Demonstration (July 2007)) (cur) (prev) 10:07, 6 July 2007 GDallimore (talk | contribs) (33,405 bytes) (→Arguments against: use better source) Moreover, I had a secondary source which I cited that Ivan McDonald is a family doctor associated with U of A, which MCGeddon and his sockpuppet quickly edited out--even though it met the requirement of a secondary source AND McGeddon had no source to dispute this fact. Irrito (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irrito ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Editors should read this first before responding to this request. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 15:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick note: I was told to enter my concerns on this page by S Marshall--as noted above. I am not sure what the scope of review will be at the other page. If the scope of review is different here I would like to continue review. Irrito ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC).
Can anyone tell me the proper way to rename this article I caught on new page patrol? The naming seems so generic that I feel its highly likely that it conflicts with something similarly named be it from a previous time, fiction, or country. Thank you. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Medical cannabis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello there,
We have some edit warring going on at the Medical cannabis page. Would you care to take a look? One editor is changing references from articles to abstracts of scientific papers. Could you give us advise on how to come to an agreement about what type of references will work? On the discussion page, I have outlined these problems (very bottom of page). This page was locked for the past day, but once it was unlocked this editor went at it again and does not respond to discussion page. Thank you very much. 72.213.23.110 ( talk) 05:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
My Technical Director has found that he has been mis-quoted in a recent article. What steps should he take to correct the mis-quotation?
Thank You LindaDRI ( talk) 17:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I believe I understand. I will forward this information on to him. He has also asked if there is any way possible (other than following the directions indicated on the Wikipedia Help area) that he would be able to keep or "lock" the correct quote so that it cannot be editted or change to prevent the mis-quotation again. Thanks again. LindaDRI ( talk) 23:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Trying to create an article for Canadian landscaping company. Looking for help for what info I need before it can be made public. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fmyrland/Sunshine_Grounds_Care Fmyrland ( talk) 18:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
None of these are really high class sources, IMO. Whilst such awards are useful to promote employee well being and to enhance a company's status in advertising, etc. they do not really say anything about the notability of a company in Wikipedia terms.
Hi!
I apologize to Nev1 for inserting a weblink into the web page entitled "Darwen" but there was no need to delete other content that I had added in the article!
I found the deletion rather agressive as I do hail from Darwen originally and perhaps know a wee thing or two more than he does!
Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.92.87 ( talk) 22:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I am Irene Brodsky, age 62, and was recently added to Wikipedia by one of my readers in India. And i tried to add as much as I could to the article he set up for me. Much of this was removed by someone I did not know., And much said about me was not true. I also did not get any advice how to fix up my page Only criticisms and none of these people told me their credentials. but they were certainly trying to down-size my credentials. Please advise how I can get my article back and tell me how to fix it and I will do so. Irene Brodsky —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates1x2 ( talk • contribs) 03:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Nazargunj ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
an article on 'nazargunj' has been tagged since March 2008 suggesting there are multiple issues e.g. not enough of an introduction, etc. This has been edited since to address such issues. Can someone please review it to see if it is now satisfactory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazargunj ( talk • contribs) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The article needs editing to conform to the manual of style. It would be preferable to have more than one source and to have inline citations. It may not conform to the notability guidelines, I am putting some links on your talk page that will show you where to find further information about editing on Wikipedia. Jezhotwells ( talk) 23:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Blue_Ocean_Strategy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I attempted to add a citation but destroyed the References but cannot resolve to undo. I feel terrible for the mess-up & would like to draw attention to the unintended removal. Halukmesci ( talk) 08:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
check out IP edit,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrochemistry
I guess that is less conspicuous that adding "Erin Andrews" ... Nerdseeksblonde ( talk) 15:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion page for the reference desk keeps getting deleted. Its filesize keeps alternating between about 1kB and 72kB. I think there might be a user who feels he was wronged, and he wants to disrupt talk pages until he is satisfied. I'm not sure who to report this to, so I'm putting this here. Gary ( talk) 23:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
British Isles ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm a wikipedia reader, rather than an editor. I've been reading the British Isles article and the associated talk pages.
Its clear to me that there's a disagreement going on which cannot be solved on those talk pages.
To state my bias: I am a citizen of Ireland; however I am trying to remain as unbiased as possible here.
The vast majority of Irish people (as sourced in that article) object to use of the term 'British Isles' as a culturally imperialist term.
Most people from Britian do not agree; they are of the opinion it is a geographical term, and therefore should be kept.
While I understand that wikipedia does not discriminate against editors on a geographical basis, it is a fact that there are more British people than Irish people, and hence, (if we assume anyway even distribution of wikipedia contributors across both states), there will always be more editoral opinion in favour of use of the term 'British Isles'. Clearly, this is the case from reading the talk pages. Equally clearly, there is no consensus there; indeed, considering the long history of this debate, none seems forthcoming.
The status quo appears to be that as there are more British editors (it is quite clear from looking at the talk pages of the main contributors that the main editors in favour of the term are, in fact, British), the page title remains 'British Isles'. This is a term, that as stated, is horribly, amazingly offensive to most Irish people.
This really needs looking into, and resolution, from more Wikipedia editors, and not just those local to the term (those from Irish and the UK).
Ideally, there would be no geographical bias, but one is here, and manifesting, and this needs to be fixed.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.166.150 ( talk • contribs)
Please do not re-direct me, I've already been round the block. RashersTierney ( talk) 23:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Most SPI cases are decided based upon behavioral evidence, that is, the behavior of the accounts, users or IPs concerned. The evidence needs to be quite strong, not just a vague belief or assumption. Certainty may not be possible; it is usual for a decision to be made based upon an experienced user's judgement of likelihood. If the evidence suggests it is likely that abuse has taken place, then action may be taken.
People skills ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Requesting assistance about procedures for recreating the People Skills article. The information is under “The Pillars” on my talk page. Thank you. PSY7 ( talk) 04:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The page search redirects to Wiktionary stating Wikipedia has no People Skills page with a template:long comment and monitor. What is the procedure for changing this template? PSY7 ( talk) 23:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I did ask 16:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC) without reply (please see "The Pillars" on my talk page) PSY7 ( talk) 00:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The article is in my user space for editors to look over. All the references have been clarified and verified. PSY7 ( talk) 21:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
My concerns with this user are that he or she seems completely non-communicative in the face of multiple notices about his or her image uploads. He or she continues his or her upload pattern, blithely pushing ahead without paying any apparent attention to his or her talk page. I have posted a request for communication to no avail. His or her only talk page edits have been to delete a brief discussion on Talk:Snow White (Disney) without explanation or comment (twice).
WriteINGWell's article-space edits are often trivial or subtle changes in wording, yet he or she does occasionally provide useful, referenced information. (See, e.g., this series of 13 consecutive edits).
I appreciate any thoughts on where to go next.
-- Powers T 12:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Toronto Port Authority ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am requesting assistance for the article on the Toronto Port Authority. Various authors including myself have contributed to the article for years. The article was in dispute a number of years ago. It is my belief that all contributors to this article, including myself, reached a consensus some time ago. A new contributor, "Alaney2K" has been rewriting the article line by line since the fall of 2008. The NPOV of the article is now in dispute due to the substantial rewrite dome by "Alaney2K". I am not familiar with the sequence of events for resolving a dispute of this type. My preference would be to have the page locked as it was about 6 months ago. Thanks. Kdickson ( talk) 14:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I am requesting assistance for a second article I created for Book Author and Dating Expert Alan Roger Currie. The first article got deleted for severe lack of citations and references, and for being too "press release" like. The second one has a number of citations to support the content. Would like feedback and suggestions for improvement. Even if it needs to be shortened. Thank you. User talk:Chicago Smooth/New Alan Roger Currie article
Chicago Smooth ( talk) 11:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Comparison of Notability - I keep reading where various editors have challenged the 'notability' of Book Author Alan Roger Currie; In my opinion, it very much depends on who you are comparing him to.
Here are articles for subjects who are in the same line of work as Book Author Alan Roger Currie; I would like a review of what makes these dating and relationship authors and experts "more credible" or "more notable" than the subject of my article:
I feel like my subject (Book Author Alan Roger Currie) is just as notable, if not more notable, then most of the authors and dating experts listed above. Chicago Smooth ( talk) 12:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
i NEED YOUR EXPERTISE TO ALIGN THE INFORMATION IN A BLANK TABLE PROPERLY IN RESPECT TO THE "ORIGINAL CAST" OF THIS OPERA AS IT WAS PRESENTED IN PARIS ON APRIL 28, 1865. I WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN THE FIRST AND LAST NAMES OF ALL THE PERFORMERS BUT I A AM NOT SURE THAT THEY ARE IN THE RIGHT PLACE. PLEASE EDIT ACCORDINGLY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.43.233 ( talk) 17:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Gordon Lish was an editor and sometimes-writer who was influential in mid-20th century American fiction.
About 2 years ago, I spent a lot of time wikifying his article, but I was finding my edits reverted by users who seemed to be Lish family members. Their edits maintained the article in a state of literal chaos, with random uncited facts, no headings, no flow, weasel words, and nuggets that only friends and family could know (which were not worth noting anyway.) Often the edit summary would be the only citation, and the reference would be "see NYT July 1962." Eventually the article hit an equilibrium when other editors started maintaining it.
I took a long break from wikipedia and I just noticed that this article was reverted entirely back to chaos. I took the unusual step of reverting it back to its form of January 2007 (I really don't think there are any substantive differences in the meantime, believe it or not). Perhaps there might have been a better "restore point" but I wanted to get it fixed, and I explained myself on the talk page.
I would really appreciate having another editor take a look at the article and perhaps, if possible, put it on some kind of watch list to prevent destructive reversions. I would rather it be wikified and light on marginalia than a total mess with lots of random tidbits. Thanks! - Dmz5 *Edits* *Talk* 18:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I have a question regarding the adding of a related article. I tried to add a related article to the 2009 Nazran bombing article, namely the Civil war in Ingushetia. However a user reverted my edit asking for a source. We tried to settle it ( My talk page, His/Her talk page), however this user insists on that he's/she's merely enforcing Wikipedia policy. I don't get it, what policy exactly? Why do I have to source a Wikipedia article? If there's a problem with the article itself not properly sourced, wouldn't it be proper to put a tag on it's page instead of deleting a related link I put in the "related articles" section of another article? I also noticed that this user has been accused of Wikipedia policies violations. IJK_Principle ( talk) 02:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I came to Wikipedia hoping to find a page on Peter Toon, the late Anglican advocate for a traditional Prayer Book, and was amazed to not find one. I am new to Wikipedia, and was willing to spend a little time putting something up. What I gather is that his name is the issue. For although he is mentioned a few places in other pages, creating a page is difficult due largely to his surname
Would like to create
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Toon
but apparently need help to do so.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SongspiritUSA ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
In an an attempt to remove the hyphen/dash from an article title (with an existing second article having a title with no hyphenation and a redirect to the hyphenated article), I made the poor choice of using an outdated manual move (simultaneous cut/paste of the two articles) instead of following WP:MOVE, and hence, lost histories. Please advice on how to best proceed now. Which procedure to best follow: Wikipedia:MOVE#Swapping two pages OR Wikipedia:MOVE#Fixing cut and paste moves?. Would like Non-commutative ring to be the redirect to Noncommutative ring with "Noncommutative ring" being the main article. Thank you. Henry Delforn ( talk) 22:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to request correction and comment advice on my userpage article. I have requested this on my discussion/user talk page, and have not recieved any comments. Now that I have written the article with edits; what do I do next? Shizuye ( talk) 23:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Shizuye
My name is Darrell Howarth I think my girl friend is in the hospital her name is Gina Rosas can some body return email to me how she is and if its possible to contact her, And if I fly there if I can visit her. (Email redacted)
Darrell Howarth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.14.100.41 ( talk) 09:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Please review the article for Lee_Zehrer. It is unclear why this is deleted.. It is relevant to business and web culture and as (if not more) significant than all of the following articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Barton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Kawasaki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kremen
Lee Zehrer was a pioneer in the development of Web 1.0 and social media. He built the first online dating business with many more members than Match.com when he sold to them. If Gary Kremen has a wiki page, Lee Zehrer certainly should. If it is a issue of inclusion or significance, please re-instate and I will personally make sure that this article meets those specifications.
Here is the article noted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Zehrer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.110.226 ( talk) 16:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
dear madam,dear sir:
i found a "message" for me at wikipedia that my contribution about kahoolawe was reversed or something by "blue clot"??
i never did edit anything, although by coincidence i live in hawaii (lahaina, island of maui) i believe this is a case of mistaken idendity.
best regards and aloha
john blahuta Lahaina, Maui, HI email removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.99.39 ( talk) 08:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey! There is a dispute in the Persian gulf talk page about my reversed edits with another editor. I seek help from a more experienced member. Egyptian lion ( talk) 06:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I put a request in the active disagreements section but none interfered to resolve the dispute yet. Egyptian lion ( talk) 19:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, ICROA ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICROA I am the author of the ICROA article. We attempted to make it as neutral as possible, but there are two tags on the article - one for conflict of interest and one for the referencing, saying there aren't enough third party sources.
I would like to know how organisations can create articles on themselves. Further, we are a new organisation, less than a year old. therefore, there arent many 3rd party sources available talking about ICROA. What should we do in this case? How can we identify correct sources?
Thank you Secretariat ICROA -- Secretariat ICROA ( talk) 09:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
This editor appears to be deliberately targetting another editors ( Sillyfolkboy) revisions with no summary for reverts or apparent reason. Please see [5] <-that for the users contributions. The editor whose edits are being reverted is highly unlikely to request help in resolving the problem (taken from experience) and also has their edits targeted by user Jw2035 due to supporting different football teams (please see here for proof of targeting [6]. Jw2035 has had a previous account Jw2034 where he had been given temporary bans for disruptive editing. I'm nowhere near skilled enough to look into this kind of things, but was hoping that someone would be able to see if the users (Xxc2009 and Jw2035/Jw2034) are connected and also help in pointing me in the right direction of getting (at the least) the disruptive Xxc2009 blocked. Thanks and I hope I'm not putting this in the wrong place. Fol de rol troll ( talk) 20:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed that there are many articles that have names of famous people transcribed into foreign scripts, but no reference given for the transcription. Isn't this WP:OR? How do we verify that these names were transcribed correctly? Webbbbbbber ( talk) 21:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm a newbie author but am working on an entry that will require a disambiguation page. That's secondary, at this point, because my references are still messy. I'm currently looking for a standard model for citing a youtube video, for one, but I feel uncertain about a number of my references. This page concerns a prolific author who's getting increased media attention (currently featured in WIRED), so I'd like to get help soon. Thank you. Neredowell ( talk) 22:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
hello ... I posted an article on Michel Vulpe, who is the co-inventor of a patent owned by the company he founded, i4i, which recently won a patent infringement trial against Microsoft. My article is a factual summary of who he is and his achievements to date. I would like the dispute to be resolved so that my article can be posted in wikipedia. Please help? Winter2009 ( talk) 01:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've never contacted an editor before, but I'm interested in talking to one about a project that I'm going to be starting soon with a University class at IUPUI.
I'm looking to find an editor in or around the Indiana area that I could discuss the project with to make sure that this project is fitting well within the scope of Wikipedia.
Many thanks, -- Richard McCoy ( talk) 13:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
(Email redacted)
Please block User talk:71.31.61.65 at least temporarily. I am getting tired of reverting nonsense on Glenn Martin, DDS. Thanks. Americasroof ( talk) 20:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Kent Hovind ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello, thanks for your time to examine this matter.
I made a small contribution to an article I am very well familiar with, and it has been undone twice, the first time I had a note saying my information was biased. But I only contributed a fact about employees that was directly related to charges being discussed, which was completely appropriate, and I added a verse after another verse to show both sides of the debate (which actually brings neutrality, not bias )
Upon the second undoing of my contribution, I stated it was verifiable about Kent Hovind's family being over 80% of those employed in the "ministry" and that the verse addition was to balance to the one immediately before it.
I took the time to see he has been actually shaping the article to be biased against this man, and when any attempt to bring objectivity into the article is made, he will scrap it claiming bias, of which he only is guilty.
PLEASE take action to prevent this pest from harassing people who are just concerned over the facts, I am not a Kent Hovind follower, but I didn't like how he is being magligned, and I believe I would do this for anyone in the name of justice.
thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thankful21&3 ( talk • contribs) 21:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Bookkeeperoftheoccult ( talk · contribs) keeps editing and trying to say Chris Brown is not a convicted felon. He even cites an article which clearly states 90% of felony convitions are handled by plea arrangements. On his own cite he states his racist views. Ban him and delete all his comments/edits/ 76.173.119.61 ( talk) 22:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The exact incident the IP is talking about can be seen here. Though how that accounts to racism is beyond me. The IP also vandalized my user page as seen here. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks to me the exact incident can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chris_Brown_%28entertainer%29#Convicted_Felon_2 Yopienso ( talk) 04:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I am a Member of the Group Black Moon. There is a sub page for the other two members, Buckshot and Da Beatminers, but me (5ft) I wanted to also create one with my biography and projects. How do I do this?
23:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fivefever ( talk • contribs)
In October there was a dispute because Sean Hannity's page had no criticism. I stumbled across it again today, and naturally there were NO criticisms.
I put some back in, asked that people stop whitewashing the page in the criticisms section, and before I was even done it was reverted. I added it again, and once again requested that this behavior stop, and was once again reverted.
I continued discussion in the talk page, at which point another one of this page's "criticism police" began defending the "reverter".
Can we get some dispute resolution? I'd respectfully like to see the blurb that we all agreed was fair put back in, the page locked, and if the "reverts" see fit at that point I'm more than happy to discuss it.
FuriousJorge ( talk) 07:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like you have no problem with the second part, then. It's a start. Mind putting it back in? I can do it.
FuriousJorge (
talk) 08:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
FuriousJorge ( talk) 09:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
While all this back-and-forth takes place, the page - remarkably - reflects no criticism whatsoever of the highly controversial Hannity. Will one of you please start up a request for comment to bring in some disinterested parties? Thanks. JohnInDC ( talk) 11:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
FuriousJorge ( talk) 11:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Enough! This bickering isn't making the Hannity page any better and it's tiresome for other editors to have to wade through it. Please take one of the many steps available to advance the discussion, rather than continuing on in circles. JohnInDC ( talk) 11:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
FuriousJorge ( talk) 02:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
FuriousJorge ( talk) 04:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
If someone removes all negative information about a subject without discussion (much like you did to me yesterday), how can that be described any way other than vandalism? The info was perfectly referenced, and the matter was settled for six months prior. Then one person who is sympathetic to censorship comes along, completely whitewashed the article, and rather than condemn the behavior we reward it by restarting a discussion about its validity for inclusion to begin with. You may be right that voting is not wikipedia policy, but at the end of the day the information was there for six months. That in and of itself is the proof of what the community decided. Your behavior continues to completely undermine Wikipedia. FuriousJorge ( talk) 04:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
First of all, you dodged the vandalism question... again. If deleting all criticism and not discussing after the information was collaborated into the article for months does not constitute vandalism, then please explain why. Second of all, if Side A supports one position and Side B supports another, and Side A's position made it into the article after official intervention, please tell me which side "won". You are right that there is no voting policy. There is only what makes it in.
You will not answer these questions, but you will misrepresent again and say the information was poorly sourced when it wasn't. Many people collaborated to get that right.
You have an issue with the Nation? Fine. Take that part and leave all the other unbiased sources in there. You didn't do that did you? Just like the original vandal you delete first and post discussion never.
Are you going to dodge my questions again? FuriousJorge ( talk)
First of all, you dodged the vandalism question... again. If deleting all criticism and not discussing after the information was collaborated into the article for months does not constitute vandalism, then please explain why. Second of all, if Side A supports one position and Side B supports another, and Side A's position made it into the article after official intervention, please tell me which side "won". You are right that there is no voting policy. There is only what makes it in.
Answered vandalism question so directly I can't be accused of dodging it again. Secondly, I again, saw no example of the consensus you claim. I saw a lot of arguing and little agreement, hardly suitable to claim widespread consensus. Please stop claiming such, thank you.
You will not answer these questions, but you will misrepresent again and say the information was poorly sourced when it wasn't. Many people collaborated to get that right.
Misrepresent? Please, the information for the entire first paragraph was nothing but TheNation, Newshounds, a blog, and an MSNBC bit on how bad Hal Turner was, NOT ON THE RELATIONSHIP WITH HANNITY! This bears repeating: HANNITY IS NOT MENTIONED IN ANY OF THE SOURCES THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE CONSIDERED CREDIBLE (and even then, MSNBC is still shaky). That is why I removed the content. As for the second paragraph, the "LA Times" correspondent was doing a piece for NPR (that's what On the Media is, a National Public Radio piece), so basically you have NYT piece, whose only criticism seemed to be "under fire from liberals" and Washington Post, which is about Olbermann and Hannity. I'd say it's ok to go in, but it doesn't need more than a couple of lines really.
You have an issue with the Nation? Fine. Take that part and leave all the other unbiased sources in there. You didn't do that did you? Just like the original vandal you delete first and post discussion never. Are you going to dodge my questions again?
No I have an issue with the Nation, a blog, and Newshounds suddenly becoming WP:RS exclusively for your criticism section. Not a whole lot of other "unbiased" information. No I didn't leave a bunch of contentious material in a WP:BLP, as that's policy. Soxwon ( talk) 05:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, newshounds was removed in the most recently reverted version. Once again you are... misrepresenting. That leaves the bergen record, the nyt, the lat, etc. It's funny what you can try to pass off as not reliable when you want to. I'll give you this, you finally addressed the question, but now it's clear why it took so long. Weak. Sorry about your patience though. FuriousJorge ( talk) 05:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Why can't we have this conversation without misrepresenting. The nation is a newspaper that has existed since before the word "blog". You could say "left-leaning" sources have criticized hannity and still have The Record of Bergen County as non-left leaning source in that blurb. Or you could just have The Record. I don't care. Once again, newshounds was removed from the final version. Either way, stop misrepresenting. FuriousJorge ( talk) 05:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
... and here you have "the new american" pointing out that Hannity has been criticized for his giving neo-nazi hal turner a forum. http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/1701 This article is from last week, and of course you will tell me this is still not relevant when people are writing about it a decade later. God forbid there should be one criticism in hannity's page, right? FuriousJorge ( talk) 05:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC) ROFTLOL, did you really just post a fringe piece quoting a blog as a credible source? That's rich and shows no concept of what WP:RS means. Soxwon ( talk) 05:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
What a joke. The New American has existed since the 50s. It is even a conservative publication. What a surprise that we are now debating its credibility (read: misrepresenting). You can't help but prove my point. FuriousJorge FuriousJorge ( talk) 06:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs, give me your honest opinion please. If hannity is still criticized among left-leaning outlets today for this relationship, and the sources for this information are a conservative magazine and a local (albeit 2nd largest in NJ) newspaper, does that constitute reliable sources and due credit? Please read the information in question (most recent reversion), and tell me what you think. FuriousJorge ( talk) 06:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I see why you think I'm out to get him, but I'm just defending what I and others fought for and got in October. I don't post for any other political figure. When no one was looking, all criticism was removed and I think some should go back in. Problem is the page's "sponsors" won't allow it, which only further motivates me. FuriousJorge ( talk) 06:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, but allow me to respond. This article, only a week old, acknowledges that criticism exists from left-leaning sources, regardless of whether it endorses that criticism. The bergen record article, which i think you should read before deciding, is 10 years old and simply states that a local radio guy is giving a forum to this questionable character. In between there are hundreds of left-leaning publications that criticize hannity, ergo Hannity still receives criticism to this day. You may still say "Well, that isn't such a big thing," but if that's the case which is the lesser of two evils: having this criticism in there, or having this page exist with no criticism for months at a time because someone thought it was ok to remove it all in June (and now a vocal few censors wont allow any of it put back in)?
If you still don't agree, I respect that. At least you discussed it on merits. I'm just wondering if you could look at the last few reverts and decide if ANY of that criticism deserves a place in the article. FuriousJorge ( talk) 07:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
My request for comment has finally come through on this article. I respectfully request that we move this to the article's discussion section.
Talk:Sean_Hannity#Who_Removed_All_the_Criticism_From_This_Article_in_June
I feel that the paroxetine page suffers from a negative POV. This is a very widely used medication, but the page reads as if it is harmful and discourages use, despite its endorsement by the FDA. Any suggestions? Neurofish ( talk) 14:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Neurofish
(moved from WT:EAR) Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Part 1 is here: WP:Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_58#Content_dispute_on_Party_in_the_U.S.A.
Despite consensus User:ipodnano05 again reverted 2 his/her preferred version. Not surprised as Miley stans are crazy. I'm reverting and including newwed edits that others have added. Look thru the revision history & ipod is dominating, repeatedly reverting others contributions. 70.108.108.151 ( talk) 00:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I have an dispute with contents on the pages Old Apostolic Church ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Reformed Old Apostolic Church ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
I have edited both pages and believe that I have placed sufficient proof (sources). This pages are constantly being changed by anti-Old Apostolic Church and pro-Reformed Old Apostolic Church members, who removes the info I placed with its sources.
I need someone to look at this information on both pages.
With Thanks
SaneSerenity ( talk) 08:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to request assistance with the policy proposal page Wikipedia:Scientific standards, particularly from editors who have not been previously involved with that page.
Firs, some background. In August 2008 ScienceApologist started a new policy proposal page at Wikipedia:Scientific standards. The proposal was edited and discussed during August and September 2008, with another burst of discussion in December 2008, but no consensus emerged. I was involved in some of these discussions - see Wikipedia talk:Scientific standards and its archives. In March 2009, after the proposal had been dormant for 3 months, Levine2112 added the {{historical}} tag to the page. On 19 August 2009 ScienceApologist removed that tag with the explanation "Now that I'm no longer banned from editing Wikipedia, I'd like to discuss coming to terms with writing standards about how to write articles on various subjects. I removed the historical designation for this reason". In the following 24 hours there were 3 minor edits to the page, but no discussion emerged on its talk page. As the article has now been entirely dormant for a further week, I restored the {{historical}} tag earlier today. Within an hour the tag was removed again by another old contributor to the page, Verbal, with the edit comment "too heavily involved to make this decision". This comment was presumably directed at me.
If you are an editor who has not previously been involved with this policy proposal page, please can you consider whether the {{historical}} tag should be restored to the page, and contribute your views to the talk page discussion here. Thank you. Gandalf61 ( talk) 10:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I just recieved a email response from the director of the Huntington Museum of Art. She not only verified that Victor Arbogast has a sculpture that is part of their permanent collection, but also is in a current exhibition there. She asked if her email is enough verification or do you require a letter on their letterhead, or do you just need me to reference to the museum's website www.hmoa.org? Thank you. Shizuye ( talk) 18:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Shizuye
Hello, I'm writing about Victor Arbogast in my user space. In the References I can list: www.hmoa.org Huntington Museum of Art. Attention Permanent Collections database: Kinetic Force #3; 1977.99 Executive Director: Margaret Mary Layne. Is this enough of a direction for the reader? Shizuye ( talk) 18:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Shizuye, 8/31/09
I created a new category for recipients of a military decoration ( Category:Recipients of the Air Medal). "What links here" at the article Air Medal suggests that there may be somewhere in the low hundreds of article that qualify for inclusion in the category. Do I have to open each article and insert the category into it (i.e., do it by brute force), or is there a way of doing some kind of batch job that can grab the qualifying articles and do it quickly? (I have found nothing on Wikipedia that suggests there is, although I have seen large numbers of article added quickly to new categories. Is that all done by brute force?) Mdnavman ( talk) 05:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)mdnavman
Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Prendergast ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello,
I am trying to see if a profile, bio, can be copyrighted on wiki under anything other than public domain (Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0).
My understanding of public domain is that anyone can use the text and/or images and change them in any way that they choose. Is that correct?
If that is the case, can you please suggest another licensing option provided by Wikipedia?
Thank you so much! Nell Okie <e-mail redacted>
69.177.103.108 ( talk) 21:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC) P.S. I did submit a question on talk to the volunteer who deleted post but never heard back from him.
Link prior to deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Prendergast
I submitted and article to free reading and I want it deleted. This is the link http://www.freereading.net/images/9/9d/SEDU_511_ReadMeFirst_Session_2.doc
Thank you for taking care of this for me.-- 174.102.138.8 ( talk) 21:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I posted a comment on Talk:Banana which was intended to and did result in the removal of inappropriate content from the locked page. (I forgot to sign the comment, and was using a different dynamic IP at that time, but 69.208.12.245 was me.)
User:Baseball Bugs removed my comment and another editor's response to it calling it irrelevant and vandalism. He has not replied to a message left on his talk page asking for a justification of the removal. Clearly at least one of us is out of line, and I don't want to revert him again until I know who. What is the preferred way to handle this? 76.211.18.45 ( talk) 03:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Fleetflame and Powers for your thoughts. I tried asking Baseball Bugs on his talk page first but got no response, so I started looked for someone who would give me an explanation and found this place. I think I'll tell him that a discussion occured here. Then, I probably won't escalate the matter any further. 76.211.18.45 ( talk) 05:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mike, I'm trying to get an article up to par, but rather than help me, there's a couple folks that want a quick deletion. I have tried to alk to this "Hoary" guy, but he just flings insults and inapproiate remarks instead of just taking a second look at things. I'm going to stick to my guns with this article, but I do want the article to be acceptable to the community. I guess this is an SOS. What can I do to keep the article on wikipedia? I will make any changes required. Thanks,
--Writer of this article 08:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC) ARRGG this gets frustrating :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyswords ( talk • contribs) 08:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The company "LetsLogic" continually tries to add their particular Sokoban game clone to the link section on the "Sokoban" game page, no matter how often we from the "Sokoban community" delete the link.
The Wikipedia article in question is this one: Sokoban ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The link in question is this one: http://www.letslogic.com/ The Online Sokoban Community
Despite its name "The Online Sokoban Community", this is just another Sokoban clone, and as can be seen on the "Discussion" page for the "Sokoban" article, it has for years been the policy of the "Sokoban community" to keep the Wikipedia article on Sokoban free from links to any of the thousands of implementations of the game, and the "LetsLogic" website is no different from hundreds of other websites and clones which is at least as - and even more - relevant for the game.
Therefore, please bar "LetsLogic" from their vandalism by whatever means you have at your disposal, e.g., by blocking the article for further editing by all non-trusted editors. Otherwise, it leads to the unfortunate situation that a lot of other Sokoban clone authors will react by saying they should have the same rights to use Wikipedia as a "link farm".
Best regards
Brian Damgaard
Briandamgaard ( talk) 10:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)briandamgaard
Things seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot at Template talk:Major cities of Greater China. I'm not sure why and I'm not sure what to do. Rather than potentially making things worse by continuing to discuss there, I'm hoping that another editor might step in and provide us with some guidance. Related to the discussion are the edit history at [7] (history of User_talk:Dave1185) and the talk at User talk:Lennlin and User_talk:Readin. Readin ( talk) 13:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been accused of spamming the Aebleskiver ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page because I posted a link in the 'External Links' section to a page on my site has instructional cooking video & step by step photos & instructions on how to cook aebleskiver. The content of the video is branded, but I feel it is relevant to someone who is trying to figure out what 'aebleskiver' are and how they are made. I've also followed the precedent of the Solvang Restaurant which link to a history of aebleskiver on their branded site.
Copied text External links
* The Story of Aebleskiver (Solvang Restaurant, Solvang, California) * Cooking Tips & Instructional Video (Aunt Else's Æbleskiver, Minneapolis, Minnesota)
End of copied text
I've contacted the guy who has been removing my link to address the situation in person as well, and am hoping we can all just get along.
Chad.gillard ( talk) 17:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Portal:Turkey/Related portals ( | [[Talk:Portal:Turkey/Related portals|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A while when I started contributing to WP and I noticed that Portal:Turkey didn't list Portal:Kurdistan in the related portal's sections. I added it as I felt that Turkey and Kurdistan are very much related too each other. Not just because of the position of the Kurds these days but because the issue of Kurds is one that is one of the top priority's of Turkey today. It got removed 5 times over a period of 11 months by anon Ip's, none of them gave a reason for doing so. So I was able to revert most of them.
On August 24 User:Turkish Flame reduced the amount of portals listed in an attempt to make the main portal page look better. I agreed with him but thought that too many portal that we're related to Turkey had been removed. I added some of the back, but I had trouble getting them centered. I went to him and asked for his help on his talkpage. He helped me very good by centering all the portals. But in doing so he removed the link to Portal:Kurdistan. At first I thought this was an accident and he had somehow forgotten to put it back when he edited the page. So I added it back to the page and thanked him for his assistance.
But right after my edit he reverted me with the reason removing the portal of a region of a neighbouring country. He misunderstood Portal:Kurdistan as being a Portal for Iraqi Kurdistan and not for Kurdistan(which it is). I tried explaining it to him and we had a very shot debate after which he didn't respond to me. I reverted him 3 days later, but shortly after he reverted me again.
So I've come here to see if someone else can be of some assistance. I don't want this turning into a revert war, but I think that Portal:Kurdistan is just waay to related to exclude from Portal:Turkey ~ Zirguezi 17:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a dispute occurring over Humane Society of the United States, List of animal rights groups, and Template:Animal liberation. The discussion has been spread across multiple talk pages, but the conversation has been completely copied to Talk:Humane Society of the United States#Animal rights vs. Animal_welfare.
This is a highly charged topic, with many lawsuits and legal initiatives being pushed by animal rights groups with very large budgets. I have tried to document that the Humane Society of the United States is an animal rights group, and supported it with a valid, published reference. As you can see from the discussion, there are efforts to claim that any opposition to the HSUS violated NPOV, despite almost exclusive quotes from the HSUS's web site. Both sides are not being represented, and all involved are clearly biased. However, even downgraded "neutral" language favors one side. – Visionholder ( talk) 22:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I have a dispute with a administrator by the name of "DeLarge." I've spent the last hour trying to figure out how to report a admin. This is not very user friendly to please any help is greatly appreciated. He is clearly showing bias on his deletion on multiple articles, and honestly he is being plain ignorant to me in the talk section. I would like to get this resolved and have a mutual edit be placed on the article MIVEC ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Please email me, or respond here. I would be very appreciative. Justin5117 ( talk) 00:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Tried to create a title for the concept of "contributory causation," with a redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality#Necessary_and_sufficient_causes but got a message that such a title was blacklisted. Must be a mistake. Could an admin please create this redirect for me?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ai.kefu ( talk • contribs) 01:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to write article on Du Pont de Nemours and Company's product Zemdrain. It shows up "Criteria for speedy deletion" G11 and G12 messages;
I see similar articles on all the product related information from Du Pont chemicals in Wikipedia.
I request you to assist me. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kandula Venkateswara Reddy (
talk •
contribs) 18:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Plus-size model ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am having difficulty with an editor to this article who insists on including citations defining who wears plus-size clothing, which have nothing to do with the definition of plus-size model, nor the business of being such a person. This person is not civil, does not act in good faith or participate in discussion, and reverts to their edits without considering new work on the article done in the interim between reverts.
I have taken the liberty of transferring the user's edits to the relevant article plus-size clothing, even though I find them to be lacking neutrality, simply to get this person diverted. I do not expect that they will allow this action to pass however, and will revert all of the other new work out of the article yet again. Can you assist please? Please read section 32 of the discussion page (there are earlier sections discussing clothing definitions with the general consensus that they do not belong) and provide a third opinion or whatever assistance you are allowed to offer. Thank you 3RingCircus ( talk) 13:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I have tried to edit this page:
to include the assertion by circuit court judge James Fox in regards to the amount of states required to ratify the 16th amendment. He asserts that in actuality, not enough states ratified this amendment, but the fact that it has been upheld for such a long time makes the point moot. This is one of the pivotal points of the tax protester movement, and the full text of this assertion in the case Sullivan v. US can be found here:
http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Documents/CarolinaJudge16th.pdf
I also noted that the term "properly ratified" in quotation marks asserts by itself that the statement has no validity, and that against the basic tenets of Wikipedia, in my opinion. In fact, it seems as if the whole page is skewed in a manner that destroys any inkling of credibility tax protesters might have in their arguments. I have tried to include it in several different ways, however there is one editor in particular who seems to be limited by his own abilities to accept that this may be the case. He has insulted me in the discussion page, and I have clearly pointed to at least seven references on different websites with varying points of view on the subject that all show that Judge Fox asserted this point in a legally recorded stenographer account of what was said in his courtroom. I believe his ego as a senior editor is clouding his judgement, because he seems to be smug in the fact that he is more knowledgeable than others about tax laws. While this may be true, it is clearly documented in many places that this statement was made by Judge Fox, and has yet to be directly refuted, and is again one of the cornerstones of the tax protester argument in recent years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paraplegicemu ( talk • contribs) 14:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Neredowell/Mark_Sloan section on <<architecture students>> trying to cite two youtube videos in Notes, following http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Referencenotes but lost somewhere. Please help. Thanks. Neredowell ( talk) 21:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Fact: The Big Ten has designated Indiana and Northwestern as Purdue's official Football rivals, and yet for over a year someone keeps editing out Northwestern and replacing them with Illinois who Purdue only plays 4 of 6 years, I assume since they play for a "trophy" this person assumes that makes them major rivals.
Big Ten Conference ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Purdue Boilermakers football ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
If Illinois is such a major rival, why dose Purdue play Notre Dame, Indiana and Northwestern every year and Illinois 2 years in a row, skipping 2 years and play 2 years in a row? Trophies do not make "major rivalries'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.37.212 ( talk) 04:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
While I was sourcing the Singles Discography on the article for matchbox twenty, I was unable to find a source for most of the singles chartings in the UK, so I removed them. When they were re-added without a source, I took it to the New Contributors Help Page [8] and was told that I should remove all the unsourced chartings and post a message in the talk page asking for a source. I did so and left a message, however, they were re-added again without anyone posting a message in the talk page or giving a source for them. I reverted this and left another message in the talk page. However, this also hasn't been answered and a number of the unsourced chartings restored. This has been done by two IP users, who are probably the same person considering their edits. I'm not sure how to stop them; i have no issues with their information as long as they provide sources, but at the moment they refuse to tell me where they are even getting it from, so some advice on how to sovle the issue would be appreciated. Hitthat ( talk) 06:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
This source [9] gives the UK chart position for 3 AM. Wikiproject Songs has information about reliable charts. Jezhotwells ( talk) 22:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Here is The Proof http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3595099/ and also can You help wrte an article about this actor please? 04:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC) James.Cooper.Manager ( talk) 04:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The west coast town of Kennet River, on the Great Ocean Road, Victoria, Australia is marked on all original Victorian maps as spelt with just the one 't'. All locals of the area, myself being a one time local, will argue passionately that Kennet River is in fact spelt with the one 't'. I have edited all other text on the page to it's correct spelling, but cannot alter the page name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.155.251 ( talk) 08:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I've been working with User:Suomi Finland 2009, a new editor (account created 8 September 2009) who is energetic and enthusiastic and wants to make big improvements to Wikipedia. The problem is that he doesn't know much about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and tends to misread the ones he does know about. Whenever he comes up with an unhelpful idea and starts implementing it, I explain to him why it is unhelpful, and this works: he stops doing it. But then he immediately develops another unhelpful idea and runs with that. I have pointed him to the general information for newcomers, and to John Broughton's Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. The reason I'm involved is that he and I both have a special interest in the article Alamogordo, New Mexico, so our paths often cross. He works on a lot of other articles, too, and has been corrected by some other editors. Any ideas how to steer him in a more helpful direction? It's getting wearying. Thanks. -- Uncia ( talk) 22:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
If the user agrees, adoption sounds like the way forward.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 23:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Play School (UK TV series) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please can I have some help with an edit I just completed to the page on BBC programme Playschool, which can be seen on my recent contributions page! I tried to add my first link at the bottom, and did the following:
But if a more experiended editor checks this page (I will try and come back with a direct link) you will see it has not shown correctly. The link works but it has a [2] there and not the URL. It would help if you explain on My Talk where I went wrong, so I don't repeat the error.
You can find the page I edited BBC Birmingham then via Play School click on the top link Play School : UK TV series.
It is only the URL link that is wrong and needs correcting as far as I can see. Thank You David
Angliaman ( talk) 01:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a learning curve for me, you were right to take the link down, as on further reading the links section, I would have come to the conclusion it was needless to add one. I was thinking for verification puposes. But the article already included a link which I added, to the media city mediacity:uk is in the article, and so no need to clutter with more links.
Thanks to you and others for your help, this matter is now sorted
Angliaman ( talk) 09:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Angliaman ( talk) 09:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
See my comments on the S.V. discussion talk page. This article is too important to world history for us to permit the inelloquent prose of a collaborative effort, and the major consequences of the Vespers, that it affected world history, is left almost unmentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siciliano99 ( talk • contribs) 03:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
IDology,_Inc. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( edit: the above link may not work due to trailing period, use this IDology,_Inc. ) This didn't seem to be a big deal but author removed my advert tag, then blanked page after I re added. A second new user has apparently re-created the page and another editor reverted some edits back to the version I had left behind. Not sure what to make of it. The article had a bit of an ad tone but I thought it may have been salvagable if notability could be established and puffery (I'm using this term liberally as many claims probably could be tested but puffery as per legal usage IIRC refers to untestable statements ) removed. Thanks. Nerdseeksblonde ( talk) 14:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
There has been several personal attacks on historical figures in this Sino-Indian War ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [ [17]] page.Also a brief look in archives will show that a user named Xingdong has been misusing Wikipedia's freedom for quite a while.Personal attacks on people can be tolerated to certain extents but attacks on historical figures shall not go unpunished. I did my duty by informing Authorties/Admin rest is up to you. Cheers, Swift&silent ( talk) 19:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I never said a word about orbat not when i added it and post reverted(I promised as you can see in discussion page that I will try to make better edits in future.Seriously I thought of orbat as a good site.) But thats not the point,I want to point your attention on Personal attacks on historical leader (Nehru) and also some obviously biased remarks. As for orbat,dont worry I wont use that link again. Swift&silent ( talk) 19:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Six months ago I argued this article be moved to Napoleon D'umo since his wife Tabitha had her own page and since they have different histories prior to meeting each other. I have since changed my mind: last month Altenmann placed a redirect/link in the marriage section on Tabitha's page to the marriage section on Napoleon's page. In the edit summary he/she typed "to avoid divergence of content". This made me start to feel differently.
The marriage section, the lead, and almost all of the career section on both pages are identical. They only section that's vastly different is early life. I want to recreate Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo and decrease their individual pages to stubs. The stubs would only have the early life section and the new article would have everything related to their career. I was planning to go ahead with the process but I thought I would check here first because when the page was moved back in April, so was the history. I didn't want to mess up protocol (if there is any) since the history was moved. Can I proceed? // Gbern3 ( talk) 19:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I entered a number of edits to the history section of the 15th amendment, footnoting each with a reference to Gillette's "Right to Vote" or Foner's History of Reconstruction. These are both seminal works in the field and are largely in agreement. Gillette and Foner argue that the main purpose of the 15th Amendment was to enfranchise Middle Western, Middle Atlantic and Border State Negroes, since the reconstruction acts had already enfranchised Negroes in the South.
I was accused of vandalism and told to stop disruptive editing. That accusation is certainly unfair, especially when the text I was editing was largely unsourced, and the footnote to page 448 of Foner is erroneous. 76.17.43.14 ( talk) David Abbott
As I describe on the talk page of the same name, I created the page of the same name as my first experience on Wikipedia and the page is intended only as a source for information. I based the article on an article for a nearby school (Westridge), basically following their general style. When I originally created an account I generated a username with Chandler School in it, which is why I believe the article was flagged for possible lack of neutrality and conflict of interest. In addition, I failed to cite references. The were unwitting mistakes and I believe I have rectified the errors and would like to figure out how to get the warnings removed from the top of the page. I believe this is the next step. KaliGirl ( talk) 20:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)KaliGirl
User:Mark Renier requests editor assistance regarding some edits made to specific articles and their immediate subsequent reversions by user:Kwamikagami. I made some edits to articles that included valid citations. These edits were reverted without substantiation or any counter citations. I have notified the user and asked for his assistance concerning his edits before an edit war starts. I reverted to my valid edits and again was reverted without any valid assertions. Please look into these edits and assist as you can. Please let me know how I can further assist in resolving these disputes to multiple articles.
Initial reversions in question:
Thank you. // Mark Renier ( talk) 09:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help everyone! I believe this issue has been resolved sufficiently. // Mark Renier ( talk) 17:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear Editor:
Regarding the first line in the "Chinatown, Vancouver" article: I propose that this line needs to be re-stated as, "Chinatown in Vancouver, British Columbia, is the largest Chinatown in Canada and one of the largest in North America." Such a statement contains integrity and would avoid and replace an irrelevant, numerically unsubstantiated, unreferenced, and almost certainly inaccurate phrase, including the relatively extreme superlatives. The appropriate idea to be conveyed is that Vancouver's Chinatown is indeed the largest in Canada and one of the largest in North America, rather than an imprecise comparison with other specific Chinatowns and even more significantly, a comparison BETWEEN two OTHER Chinatowns, certainly an inappropriate statement to be present in the first line of "Chinatown, Vancouver." Clearly, therefore, references to San Francisco's Chinatown as well as New York's "Chinatown" (by the way, which one? - there are multiple in the city proper alone) should be eliminated entirely from this context.
Furthermore, the phrase in question itself is clearly inaccurate, given that the Manhattan Chinatown of 2009 enumerates about 80,000 to 90,000 Chinese residents and is apparently experiencing a very recent resurgence of immigration from Fujian and Zhejiang Provinces, while San Francisco Chinatown's proper could have AT MOST (and unlikely) 60,000 such residents, if recent Census place/zip code estimates are an accurate indication. Additionally, it is important to note that Chinatown boundaries have further blurred in recent years as they have expanded, and there are no official Census counts for such "Chinatowns."
Restating the line as I propose endows neutrality and integrity to the content of the article and strengthens it to encyclopedic quality.
Thank you.
Respectfully yours,
thmc1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thmc1 ( talk • contribs) 06:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Conservatism in North America ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have been actively editing Wikipedia for three and a half years, and today is the first time that I have been accused of participating in an edit war. User:The Four Deuces has told me that in editing the article Conservatism in North America, I have violated the three-revert rule, about which I had never heard before now although I now understand the reasoning behind it. I was not under the impression that I had been reverting; I thought I was implimenting suggestions from the talk page. Nonetheless, I do not wish to continue the discussion further alone as User:The Four Deuces has threatened have my account blocked. I have worked very hard on improving Wikipedia over the years and wish to be able to continue to do so. The vast majority of my edits are small and uncontroversial, so I have never been in a situation like this before; any advice in how to proceed would be much appreciated.
The controversy is as follows: User:Rick Norwood and User:The Four Deuces believe that the Conservatism in North America article should not exist. Still, they have refrained from starting a deletion discussion, as I suggested they do. Instead, they have redirected the page to Conservatism in the United States, which they have both agreed is an inappropriate target. While I have attempted to respond to their concerns from the talk page by supplimenting the information on the article with further citations and information, they have reverted my edits four times in a row. From the discussion here and here, I gather that they have decided to avoid the three-revert rule they quoted to me by alternating reverting my edits between them (and on another article I am not involved in editing). As I stated before, I would be grateful for any advice you might provide. Neelix ( talk) 22:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The article Conservatism in North America originally had sections about Conservatism in the United States and Conservatism in Canada. Around November 2005 the article was split and Conservatism in North America became a redirect page to Conservatism in the United States. In 2009 Neelix edited the re-direct page to restore it to an article with separate sections on conservatism in Canada and the US. [19] I reverted it back to a re-direct page [20] and Rick Norwood set up a discussion on the talk page. [21]
If Neelix disagrees with the separation of the article into American and Canadian articles then he should recommend a merger of those two articles rather than create an article that duplicates the other two.
When it was pointed out to Neely Neelix that there were more than two countries in North America and that articles require a lead explaining the relationship between the subjects discussed, Neely Neelix added a section about Mexico and a lead. The lead that Neely Neelix wrote stated "For three days in May of 2002, a conference was held at the University of Augsburg which was dedicated to this very topic" (actually only the US and Canada were discussed) and added references from two other sources that were taken entirely out of context. One was a book about gender identity in the Caribbean, the other was about religion in Canada. The quote in the first book actually referred to "North America and Western Europe" while the second was discussing religious not political conservatism.
Based on the talk page, Neely Neelix has no idea what connection if any there is between conservatism in the three countries. He has merely grabbed a redirect page and written an alternative article. When asked to justify that this is a separate subject he adds a lead that is pointless and misleading.
The Four Deuces ( talk) 02:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment on Neelix's statement: Neelix should have stated that he had turned a re-direct page into a new article rather than claiming that Rick Norwood and I deleted the article and turned it into a re-direct. Also it is unfair to say that we have alternated in deleting his work. Rick Norwood mentioned the existence of the article to me at Talk:Liberalism in the United States#Laissez-faire. Here is the conversation:
I have made no agreement with anyone to alternate editing. You can look at the edit history here [22] to see that claim is false.
The Four Deuces ( talk) 03:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally in the example that Neelix uses where he concludes that I am colluding I clearly state, "Although Introman is clearly a disruptive editor we are still expected to follow dispute resolution and to avoid edit-warring and to evaluate each of his edits on the merits." We were discussing a very disruptive editor (see User talk:Introman) at Classical liberalism. You will notice that I had already set up an RfC on that subject [23], I did not perform any reverts on that article that day (Sept.14) [24], that besides Rick Norwood and myself, User:Snowded and User:FormerIP also disagreed with Introman, [25] no editors agreed with him and Introman was blocked for edit-warring after making five non-consecutive edits in three hours. [26] It is easy to understand Rick Norwood's frustration with Introman but I certainly made no agreement to revert his edits and certainly never discussed Neelix. However, after setting up an RfC and obtaining outside editors' opinions it appeared Introman was unwilling to form consensus for his edits. The Four Deuces ( talk) 05:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, why don't you carry on your discussion at the article talk page. This page is for requests for assistance, not suited for debate. If you want outside opinions you can start a request for comment - instructions at that page. Jezhotwells ( talk) 12:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
An individual, Davemon, persists in placing a tag on the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) entry. This has been going on for several weeks now and seems to be retaliatory against some edits that another user and he clashed over on another entry - Triple Goddess. I am complaining because I believe that the secondary sources on this entry are similar to the secondary sources used in similar entries regarding Asatru and Hellenic Polytheistic Reconstructionism. If you look at the date that the tag was left, it was left soon after he and another individual who worked on the entry for Celtic Reconstructionism clashed regarding an entry about the Triple Goddess. I am complaining that this individual is retaliating over such disagreement by adding this tag to the entry. Michael Meehan ( talk) 23:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
National Historic Route 66 Federation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yesterday, I "saved" our article but I can't determine what is supposed to happen next. Just wait for editing from you folks? Nationalroute ( talk) 19:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
L. Craig Martindale ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is actually a compliment. I have known Craig and Donna Martindale for years. I actually looked this up to see what was going on with him, since I haven't heard anything recently. I know that Donna and the children are doing well, but I don't live in the same area.
I wanted to say I appreciate your decency in not allowing statements that are unsupported. Craig was a great man for many years and helped a lot of people in many many ways. He was strong and hardworking and encouraged, pushed and inspired others to be so as well. He helped many people achieve more than they had ever dreamed, helped many get delivered from addictions and spiritual, physical and mental weaknesses and become whole.
But the best of us can be tricked and make mistakes, and hurt those we love most, and I and many have no less love and compassion for him as a brother. We know that we too, fall short. And most particularly, Donna and the children would not be blessed by having more aspersions cast upon him.
They are still faithful, serving members of The Way International, which is an excellent Biblical Research and Teaching organization. It is a challenging thing to confront mistakes such as he made and make sure they never happen again while having compassion for him as an individual, and for his wife and family, who are kind and loving people and who endured great pain.
Thank you again for being decent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.177.139 ( talk • contribs) 23:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Fashion (Heidi Montag song) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An editor has proposed a merge to Heidi Montag or Lady Gaga, and despite that it's been made very clear that this song meets notability per WP:NSONG, we still cannot seem to reach consensus at Talk:Fashion (Heidi Montag song). A third opinion would be greatly appreciated. D.C. Blake ( talk) 02:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I've been threatening to dig up some dead tree sources from several decades ago, probably magazine articles. I'd like to cite these and provide online verification. Fair-use would cover a short quote but I'd like to scan the pages and send to wiki for at least internal usage. Anyone know copyright issues or wikipedia issues here? I guess I could upload the page CIA-style or like google books and blank out most of it except for a short fair-use part but in the past wikipedia has objected to even short excerpts. Nerdseeksblonde ( talk) 17:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Lama (martial art) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am trying to clean up, source, and save this article. I am a real wiki newbie and so it is a bit intimidating as far as editing (though I have written a lot about the subject and can provide the info at least!). Would anyone like to help? Comment? Assisst? Particularly with style and the tags and so forth Nysanda ( talk) 19:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
* Section moved to bottom. Fleetflame · whack! whack! · 19:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, A license was submitted on 3 Sept. for profile of John Prendergast deleted due to license absence. Profile has not yet been reinstated and my emails about this to permissions have not been answered. Just need to know when profile will appear on wiki and/or if there is a problem.
thank you, Nell Jespah ( talk) 00:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
This has been resolved, thank you. Jespah ( talk) 22:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems like that Wikipedia also allows anyone to search the editor(s) of a particular sentence or paragraph of a given page without browsing all the history of the edits consecutively.
I do not know how to search this in the WP special search. Does anyone know? Thanks. Couchworthy ( talk) 02:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Daniel 11 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi I entered a new paragraph at the bottom of the page about an alternate interpretation of this passage that places the fulfilment in the 20Cth century. About two hours later it was just deleted with no comment whatsoever. I don't want to get into a fight with the individual that just deleted it (User Erbce) but also don't believe that wikipedia is served by only representing a single view on the subject even if it is the majority view. What should I do if anything? There is no point me rentering the paragraph if he is just going to keep deleting it. Any assistance appreciated - thanks 59.100.10.67 ( talk) 08:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
ok thanks for explaining that. So I can only refer to material from published books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.10.67 ( talk) 09:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is an ongoing debate as to whether Arthur Wellesley's identity should be defined as Anglo-Irish, or simply Irish. There are some important contributions to the discussion. The main points for defining him as Irish are 1. He was born in Ireland 2. His family had been in in Ireland for at least 5 centuries before his birth. 3. His family shares a similar heritage with some of the most common Irish family names Burke, Fitzgerald, Fitzpatrick, Barry etc.
Main points defining him as Anglo-Irish: 1. He was a member of the Protestant ascendancy. 2. He did not engage with/or affiliate himself with Irish peasantry. 3. He went to high school in England.
I can not argue with any of the points above which support an Irish definition. The points which support an Anglo-Irish identity are, i believe, weak and irrelevant. Even if he can be defined as anglo-irish (although see Dunnettreader's posts), being anglo-irish, by anyone's definition, is still being Irish. At Wellingtons birth Ireland was a country, defined as the Kingdom of Ireland, and with its own parliament in Dublin. So I believe we can conclude that Wellington based on the status of the country at the time, the location of his birth, and the geneology of his family.
Can you please provide help with this current impasse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micielo ( talk • contribs) 22:45, 12 September 2009
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Is anyone able to verify the notability of this store ( Shorebazaar)? Cause I picked it up on newpages patrol, and while I can't verify its notability or not, the author has avoided making untenable claims on the page, so it doesn't fall under advert. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there a policy regarding red links to names of people who do not have articles? For details please see my edit history. 173.170.157.188 ( talk) 20:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Marguerite Ross Barnett ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
On July 30, the editor Racepacket made an edit to the article Marguerite Ross Barnett in which he/she added what appeared to be copyrighted text which was a word-for-word duplication of text published in the article's lone reference which can be viewed here. The actual edit can be viewed here. As a response, I removed the copyrighted text, and left a message on the user's talk page as a notification. I then received a message on my talk page regarding this here. It appeared to be somewhat uncivil. The conversation ensued.
If read, it can be seen that the editor claims the text is in fact not copyrighted because it is not literary expression. What plan of action should I take? I've tried to somewhat reword the text on the article page since, but was I wrong to believe this was a copyright violation to begin with?
Thanks for your help.
-- Brian Reading ( talk) 22:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, the question has been answered. If you want to make a sockpuppet report, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance will explain the process. If you want report copyright violations then Wikipedia:Copyright problems is the place. If you want to hurl accusations about then WP:Editor assistance/Requests IS NOT the place for it. Jezhotwells ( talk) 08:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Should you summarily delete as copyright infringement:
I don't think so. 66.173.140.100 ( talk) 19:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
:
The article in question is Precognition I have recently overhauled it in order to provide more objective and representative information on the topic as it is presently scientifically investigated, and has been traditionally conceived. Perhaps my overhaul was too radical, all at once, but this does not seem to have concerned other editors. Instead, contention is almost singularly expressed as to my dissociation of this article from those articles on the subject of the "paranormal" - which, on WP's pages, comprises the likes of Atlantis, Big Foot, Elvis-as-a-cucumber-in-Arkansas, the Yeti, etc. I have tried to communicate the following reason for this: essentially, the concept of precognition, since the 1970s (at least) no longer needs to reference the "paranormal"; theories of its occurrence - as an ostensible or veridical fact - have been given in classical psychological and physical terms, in peer-reviewed forums; and I have provided dot-pointed and, I trust, well referenced information on this in the article, with more elaborate slices thereof in discussion. Perhaps there is a precedent here being feared - that if precognition falls outside WP's weird family of the paranormal, then other parapsychological constructs will do the same. That might well have to happen; the discipline grows; the understandings advance; and, accordingly, the encyclopedia must go through its editions. But a non-partisan approach to representing this information is called for. I recognize that WP must not promote "fringe" theories, and that it obliges itself to give the edge to the consensus, but in this domain of enquiry, the edges are presently not so simply drawn, and I have hoped to represent what is at least consistent with the present literature on this topic. In any case, the disputant of my approach has been silent for about a week, and I wonder when or if it is time to remediate the dispute, in terms of the content of the article. Rodgarton 10:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgarton ( talk • contribs)
User:Deepmath and User talk:Deepmath are listed on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion and the discussion is still active. Deepmath removed the templates from his user page and his talkpage, and I restored them. Then I began to wonder if it was appropriate to restore the templates. On the English Wikipedia, I understand that the general rule is that users are allowed to remove templates from their own user and talk pages. On the other hand, this is an ongoing matter and the templates are not only directed at Deepmath but are also used to communicate with others that visit the pages. Sjö ( talk) 18:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Somebody keeps restoring content of Matthew McKenzie that's been deleted as spam on a userpage in violation of WP:UP. What's to be done about it? The page is User:Matthew McKenzie (Check page history) Seb az86556 ( talk) 09:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Jeopardy! ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have been part of an ongoing discussion about the lack of sources for very intricate detailed information. The following is the unsourced statement:
There is a 66-game disparity between the show numbers assigned to first-run Jeopardy! episodes and the actual number of Trebek-era games played...However, all 65 reruns in Season 1 (1984-1985) were given new show numbers despite not being new games.
I have repeatedly asked for a source regarding this statement. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Each time a reference is requested, Robert K S provides a similar argument that "Season 1 began on September 10, 1984 and ran for 195 episodes (see Richmond). Season 2 began on September 9, 1985 with show #261. 260 - 195 = 65," usually stressing the arithmetic function that results in "65." However, no source for the episode number of the Season 2 premiere or the episode number of a repeat showing the disparity has been provided.
My original argument was that this information is not encyclopedic and more along the lines of minutiae/trivia. Because the user insists upon including the information, I've tried to determine if there is an actual source for this or if this is merely a testament by an individual based on their own assumption or unverifiable research, but I have been unsuccessful in my attempt.
Can you please provide insight? Sottolacqua ( talk) 20:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want admin help to protect the page, then Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is the appropriate place to ask. Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Party in the U.S.A. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:70.108.112.176 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has repeatedly moved the lead section into other parts of the page. I tried to explain to him/her that I felt it was an unnecessary change and reverted it, but s/he continued to make those changes. Additionally, this user has linked to a screengrab (on Twitpic) of a copyrighted TV program on the talk page, and after I removed explaining that it was a copyright violation, s/he continued to add it in. This user also was acting uncivil on the talk page, claiming that I didn't know what I was doing. POKERdance talk/ contribs 03:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
This is really a matter of opinion. The brief lede seems better to me. Toddst1 ( talk) 03:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Why exactly? Aren't leads supposed to summarize main details from the article? There are so many things in the article that the current lead doesn't discuss... the song's chart performance, the performance at the Teen Choice Awards, the controversy following the performance at the Teen Choice Awards? POKERdance talk/ contribs 04:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Because it's supposed to be a brief summary: "a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article". The brief version does it. 20 years from now nobody will give a rats's ass about Teen choice awards. There you go. Toddst1 ( talk) 04:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Please look at GA-status song articles such as Just Dance which give a summary of mostly everything important in the article. Maybe it won't be notable in 20 years, but it's fairly notable right now. POKERdance talk/ contribs 04:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
You're rejecting the assistance you've requested. I didn't come here to argue with you. That's why you're here in the first place. Toddst1 ( talk) 04:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not trying to argue. I just disagree with your opinion. Perhaps we can take this to Talk:Party in the U.S.A. for further discussion, but I would appreciate some more opinions before this is considered resolved. POKERdance talk/ contribs 04:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The short lead is definitely better. Dougweller ( talk) 05:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) In my opinion, the longer lead is too specific and goes into too much detail. The shorter lead is marginally better, but it's way too short and doesn't summarize the article. Powers T 12:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Pokerdance, the article's lead just summarizes the rest of the info in the page and moving all of that is unnecessary. Those sections are not well done, it took what as already well written and well patterned into unnecessary sections. And as far to the uncivil comments 70.108.112.176 has used bad language and Pokerdance was not threatening the user, he only warned him some users have been blocked for that. Bottom line: The article needs to be reverted back to the way it was previously. -- Ipodnano05 ( talk) 14:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Ive repeatedly read that leads should be concise. Major points of the article may be touched upon, but very detailed details shouldnt be in the intro. The lead as poker had it had alot of info--& the info was on Miley's 1 performance of the song--not about the song! @ipodNano: your bottom line is your opinon. Have you read the opinion posted before yours? 70.108.112.176 ( talk) 17:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.53.177 ( talk)
I think that summarizes it to the main aspect and is not too extensive. -- Ipodnano05 ( talk) 19:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)"Cyrus performed the song at the 2009 Teen Choice Awards and was met with much controversy, saying that it was too sexual for a teen-oriented event because for a short portion of the performance, she was dancing onto what appeared to be a dance pole. Some have defended Cyrus, claiming that people should not focus on the 'pole-dancing,' rather than on her accomplishments that night, winning six awards at the show."
Hi ipodNano. Right now it is current. Miley has plans to promote the song in other performances( GMA 4 ex), & if she does the pole routine again, will that performance detail too be added. I feel that having the controversy in the lead extensively takes away in that the explanation is so long. This article is about the song afterall. How about this:
This way it is mentioned but the details are in the article, not the lead. 70.108.112.176 ( talk) 21:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.111.183 ( talk)
To save time I have cut and pasted my comments from the edit war issues. I have come to this page on advice from S Marshall.
Mr. McGeddon creatively edits the Stoern page by playing up Stoern claims, without criticism in the first part of the article. In doing so, he placed subject matter in places it does not belong--such as the jury of scientists Stoern hired in the first and third section, but does not mention, until the Jury section, that in fact Stoern's claims of scientific legitimacy was not supported by the Jury. Moreover, the McGeddon appears to be very selective in his editing, e.g., he will allow Stoern's unsupported claim ("Steorn disputed the jury's findings[6] and said that, due to difficulties in implementing the technology, the jury had only been provided with test data on magnetic effects for study." THIS STATEMENT HAS NO EFFECT--WHAT SUBSTANTIAL CLAIM CAN BE MADE BY STEORN. Without any reason behind Stoern statement to doubt the jury's finding, Stoern is rebutted the jury's finding or at least left doubt in the readers mind. This is a misdirection of the truth.) to exist while claiming that a search on the University of Alberta's (U of A)website that returns no results as to Mr. McDonald's association is not supported by a 3rd source. I accept McGeddon's edits if it is applied equally to all contributors. However, he is selective in his edits.
Furthermore, I doubt the legitimacy of McGeddon as a person without an interest in Stoern. Reviewing his editing over the YEARS of Stoern, he has made changes at all times, shortly after others have made editing changes. This appears to be a company hire to protect the editing of the Stoern Wikipedia page or Stoern itself then an altruistic in Wikipedia. (p)Evidence of Year of Editing and editing within shortly after other's editing (cur) (prev) 14:29, 26 July 2009 McGeddon (talk | contribs) m (19,037 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 68.126.61.224; Rv placeholder (?). using TW) (cur) (prev) 14:25, 26 July 2009 68.126.61.224 (talk) (19,104 bytes) (→Jury) a matter of minutes.
(cur) (prev) 11:15, 6 July 2007 GDallimore (talk | contribs) (33,405 bytes) (not in source.) (cur) (prev) 11:11, 6 July 2007 Boldra (talk | contribs) (33,418 bytes) (→Demonstration (July 2007)) (cur) (prev) 10:07, 6 July 2007 GDallimore (talk | contribs) (33,405 bytes) (→Arguments against: use better source) Moreover, I had a secondary source which I cited that Ivan McDonald is a family doctor associated with U of A, which MCGeddon and his sockpuppet quickly edited out--even though it met the requirement of a secondary source AND McGeddon had no source to dispute this fact. Irrito (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irrito ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Editors should read this first before responding to this request. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 15:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick note: I was told to enter my concerns on this page by S Marshall--as noted above. I am not sure what the scope of review will be at the other page. If the scope of review is different here I would like to continue review. Irrito ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC).
Can anyone tell me the proper way to rename this article I caught on new page patrol? The naming seems so generic that I feel its highly likely that it conflicts with something similarly named be it from a previous time, fiction, or country. Thank you. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Medical cannabis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello there,
We have some edit warring going on at the Medical cannabis page. Would you care to take a look? One editor is changing references from articles to abstracts of scientific papers. Could you give us advise on how to come to an agreement about what type of references will work? On the discussion page, I have outlined these problems (very bottom of page). This page was locked for the past day, but once it was unlocked this editor went at it again and does not respond to discussion page. Thank you very much. 72.213.23.110 ( talk) 05:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
My Technical Director has found that he has been mis-quoted in a recent article. What steps should he take to correct the mis-quotation?
Thank You LindaDRI ( talk) 17:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I believe I understand. I will forward this information on to him. He has also asked if there is any way possible (other than following the directions indicated on the Wikipedia Help area) that he would be able to keep or "lock" the correct quote so that it cannot be editted or change to prevent the mis-quotation again. Thanks again. LindaDRI ( talk) 23:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Trying to create an article for Canadian landscaping company. Looking for help for what info I need before it can be made public. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fmyrland/Sunshine_Grounds_Care Fmyrland ( talk) 18:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
None of these are really high class sources, IMO. Whilst such awards are useful to promote employee well being and to enhance a company's status in advertising, etc. they do not really say anything about the notability of a company in Wikipedia terms.
Hi!
I apologize to Nev1 for inserting a weblink into the web page entitled "Darwen" but there was no need to delete other content that I had added in the article!
I found the deletion rather agressive as I do hail from Darwen originally and perhaps know a wee thing or two more than he does!
Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.92.87 ( talk) 22:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I am Irene Brodsky, age 62, and was recently added to Wikipedia by one of my readers in India. And i tried to add as much as I could to the article he set up for me. Much of this was removed by someone I did not know., And much said about me was not true. I also did not get any advice how to fix up my page Only criticisms and none of these people told me their credentials. but they were certainly trying to down-size my credentials. Please advise how I can get my article back and tell me how to fix it and I will do so. Irene Brodsky —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates1x2 ( talk • contribs) 03:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Nazargunj ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
an article on 'nazargunj' has been tagged since March 2008 suggesting there are multiple issues e.g. not enough of an introduction, etc. This has been edited since to address such issues. Can someone please review it to see if it is now satisfactory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazargunj ( talk • contribs) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The article needs editing to conform to the manual of style. It would be preferable to have more than one source and to have inline citations. It may not conform to the notability guidelines, I am putting some links on your talk page that will show you where to find further information about editing on Wikipedia. Jezhotwells ( talk) 23:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Blue_Ocean_Strategy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I attempted to add a citation but destroyed the References but cannot resolve to undo. I feel terrible for the mess-up & would like to draw attention to the unintended removal. Halukmesci ( talk) 08:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
check out IP edit,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrochemistry
I guess that is less conspicuous that adding "Erin Andrews" ... Nerdseeksblonde ( talk) 15:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion page for the reference desk keeps getting deleted. Its filesize keeps alternating between about 1kB and 72kB. I think there might be a user who feels he was wronged, and he wants to disrupt talk pages until he is satisfied. I'm not sure who to report this to, so I'm putting this here. Gary ( talk) 23:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
British Isles ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm a wikipedia reader, rather than an editor. I've been reading the British Isles article and the associated talk pages.
Its clear to me that there's a disagreement going on which cannot be solved on those talk pages.
To state my bias: I am a citizen of Ireland; however I am trying to remain as unbiased as possible here.
The vast majority of Irish people (as sourced in that article) object to use of the term 'British Isles' as a culturally imperialist term.
Most people from Britian do not agree; they are of the opinion it is a geographical term, and therefore should be kept.
While I understand that wikipedia does not discriminate against editors on a geographical basis, it is a fact that there are more British people than Irish people, and hence, (if we assume anyway even distribution of wikipedia contributors across both states), there will always be more editoral opinion in favour of use of the term 'British Isles'. Clearly, this is the case from reading the talk pages. Equally clearly, there is no consensus there; indeed, considering the long history of this debate, none seems forthcoming.
The status quo appears to be that as there are more British editors (it is quite clear from looking at the talk pages of the main contributors that the main editors in favour of the term are, in fact, British), the page title remains 'British Isles'. This is a term, that as stated, is horribly, amazingly offensive to most Irish people.
This really needs looking into, and resolution, from more Wikipedia editors, and not just those local to the term (those from Irish and the UK).
Ideally, there would be no geographical bias, but one is here, and manifesting, and this needs to be fixed.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.166.150 ( talk • contribs)
Please do not re-direct me, I've already been round the block. RashersTierney ( talk) 23:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Most SPI cases are decided based upon behavioral evidence, that is, the behavior of the accounts, users or IPs concerned. The evidence needs to be quite strong, not just a vague belief or assumption. Certainty may not be possible; it is usual for a decision to be made based upon an experienced user's judgement of likelihood. If the evidence suggests it is likely that abuse has taken place, then action may be taken.
People skills ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Requesting assistance about procedures for recreating the People Skills article. The information is under “The Pillars” on my talk page. Thank you. PSY7 ( talk) 04:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The page search redirects to Wiktionary stating Wikipedia has no People Skills page with a template:long comment and monitor. What is the procedure for changing this template? PSY7 ( talk) 23:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I did ask 16:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC) without reply (please see "The Pillars" on my talk page) PSY7 ( talk) 00:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The article is in my user space for editors to look over. All the references have been clarified and verified. PSY7 ( talk) 21:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
My concerns with this user are that he or she seems completely non-communicative in the face of multiple notices about his or her image uploads. He or she continues his or her upload pattern, blithely pushing ahead without paying any apparent attention to his or her talk page. I have posted a request for communication to no avail. His or her only talk page edits have been to delete a brief discussion on Talk:Snow White (Disney) without explanation or comment (twice).
WriteINGWell's article-space edits are often trivial or subtle changes in wording, yet he or she does occasionally provide useful, referenced information. (See, e.g., this series of 13 consecutive edits).
I appreciate any thoughts on where to go next.
-- Powers T 12:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Toronto Port Authority ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am requesting assistance for the article on the Toronto Port Authority. Various authors including myself have contributed to the article for years. The article was in dispute a number of years ago. It is my belief that all contributors to this article, including myself, reached a consensus some time ago. A new contributor, "Alaney2K" has been rewriting the article line by line since the fall of 2008. The NPOV of the article is now in dispute due to the substantial rewrite dome by "Alaney2K". I am not familiar with the sequence of events for resolving a dispute of this type. My preference would be to have the page locked as it was about 6 months ago. Thanks. Kdickson ( talk) 14:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I am requesting assistance for a second article I created for Book Author and Dating Expert Alan Roger Currie. The first article got deleted for severe lack of citations and references, and for being too "press release" like. The second one has a number of citations to support the content. Would like feedback and suggestions for improvement. Even if it needs to be shortened. Thank you. User talk:Chicago Smooth/New Alan Roger Currie article
Chicago Smooth ( talk) 11:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Comparison of Notability - I keep reading where various editors have challenged the 'notability' of Book Author Alan Roger Currie; In my opinion, it very much depends on who you are comparing him to.
Here are articles for subjects who are in the same line of work as Book Author Alan Roger Currie; I would like a review of what makes these dating and relationship authors and experts "more credible" or "more notable" than the subject of my article:
I feel like my subject (Book Author Alan Roger Currie) is just as notable, if not more notable, then most of the authors and dating experts listed above. Chicago Smooth ( talk) 12:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
i NEED YOUR EXPERTISE TO ALIGN THE INFORMATION IN A BLANK TABLE PROPERLY IN RESPECT TO THE "ORIGINAL CAST" OF THIS OPERA AS IT WAS PRESENTED IN PARIS ON APRIL 28, 1865. I WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN THE FIRST AND LAST NAMES OF ALL THE PERFORMERS BUT I A AM NOT SURE THAT THEY ARE IN THE RIGHT PLACE. PLEASE EDIT ACCORDINGLY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.43.233 ( talk) 17:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Gordon Lish was an editor and sometimes-writer who was influential in mid-20th century American fiction.
About 2 years ago, I spent a lot of time wikifying his article, but I was finding my edits reverted by users who seemed to be Lish family members. Their edits maintained the article in a state of literal chaos, with random uncited facts, no headings, no flow, weasel words, and nuggets that only friends and family could know (which were not worth noting anyway.) Often the edit summary would be the only citation, and the reference would be "see NYT July 1962." Eventually the article hit an equilibrium when other editors started maintaining it.
I took a long break from wikipedia and I just noticed that this article was reverted entirely back to chaos. I took the unusual step of reverting it back to its form of January 2007 (I really don't think there are any substantive differences in the meantime, believe it or not). Perhaps there might have been a better "restore point" but I wanted to get it fixed, and I explained myself on the talk page.
I would really appreciate having another editor take a look at the article and perhaps, if possible, put it on some kind of watch list to prevent destructive reversions. I would rather it be wikified and light on marginalia than a total mess with lots of random tidbits. Thanks! - Dmz5 *Edits* *Talk* 18:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I have a question regarding the adding of a related article. I tried to add a related article to the 2009 Nazran bombing article, namely the Civil war in Ingushetia. However a user reverted my edit asking for a source. We tried to settle it ( My talk page, His/Her talk page), however this user insists on that he's/she's merely enforcing Wikipedia policy. I don't get it, what policy exactly? Why do I have to source a Wikipedia article? If there's a problem with the article itself not properly sourced, wouldn't it be proper to put a tag on it's page instead of deleting a related link I put in the "related articles" section of another article? I also noticed that this user has been accused of Wikipedia policies violations. IJK_Principle ( talk) 02:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I came to Wikipedia hoping to find a page on Peter Toon, the late Anglican advocate for a traditional Prayer Book, and was amazed to not find one. I am new to Wikipedia, and was willing to spend a little time putting something up. What I gather is that his name is the issue. For although he is mentioned a few places in other pages, creating a page is difficult due largely to his surname
Would like to create
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Toon
but apparently need help to do so.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SongspiritUSA ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
In an an attempt to remove the hyphen/dash from an article title (with an existing second article having a title with no hyphenation and a redirect to the hyphenated article), I made the poor choice of using an outdated manual move (simultaneous cut/paste of the two articles) instead of following WP:MOVE, and hence, lost histories. Please advice on how to best proceed now. Which procedure to best follow: Wikipedia:MOVE#Swapping two pages OR Wikipedia:MOVE#Fixing cut and paste moves?. Would like Non-commutative ring to be the redirect to Noncommutative ring with "Noncommutative ring" being the main article. Thank you. Henry Delforn ( talk) 22:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to request correction and comment advice on my userpage article. I have requested this on my discussion/user talk page, and have not recieved any comments. Now that I have written the article with edits; what do I do next? Shizuye ( talk) 23:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Shizuye
My name is Darrell Howarth I think my girl friend is in the hospital her name is Gina Rosas can some body return email to me how she is and if its possible to contact her, And if I fly there if I can visit her. (Email redacted)
Darrell Howarth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.14.100.41 ( talk) 09:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Please review the article for Lee_Zehrer. It is unclear why this is deleted.. It is relevant to business and web culture and as (if not more) significant than all of the following articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Barton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Kawasaki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kremen
Lee Zehrer was a pioneer in the development of Web 1.0 and social media. He built the first online dating business with many more members than Match.com when he sold to them. If Gary Kremen has a wiki page, Lee Zehrer certainly should. If it is a issue of inclusion or significance, please re-instate and I will personally make sure that this article meets those specifications.
Here is the article noted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Zehrer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.110.226 ( talk) 16:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
dear madam,dear sir:
i found a "message" for me at wikipedia that my contribution about kahoolawe was reversed or something by "blue clot"??
i never did edit anything, although by coincidence i live in hawaii (lahaina, island of maui) i believe this is a case of mistaken idendity.
best regards and aloha
john blahuta Lahaina, Maui, HI email removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.99.39 ( talk) 08:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey! There is a dispute in the Persian gulf talk page about my reversed edits with another editor. I seek help from a more experienced member. Egyptian lion ( talk) 06:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I put a request in the active disagreements section but none interfered to resolve the dispute yet. Egyptian lion ( talk) 19:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, ICROA ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICROA I am the author of the ICROA article. We attempted to make it as neutral as possible, but there are two tags on the article - one for conflict of interest and one for the referencing, saying there aren't enough third party sources.
I would like to know how organisations can create articles on themselves. Further, we are a new organisation, less than a year old. therefore, there arent many 3rd party sources available talking about ICROA. What should we do in this case? How can we identify correct sources?
Thank you Secretariat ICROA -- Secretariat ICROA ( talk) 09:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
This editor appears to be deliberately targetting another editors ( Sillyfolkboy) revisions with no summary for reverts or apparent reason. Please see [5] <-that for the users contributions. The editor whose edits are being reverted is highly unlikely to request help in resolving the problem (taken from experience) and also has their edits targeted by user Jw2035 due to supporting different football teams (please see here for proof of targeting [6]. Jw2035 has had a previous account Jw2034 where he had been given temporary bans for disruptive editing. I'm nowhere near skilled enough to look into this kind of things, but was hoping that someone would be able to see if the users (Xxc2009 and Jw2035/Jw2034) are connected and also help in pointing me in the right direction of getting (at the least) the disruptive Xxc2009 blocked. Thanks and I hope I'm not putting this in the wrong place. Fol de rol troll ( talk) 20:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed that there are many articles that have names of famous people transcribed into foreign scripts, but no reference given for the transcription. Isn't this WP:OR? How do we verify that these names were transcribed correctly? Webbbbbbber ( talk) 21:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm a newbie author but am working on an entry that will require a disambiguation page. That's secondary, at this point, because my references are still messy. I'm currently looking for a standard model for citing a youtube video, for one, but I feel uncertain about a number of my references. This page concerns a prolific author who's getting increased media attention (currently featured in WIRED), so I'd like to get help soon. Thank you. Neredowell ( talk) 22:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
hello ... I posted an article on Michel Vulpe, who is the co-inventor of a patent owned by the company he founded, i4i, which recently won a patent infringement trial against Microsoft. My article is a factual summary of who he is and his achievements to date. I would like the dispute to be resolved so that my article can be posted in wikipedia. Please help? Winter2009 ( talk) 01:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've never contacted an editor before, but I'm interested in talking to one about a project that I'm going to be starting soon with a University class at IUPUI.
I'm looking to find an editor in or around the Indiana area that I could discuss the project with to make sure that this project is fitting well within the scope of Wikipedia.
Many thanks, -- Richard McCoy ( talk) 13:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
(Email redacted)
Please block User talk:71.31.61.65 at least temporarily. I am getting tired of reverting nonsense on Glenn Martin, DDS. Thanks. Americasroof ( talk) 20:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Kent Hovind ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello, thanks for your time to examine this matter.
I made a small contribution to an article I am very well familiar with, and it has been undone twice, the first time I had a note saying my information was biased. But I only contributed a fact about employees that was directly related to charges being discussed, which was completely appropriate, and I added a verse after another verse to show both sides of the debate (which actually brings neutrality, not bias )
Upon the second undoing of my contribution, I stated it was verifiable about Kent Hovind's family being over 80% of those employed in the "ministry" and that the verse addition was to balance to the one immediately before it.
I took the time to see he has been actually shaping the article to be biased against this man, and when any attempt to bring objectivity into the article is made, he will scrap it claiming bias, of which he only is guilty.
PLEASE take action to prevent this pest from harassing people who are just concerned over the facts, I am not a Kent Hovind follower, but I didn't like how he is being magligned, and I believe I would do this for anyone in the name of justice.
thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thankful21&3 ( talk • contribs) 21:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Bookkeeperoftheoccult ( talk · contribs) keeps editing and trying to say Chris Brown is not a convicted felon. He even cites an article which clearly states 90% of felony convitions are handled by plea arrangements. On his own cite he states his racist views. Ban him and delete all his comments/edits/ 76.173.119.61 ( talk) 22:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The exact incident the IP is talking about can be seen here. Though how that accounts to racism is beyond me. The IP also vandalized my user page as seen here. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks to me the exact incident can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chris_Brown_%28entertainer%29#Convicted_Felon_2 Yopienso ( talk) 04:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I am a Member of the Group Black Moon. There is a sub page for the other two members, Buckshot and Da Beatminers, but me (5ft) I wanted to also create one with my biography and projects. How do I do this?
23:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fivefever ( talk • contribs)
In October there was a dispute because Sean Hannity's page had no criticism. I stumbled across it again today, and naturally there were NO criticisms.
I put some back in, asked that people stop whitewashing the page in the criticisms section, and before I was even done it was reverted. I added it again, and once again requested that this behavior stop, and was once again reverted.
I continued discussion in the talk page, at which point another one of this page's "criticism police" began defending the "reverter".
Can we get some dispute resolution? I'd respectfully like to see the blurb that we all agreed was fair put back in, the page locked, and if the "reverts" see fit at that point I'm more than happy to discuss it.
FuriousJorge ( talk) 07:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like you have no problem with the second part, then. It's a start. Mind putting it back in? I can do it.
FuriousJorge (
talk) 08:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
FuriousJorge ( talk) 09:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
While all this back-and-forth takes place, the page - remarkably - reflects no criticism whatsoever of the highly controversial Hannity. Will one of you please start up a request for comment to bring in some disinterested parties? Thanks. JohnInDC ( talk) 11:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
FuriousJorge ( talk) 11:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Enough! This bickering isn't making the Hannity page any better and it's tiresome for other editors to have to wade through it. Please take one of the many steps available to advance the discussion, rather than continuing on in circles. JohnInDC ( talk) 11:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
FuriousJorge ( talk) 02:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
FuriousJorge ( talk) 04:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
If someone removes all negative information about a subject without discussion (much like you did to me yesterday), how can that be described any way other than vandalism? The info was perfectly referenced, and the matter was settled for six months prior. Then one person who is sympathetic to censorship comes along, completely whitewashed the article, and rather than condemn the behavior we reward it by restarting a discussion about its validity for inclusion to begin with. You may be right that voting is not wikipedia policy, but at the end of the day the information was there for six months. That in and of itself is the proof of what the community decided. Your behavior continues to completely undermine Wikipedia. FuriousJorge ( talk) 04:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
First of all, you dodged the vandalism question... again. If deleting all criticism and not discussing after the information was collaborated into the article for months does not constitute vandalism, then please explain why. Second of all, if Side A supports one position and Side B supports another, and Side A's position made it into the article after official intervention, please tell me which side "won". You are right that there is no voting policy. There is only what makes it in.
You will not answer these questions, but you will misrepresent again and say the information was poorly sourced when it wasn't. Many people collaborated to get that right.
You have an issue with the Nation? Fine. Take that part and leave all the other unbiased sources in there. You didn't do that did you? Just like the original vandal you delete first and post discussion never.
Are you going to dodge my questions again? FuriousJorge ( talk)
First of all, you dodged the vandalism question... again. If deleting all criticism and not discussing after the information was collaborated into the article for months does not constitute vandalism, then please explain why. Second of all, if Side A supports one position and Side B supports another, and Side A's position made it into the article after official intervention, please tell me which side "won". You are right that there is no voting policy. There is only what makes it in.
Answered vandalism question so directly I can't be accused of dodging it again. Secondly, I again, saw no example of the consensus you claim. I saw a lot of arguing and little agreement, hardly suitable to claim widespread consensus. Please stop claiming such, thank you.
You will not answer these questions, but you will misrepresent again and say the information was poorly sourced when it wasn't. Many people collaborated to get that right.
Misrepresent? Please, the information for the entire first paragraph was nothing but TheNation, Newshounds, a blog, and an MSNBC bit on how bad Hal Turner was, NOT ON THE RELATIONSHIP WITH HANNITY! This bears repeating: HANNITY IS NOT MENTIONED IN ANY OF THE SOURCES THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE CONSIDERED CREDIBLE (and even then, MSNBC is still shaky). That is why I removed the content. As for the second paragraph, the "LA Times" correspondent was doing a piece for NPR (that's what On the Media is, a National Public Radio piece), so basically you have NYT piece, whose only criticism seemed to be "under fire from liberals" and Washington Post, which is about Olbermann and Hannity. I'd say it's ok to go in, but it doesn't need more than a couple of lines really.
You have an issue with the Nation? Fine. Take that part and leave all the other unbiased sources in there. You didn't do that did you? Just like the original vandal you delete first and post discussion never. Are you going to dodge my questions again?
No I have an issue with the Nation, a blog, and Newshounds suddenly becoming WP:RS exclusively for your criticism section. Not a whole lot of other "unbiased" information. No I didn't leave a bunch of contentious material in a WP:BLP, as that's policy. Soxwon ( talk) 05:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, newshounds was removed in the most recently reverted version. Once again you are... misrepresenting. That leaves the bergen record, the nyt, the lat, etc. It's funny what you can try to pass off as not reliable when you want to. I'll give you this, you finally addressed the question, but now it's clear why it took so long. Weak. Sorry about your patience though. FuriousJorge ( talk) 05:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Why can't we have this conversation without misrepresenting. The nation is a newspaper that has existed since before the word "blog". You could say "left-leaning" sources have criticized hannity and still have The Record of Bergen County as non-left leaning source in that blurb. Or you could just have The Record. I don't care. Once again, newshounds was removed from the final version. Either way, stop misrepresenting. FuriousJorge ( talk) 05:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
... and here you have "the new american" pointing out that Hannity has been criticized for his giving neo-nazi hal turner a forum. http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/1701 This article is from last week, and of course you will tell me this is still not relevant when people are writing about it a decade later. God forbid there should be one criticism in hannity's page, right? FuriousJorge ( talk) 05:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC) ROFTLOL, did you really just post a fringe piece quoting a blog as a credible source? That's rich and shows no concept of what WP:RS means. Soxwon ( talk) 05:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
What a joke. The New American has existed since the 50s. It is even a conservative publication. What a surprise that we are now debating its credibility (read: misrepresenting). You can't help but prove my point. FuriousJorge FuriousJorge ( talk) 06:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs, give me your honest opinion please. If hannity is still criticized among left-leaning outlets today for this relationship, and the sources for this information are a conservative magazine and a local (albeit 2nd largest in NJ) newspaper, does that constitute reliable sources and due credit? Please read the information in question (most recent reversion), and tell me what you think. FuriousJorge ( talk) 06:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I see why you think I'm out to get him, but I'm just defending what I and others fought for and got in October. I don't post for any other political figure. When no one was looking, all criticism was removed and I think some should go back in. Problem is the page's "sponsors" won't allow it, which only further motivates me. FuriousJorge ( talk) 06:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, but allow me to respond. This article, only a week old, acknowledges that criticism exists from left-leaning sources, regardless of whether it endorses that criticism. The bergen record article, which i think you should read before deciding, is 10 years old and simply states that a local radio guy is giving a forum to this questionable character. In between there are hundreds of left-leaning publications that criticize hannity, ergo Hannity still receives criticism to this day. You may still say "Well, that isn't such a big thing," but if that's the case which is the lesser of two evils: having this criticism in there, or having this page exist with no criticism for months at a time because someone thought it was ok to remove it all in June (and now a vocal few censors wont allow any of it put back in)?
If you still don't agree, I respect that. At least you discussed it on merits. I'm just wondering if you could look at the last few reverts and decide if ANY of that criticism deserves a place in the article. FuriousJorge ( talk) 07:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
My request for comment has finally come through on this article. I respectfully request that we move this to the article's discussion section.
Talk:Sean_Hannity#Who_Removed_All_the_Criticism_From_This_Article_in_June
I feel that the paroxetine page suffers from a negative POV. This is a very widely used medication, but the page reads as if it is harmful and discourages use, despite its endorsement by the FDA. Any suggestions? Neurofish ( talk) 14:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Neurofish
(moved from WT:EAR) Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Part 1 is here: WP:Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_58#Content_dispute_on_Party_in_the_U.S.A.
Despite consensus User:ipodnano05 again reverted 2 his/her preferred version. Not surprised as Miley stans are crazy. I'm reverting and including newwed edits that others have added. Look thru the revision history & ipod is dominating, repeatedly reverting others contributions. 70.108.108.151 ( talk) 00:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I have an dispute with contents on the pages Old Apostolic Church ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Reformed Old Apostolic Church ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
I have edited both pages and believe that I have placed sufficient proof (sources). This pages are constantly being changed by anti-Old Apostolic Church and pro-Reformed Old Apostolic Church members, who removes the info I placed with its sources.
I need someone to look at this information on both pages.
With Thanks
SaneSerenity ( talk) 08:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to request assistance with the policy proposal page Wikipedia:Scientific standards, particularly from editors who have not been previously involved with that page.
Firs, some background. In August 2008 ScienceApologist started a new policy proposal page at Wikipedia:Scientific standards. The proposal was edited and discussed during August and September 2008, with another burst of discussion in December 2008, but no consensus emerged. I was involved in some of these discussions - see Wikipedia talk:Scientific standards and its archives. In March 2009, after the proposal had been dormant for 3 months, Levine2112 added the {{historical}} tag to the page. On 19 August 2009 ScienceApologist removed that tag with the explanation "Now that I'm no longer banned from editing Wikipedia, I'd like to discuss coming to terms with writing standards about how to write articles on various subjects. I removed the historical designation for this reason". In the following 24 hours there were 3 minor edits to the page, but no discussion emerged on its talk page. As the article has now been entirely dormant for a further week, I restored the {{historical}} tag earlier today. Within an hour the tag was removed again by another old contributor to the page, Verbal, with the edit comment "too heavily involved to make this decision". This comment was presumably directed at me.
If you are an editor who has not previously been involved with this policy proposal page, please can you consider whether the {{historical}} tag should be restored to the page, and contribute your views to the talk page discussion here. Thank you. Gandalf61 ( talk) 10:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I just recieved a email response from the director of the Huntington Museum of Art. She not only verified that Victor Arbogast has a sculpture that is part of their permanent collection, but also is in a current exhibition there. She asked if her email is enough verification or do you require a letter on their letterhead, or do you just need me to reference to the museum's website www.hmoa.org? Thank you. Shizuye ( talk) 18:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Shizuye
Hello, I'm writing about Victor Arbogast in my user space. In the References I can list: www.hmoa.org Huntington Museum of Art. Attention Permanent Collections database: Kinetic Force #3; 1977.99 Executive Director: Margaret Mary Layne. Is this enough of a direction for the reader? Shizuye ( talk) 18:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Shizuye, 8/31/09
I created a new category for recipients of a military decoration ( Category:Recipients of the Air Medal). "What links here" at the article Air Medal suggests that there may be somewhere in the low hundreds of article that qualify for inclusion in the category. Do I have to open each article and insert the category into it (i.e., do it by brute force), or is there a way of doing some kind of batch job that can grab the qualifying articles and do it quickly? (I have found nothing on Wikipedia that suggests there is, although I have seen large numbers of article added quickly to new categories. Is that all done by brute force?) Mdnavman ( talk) 05:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)mdnavman
Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Prendergast ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello,
I am trying to see if a profile, bio, can be copyrighted on wiki under anything other than public domain (Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0).
My understanding of public domain is that anyone can use the text and/or images and change them in any way that they choose. Is that correct?
If that is the case, can you please suggest another licensing option provided by Wikipedia?
Thank you so much! Nell Okie <e-mail redacted>
69.177.103.108 ( talk) 21:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC) P.S. I did submit a question on talk to the volunteer who deleted post but never heard back from him.
Link prior to deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Prendergast
I submitted and article to free reading and I want it deleted. This is the link http://www.freereading.net/images/9/9d/SEDU_511_ReadMeFirst_Session_2.doc
Thank you for taking care of this for me.-- 174.102.138.8 ( talk) 21:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I posted a comment on Talk:Banana which was intended to and did result in the removal of inappropriate content from the locked page. (I forgot to sign the comment, and was using a different dynamic IP at that time, but 69.208.12.245 was me.)
User:Baseball Bugs removed my comment and another editor's response to it calling it irrelevant and vandalism. He has not replied to a message left on his talk page asking for a justification of the removal. Clearly at least one of us is out of line, and I don't want to revert him again until I know who. What is the preferred way to handle this? 76.211.18.45 ( talk) 03:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Fleetflame and Powers for your thoughts. I tried asking Baseball Bugs on his talk page first but got no response, so I started looked for someone who would give me an explanation and found this place. I think I'll tell him that a discussion occured here. Then, I probably won't escalate the matter any further. 76.211.18.45 ( talk) 05:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mike, I'm trying to get an article up to par, but rather than help me, there's a couple folks that want a quick deletion. I have tried to alk to this "Hoary" guy, but he just flings insults and inapproiate remarks instead of just taking a second look at things. I'm going to stick to my guns with this article, but I do want the article to be acceptable to the community. I guess this is an SOS. What can I do to keep the article on wikipedia? I will make any changes required. Thanks,
--Writer of this article 08:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC) ARRGG this gets frustrating :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyswords ( talk • contribs) 08:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The company "LetsLogic" continually tries to add their particular Sokoban game clone to the link section on the "Sokoban" game page, no matter how often we from the "Sokoban community" delete the link.
The Wikipedia article in question is this one: Sokoban ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The link in question is this one: http://www.letslogic.com/ The Online Sokoban Community
Despite its name "The Online Sokoban Community", this is just another Sokoban clone, and as can be seen on the "Discussion" page for the "Sokoban" article, it has for years been the policy of the "Sokoban community" to keep the Wikipedia article on Sokoban free from links to any of the thousands of implementations of the game, and the "LetsLogic" website is no different from hundreds of other websites and clones which is at least as - and even more - relevant for the game.
Therefore, please bar "LetsLogic" from their vandalism by whatever means you have at your disposal, e.g., by blocking the article for further editing by all non-trusted editors. Otherwise, it leads to the unfortunate situation that a lot of other Sokoban clone authors will react by saying they should have the same rights to use Wikipedia as a "link farm".
Best regards
Brian Damgaard
Briandamgaard ( talk) 10:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)briandamgaard
Things seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot at Template talk:Major cities of Greater China. I'm not sure why and I'm not sure what to do. Rather than potentially making things worse by continuing to discuss there, I'm hoping that another editor might step in and provide us with some guidance. Related to the discussion are the edit history at [7] (history of User_talk:Dave1185) and the talk at User talk:Lennlin and User_talk:Readin. Readin ( talk) 13:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been accused of spamming the Aebleskiver ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page because I posted a link in the 'External Links' section to a page on my site has instructional cooking video & step by step photos & instructions on how to cook aebleskiver. The content of the video is branded, but I feel it is relevant to someone who is trying to figure out what 'aebleskiver' are and how they are made. I've also followed the precedent of the Solvang Restaurant which link to a history of aebleskiver on their branded site.
Copied text External links
* The Story of Aebleskiver (Solvang Restaurant, Solvang, California) * Cooking Tips & Instructional Video (Aunt Else's Æbleskiver, Minneapolis, Minnesota)
End of copied text
I've contacted the guy who has been removing my link to address the situation in person as well, and am hoping we can all just get along.
Chad.gillard ( talk) 17:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Portal:Turkey/Related portals ( | [[Talk:Portal:Turkey/Related portals|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A while when I started contributing to WP and I noticed that Portal:Turkey didn't list Portal:Kurdistan in the related portal's sections. I added it as I felt that Turkey and Kurdistan are very much related too each other. Not just because of the position of the Kurds these days but because the issue of Kurds is one that is one of the top priority's of Turkey today. It got removed 5 times over a period of 11 months by anon Ip's, none of them gave a reason for doing so. So I was able to revert most of them.
On August 24 User:Turkish Flame reduced the amount of portals listed in an attempt to make the main portal page look better. I agreed with him but thought that too many portal that we're related to Turkey had been removed. I added some of the back, but I had trouble getting them centered. I went to him and asked for his help on his talkpage. He helped me very good by centering all the portals. But in doing so he removed the link to Portal:Kurdistan. At first I thought this was an accident and he had somehow forgotten to put it back when he edited the page. So I added it back to the page and thanked him for his assistance.
But right after my edit he reverted me with the reason removing the portal of a region of a neighbouring country. He misunderstood Portal:Kurdistan as being a Portal for Iraqi Kurdistan and not for Kurdistan(which it is). I tried explaining it to him and we had a very shot debate after which he didn't respond to me. I reverted him 3 days later, but shortly after he reverted me again.
So I've come here to see if someone else can be of some assistance. I don't want this turning into a revert war, but I think that Portal:Kurdistan is just waay to related to exclude from Portal:Turkey ~ Zirguezi 17:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a dispute occurring over Humane Society of the United States, List of animal rights groups, and Template:Animal liberation. The discussion has been spread across multiple talk pages, but the conversation has been completely copied to Talk:Humane Society of the United States#Animal rights vs. Animal_welfare.
This is a highly charged topic, with many lawsuits and legal initiatives being pushed by animal rights groups with very large budgets. I have tried to document that the Humane Society of the United States is an animal rights group, and supported it with a valid, published reference. As you can see from the discussion, there are efforts to claim that any opposition to the HSUS violated NPOV, despite almost exclusive quotes from the HSUS's web site. Both sides are not being represented, and all involved are clearly biased. However, even downgraded "neutral" language favors one side. – Visionholder ( talk) 22:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I have a dispute with a administrator by the name of "DeLarge." I've spent the last hour trying to figure out how to report a admin. This is not very user friendly to please any help is greatly appreciated. He is clearly showing bias on his deletion on multiple articles, and honestly he is being plain ignorant to me in the talk section. I would like to get this resolved and have a mutual edit be placed on the article MIVEC ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Please email me, or respond here. I would be very appreciative. Justin5117 ( talk) 00:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Tried to create a title for the concept of "contributory causation," with a redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality#Necessary_and_sufficient_causes but got a message that such a title was blacklisted. Must be a mistake. Could an admin please create this redirect for me?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ai.kefu ( talk • contribs) 01:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to write article on Du Pont de Nemours and Company's product Zemdrain. It shows up "Criteria for speedy deletion" G11 and G12 messages;
I see similar articles on all the product related information from Du Pont chemicals in Wikipedia.
I request you to assist me. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kandula Venkateswara Reddy (
talk •
contribs) 18:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Plus-size model ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am having difficulty with an editor to this article who insists on including citations defining who wears plus-size clothing, which have nothing to do with the definition of plus-size model, nor the business of being such a person. This person is not civil, does not act in good faith or participate in discussion, and reverts to their edits without considering new work on the article done in the interim between reverts.
I have taken the liberty of transferring the user's edits to the relevant article plus-size clothing, even though I find them to be lacking neutrality, simply to get this person diverted. I do not expect that they will allow this action to pass however, and will revert all of the other new work out of the article yet again. Can you assist please? Please read section 32 of the discussion page (there are earlier sections discussing clothing definitions with the general consensus that they do not belong) and provide a third opinion or whatever assistance you are allowed to offer. Thank you 3RingCircus ( talk) 13:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I have tried to edit this page:
to include the assertion by circuit court judge James Fox in regards to the amount of states required to ratify the 16th amendment. He asserts that in actuality, not enough states ratified this amendment, but the fact that it has been upheld for such a long time makes the point moot. This is one of the pivotal points of the tax protester movement, and the full text of this assertion in the case Sullivan v. US can be found here:
http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Documents/CarolinaJudge16th.pdf
I also noted that the term "properly ratified" in quotation marks asserts by itself that the statement has no validity, and that against the basic tenets of Wikipedia, in my opinion. In fact, it seems as if the whole page is skewed in a manner that destroys any inkling of credibility tax protesters might have in their arguments. I have tried to include it in several different ways, however there is one editor in particular who seems to be limited by his own abilities to accept that this may be the case. He has insulted me in the discussion page, and I have clearly pointed to at least seven references on different websites with varying points of view on the subject that all show that Judge Fox asserted this point in a legally recorded stenographer account of what was said in his courtroom. I believe his ego as a senior editor is clouding his judgement, because he seems to be smug in the fact that he is more knowledgeable than others about tax laws. While this may be true, it is clearly documented in many places that this statement was made by Judge Fox, and has yet to be directly refuted, and is again one of the cornerstones of the tax protester argument in recent years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paraplegicemu ( talk • contribs) 14:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Neredowell/Mark_Sloan section on <<architecture students>> trying to cite two youtube videos in Notes, following http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Referencenotes but lost somewhere. Please help. Thanks. Neredowell ( talk) 21:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Fact: The Big Ten has designated Indiana and Northwestern as Purdue's official Football rivals, and yet for over a year someone keeps editing out Northwestern and replacing them with Illinois who Purdue only plays 4 of 6 years, I assume since they play for a "trophy" this person assumes that makes them major rivals.
Big Ten Conference ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Purdue Boilermakers football ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
If Illinois is such a major rival, why dose Purdue play Notre Dame, Indiana and Northwestern every year and Illinois 2 years in a row, skipping 2 years and play 2 years in a row? Trophies do not make "major rivalries'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.37.212 ( talk) 04:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
While I was sourcing the Singles Discography on the article for matchbox twenty, I was unable to find a source for most of the singles chartings in the UK, so I removed them. When they were re-added without a source, I took it to the New Contributors Help Page [8] and was told that I should remove all the unsourced chartings and post a message in the talk page asking for a source. I did so and left a message, however, they were re-added again without anyone posting a message in the talk page or giving a source for them. I reverted this and left another message in the talk page. However, this also hasn't been answered and a number of the unsourced chartings restored. This has been done by two IP users, who are probably the same person considering their edits. I'm not sure how to stop them; i have no issues with their information as long as they provide sources, but at the moment they refuse to tell me where they are even getting it from, so some advice on how to sovle the issue would be appreciated. Hitthat ( talk) 06:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
This source [9] gives the UK chart position for 3 AM. Wikiproject Songs has information about reliable charts. Jezhotwells ( talk) 22:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Here is The Proof http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3595099/ and also can You help wrte an article about this actor please? 04:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC) James.Cooper.Manager ( talk) 04:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The west coast town of Kennet River, on the Great Ocean Road, Victoria, Australia is marked on all original Victorian maps as spelt with just the one 't'. All locals of the area, myself being a one time local, will argue passionately that Kennet River is in fact spelt with the one 't'. I have edited all other text on the page to it's correct spelling, but cannot alter the page name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.155.251 ( talk) 08:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I've been working with User:Suomi Finland 2009, a new editor (account created 8 September 2009) who is energetic and enthusiastic and wants to make big improvements to Wikipedia. The problem is that he doesn't know much about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and tends to misread the ones he does know about. Whenever he comes up with an unhelpful idea and starts implementing it, I explain to him why it is unhelpful, and this works: he stops doing it. But then he immediately develops another unhelpful idea and runs with that. I have pointed him to the general information for newcomers, and to John Broughton's Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. The reason I'm involved is that he and I both have a special interest in the article Alamogordo, New Mexico, so our paths often cross. He works on a lot of other articles, too, and has been corrected by some other editors. Any ideas how to steer him in a more helpful direction? It's getting wearying. Thanks. -- Uncia ( talk) 22:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
If the user agrees, adoption sounds like the way forward.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 23:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Play School (UK TV series) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please can I have some help with an edit I just completed to the page on BBC programme Playschool, which can be seen on my recent contributions page! I tried to add my first link at the bottom, and did the following:
But if a more experiended editor checks this page (I will try and come back with a direct link) you will see it has not shown correctly. The link works but it has a [2] there and not the URL. It would help if you explain on My Talk where I went wrong, so I don't repeat the error.
You can find the page I edited BBC Birmingham then via Play School click on the top link Play School : UK TV series.
It is only the URL link that is wrong and needs correcting as far as I can see. Thank You David
Angliaman ( talk) 01:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a learning curve for me, you were right to take the link down, as on further reading the links section, I would have come to the conclusion it was needless to add one. I was thinking for verification puposes. But the article already included a link which I added, to the media city mediacity:uk is in the article, and so no need to clutter with more links.
Thanks to you and others for your help, this matter is now sorted
Angliaman ( talk) 09:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Angliaman ( talk) 09:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
See my comments on the S.V. discussion talk page. This article is too important to world history for us to permit the inelloquent prose of a collaborative effort, and the major consequences of the Vespers, that it affected world history, is left almost unmentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siciliano99 ( talk • contribs) 03:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
IDology,_Inc. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( edit: the above link may not work due to trailing period, use this IDology,_Inc. ) This didn't seem to be a big deal but author removed my advert tag, then blanked page after I re added. A second new user has apparently re-created the page and another editor reverted some edits back to the version I had left behind. Not sure what to make of it. The article had a bit of an ad tone but I thought it may have been salvagable if notability could be established and puffery (I'm using this term liberally as many claims probably could be tested but puffery as per legal usage IIRC refers to untestable statements ) removed. Thanks. Nerdseeksblonde ( talk) 14:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
There has been several personal attacks on historical figures in this Sino-Indian War ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [ [17]] page.Also a brief look in archives will show that a user named Xingdong has been misusing Wikipedia's freedom for quite a while.Personal attacks on people can be tolerated to certain extents but attacks on historical figures shall not go unpunished. I did my duty by informing Authorties/Admin rest is up to you. Cheers, Swift&silent ( talk) 19:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I never said a word about orbat not when i added it and post reverted(I promised as you can see in discussion page that I will try to make better edits in future.Seriously I thought of orbat as a good site.) But thats not the point,I want to point your attention on Personal attacks on historical leader (Nehru) and also some obviously biased remarks. As for orbat,dont worry I wont use that link again. Swift&silent ( talk) 19:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Six months ago I argued this article be moved to Napoleon D'umo since his wife Tabitha had her own page and since they have different histories prior to meeting each other. I have since changed my mind: last month Altenmann placed a redirect/link in the marriage section on Tabitha's page to the marriage section on Napoleon's page. In the edit summary he/she typed "to avoid divergence of content". This made me start to feel differently.
The marriage section, the lead, and almost all of the career section on both pages are identical. They only section that's vastly different is early life. I want to recreate Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo and decrease their individual pages to stubs. The stubs would only have the early life section and the new article would have everything related to their career. I was planning to go ahead with the process but I thought I would check here first because when the page was moved back in April, so was the history. I didn't want to mess up protocol (if there is any) since the history was moved. Can I proceed? // Gbern3 ( talk) 19:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I entered a number of edits to the history section of the 15th amendment, footnoting each with a reference to Gillette's "Right to Vote" or Foner's History of Reconstruction. These are both seminal works in the field and are largely in agreement. Gillette and Foner argue that the main purpose of the 15th Amendment was to enfranchise Middle Western, Middle Atlantic and Border State Negroes, since the reconstruction acts had already enfranchised Negroes in the South.
I was accused of vandalism and told to stop disruptive editing. That accusation is certainly unfair, especially when the text I was editing was largely unsourced, and the footnote to page 448 of Foner is erroneous. 76.17.43.14 ( talk) David Abbott
As I describe on the talk page of the same name, I created the page of the same name as my first experience on Wikipedia and the page is intended only as a source for information. I based the article on an article for a nearby school (Westridge), basically following their general style. When I originally created an account I generated a username with Chandler School in it, which is why I believe the article was flagged for possible lack of neutrality and conflict of interest. In addition, I failed to cite references. The were unwitting mistakes and I believe I have rectified the errors and would like to figure out how to get the warnings removed from the top of the page. I believe this is the next step. KaliGirl ( talk) 20:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)KaliGirl
User:Mark Renier requests editor assistance regarding some edits made to specific articles and their immediate subsequent reversions by user:Kwamikagami. I made some edits to articles that included valid citations. These edits were reverted without substantiation or any counter citations. I have notified the user and asked for his assistance concerning his edits before an edit war starts. I reverted to my valid edits and again was reverted without any valid assertions. Please look into these edits and assist as you can. Please let me know how I can further assist in resolving these disputes to multiple articles.
Initial reversions in question:
Thank you. // Mark Renier ( talk) 09:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help everyone! I believe this issue has been resolved sufficiently. // Mark Renier ( talk) 17:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear Editor:
Regarding the first line in the "Chinatown, Vancouver" article: I propose that this line needs to be re-stated as, "Chinatown in Vancouver, British Columbia, is the largest Chinatown in Canada and one of the largest in North America." Such a statement contains integrity and would avoid and replace an irrelevant, numerically unsubstantiated, unreferenced, and almost certainly inaccurate phrase, including the relatively extreme superlatives. The appropriate idea to be conveyed is that Vancouver's Chinatown is indeed the largest in Canada and one of the largest in North America, rather than an imprecise comparison with other specific Chinatowns and even more significantly, a comparison BETWEEN two OTHER Chinatowns, certainly an inappropriate statement to be present in the first line of "Chinatown, Vancouver." Clearly, therefore, references to San Francisco's Chinatown as well as New York's "Chinatown" (by the way, which one? - there are multiple in the city proper alone) should be eliminated entirely from this context.
Furthermore, the phrase in question itself is clearly inaccurate, given that the Manhattan Chinatown of 2009 enumerates about 80,000 to 90,000 Chinese residents and is apparently experiencing a very recent resurgence of immigration from Fujian and Zhejiang Provinces, while San Francisco Chinatown's proper could have AT MOST (and unlikely) 60,000 such residents, if recent Census place/zip code estimates are an accurate indication. Additionally, it is important to note that Chinatown boundaries have further blurred in recent years as they have expanded, and there are no official Census counts for such "Chinatowns."
Restating the line as I propose endows neutrality and integrity to the content of the article and strengthens it to encyclopedic quality.
Thank you.
Respectfully yours,
thmc1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thmc1 ( talk • contribs) 06:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Conservatism in North America ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have been actively editing Wikipedia for three and a half years, and today is the first time that I have been accused of participating in an edit war. User:The Four Deuces has told me that in editing the article Conservatism in North America, I have violated the three-revert rule, about which I had never heard before now although I now understand the reasoning behind it. I was not under the impression that I had been reverting; I thought I was implimenting suggestions from the talk page. Nonetheless, I do not wish to continue the discussion further alone as User:The Four Deuces has threatened have my account blocked. I have worked very hard on improving Wikipedia over the years and wish to be able to continue to do so. The vast majority of my edits are small and uncontroversial, so I have never been in a situation like this before; any advice in how to proceed would be much appreciated.
The controversy is as follows: User:Rick Norwood and User:The Four Deuces believe that the Conservatism in North America article should not exist. Still, they have refrained from starting a deletion discussion, as I suggested they do. Instead, they have redirected the page to Conservatism in the United States, which they have both agreed is an inappropriate target. While I have attempted to respond to their concerns from the talk page by supplimenting the information on the article with further citations and information, they have reverted my edits four times in a row. From the discussion here and here, I gather that they have decided to avoid the three-revert rule they quoted to me by alternating reverting my edits between them (and on another article I am not involved in editing). As I stated before, I would be grateful for any advice you might provide. Neelix ( talk) 22:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The article Conservatism in North America originally had sections about Conservatism in the United States and Conservatism in Canada. Around November 2005 the article was split and Conservatism in North America became a redirect page to Conservatism in the United States. In 2009 Neelix edited the re-direct page to restore it to an article with separate sections on conservatism in Canada and the US. [19] I reverted it back to a re-direct page [20] and Rick Norwood set up a discussion on the talk page. [21]
If Neelix disagrees with the separation of the article into American and Canadian articles then he should recommend a merger of those two articles rather than create an article that duplicates the other two.
When it was pointed out to Neely Neelix that there were more than two countries in North America and that articles require a lead explaining the relationship between the subjects discussed, Neely Neelix added a section about Mexico and a lead. The lead that Neely Neelix wrote stated "For three days in May of 2002, a conference was held at the University of Augsburg which was dedicated to this very topic" (actually only the US and Canada were discussed) and added references from two other sources that were taken entirely out of context. One was a book about gender identity in the Caribbean, the other was about religion in Canada. The quote in the first book actually referred to "North America and Western Europe" while the second was discussing religious not political conservatism.
Based on the talk page, Neely Neelix has no idea what connection if any there is between conservatism in the three countries. He has merely grabbed a redirect page and written an alternative article. When asked to justify that this is a separate subject he adds a lead that is pointless and misleading.
The Four Deuces ( talk) 02:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment on Neelix's statement: Neelix should have stated that he had turned a re-direct page into a new article rather than claiming that Rick Norwood and I deleted the article and turned it into a re-direct. Also it is unfair to say that we have alternated in deleting his work. Rick Norwood mentioned the existence of the article to me at Talk:Liberalism in the United States#Laissez-faire. Here is the conversation:
I have made no agreement with anyone to alternate editing. You can look at the edit history here [22] to see that claim is false.
The Four Deuces ( talk) 03:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally in the example that Neelix uses where he concludes that I am colluding I clearly state, "Although Introman is clearly a disruptive editor we are still expected to follow dispute resolution and to avoid edit-warring and to evaluate each of his edits on the merits." We were discussing a very disruptive editor (see User talk:Introman) at Classical liberalism. You will notice that I had already set up an RfC on that subject [23], I did not perform any reverts on that article that day (Sept.14) [24], that besides Rick Norwood and myself, User:Snowded and User:FormerIP also disagreed with Introman, [25] no editors agreed with him and Introman was blocked for edit-warring after making five non-consecutive edits in three hours. [26] It is easy to understand Rick Norwood's frustration with Introman but I certainly made no agreement to revert his edits and certainly never discussed Neelix. However, after setting up an RfC and obtaining outside editors' opinions it appeared Introman was unwilling to form consensus for his edits. The Four Deuces ( talk) 05:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, why don't you carry on your discussion at the article talk page. This page is for requests for assistance, not suited for debate. If you want outside opinions you can start a request for comment - instructions at that page. Jezhotwells ( talk) 12:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
An individual, Davemon, persists in placing a tag on the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) entry. This has been going on for several weeks now and seems to be retaliatory against some edits that another user and he clashed over on another entry - Triple Goddess. I am complaining because I believe that the secondary sources on this entry are similar to the secondary sources used in similar entries regarding Asatru and Hellenic Polytheistic Reconstructionism. If you look at the date that the tag was left, it was left soon after he and another individual who worked on the entry for Celtic Reconstructionism clashed regarding an entry about the Triple Goddess. I am complaining that this individual is retaliating over such disagreement by adding this tag to the entry. Michael Meehan ( talk) 23:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
National Historic Route 66 Federation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yesterday, I "saved" our article but I can't determine what is supposed to happen next. Just wait for editing from you folks? Nationalroute ( talk) 19:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
L. Craig Martindale ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is actually a compliment. I have known Craig and Donna Martindale for years. I actually looked this up to see what was going on with him, since I haven't heard anything recently. I know that Donna and the children are doing well, but I don't live in the same area.
I wanted to say I appreciate your decency in not allowing statements that are unsupported. Craig was a great man for many years and helped a lot of people in many many ways. He was strong and hardworking and encouraged, pushed and inspired others to be so as well. He helped many people achieve more than they had ever dreamed, helped many get delivered from addictions and spiritual, physical and mental weaknesses and become whole.
But the best of us can be tricked and make mistakes, and hurt those we love most, and I and many have no less love and compassion for him as a brother. We know that we too, fall short. And most particularly, Donna and the children would not be blessed by having more aspersions cast upon him.
They are still faithful, serving members of The Way International, which is an excellent Biblical Research and Teaching organization. It is a challenging thing to confront mistakes such as he made and make sure they never happen again while having compassion for him as an individual, and for his wife and family, who are kind and loving people and who endured great pain.
Thank you again for being decent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.177.139 ( talk • contribs) 23:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Fashion (Heidi Montag song) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An editor has proposed a merge to Heidi Montag or Lady Gaga, and despite that it's been made very clear that this song meets notability per WP:NSONG, we still cannot seem to reach consensus at Talk:Fashion (Heidi Montag song). A third opinion would be greatly appreciated. D.C. Blake ( talk) 02:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I've been threatening to dig up some dead tree sources from several decades ago, probably magazine articles. I'd like to cite these and provide online verification. Fair-use would cover a short quote but I'd like to scan the pages and send to wiki for at least internal usage. Anyone know copyright issues or wikipedia issues here? I guess I could upload the page CIA-style or like google books and blank out most of it except for a short fair-use part but in the past wikipedia has objected to even short excerpts. Nerdseeksblonde ( talk) 17:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Lama (martial art) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am trying to clean up, source, and save this article. I am a real wiki newbie and so it is a bit intimidating as far as editing (though I have written a lot about the subject and can provide the info at least!). Would anyone like to help? Comment? Assisst? Particularly with style and the tags and so forth Nysanda ( talk) 19:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
* Section moved to bottom. Fleetflame · whack! whack! · 19:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, A license was submitted on 3 Sept. for profile of John Prendergast deleted due to license absence. Profile has not yet been reinstated and my emails about this to permissions have not been answered. Just need to know when profile will appear on wiki and/or if there is a problem.
thank you, Nell Jespah ( talk) 00:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
This has been resolved, thank you. Jespah ( talk) 22:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems like that Wikipedia also allows anyone to search the editor(s) of a particular sentence or paragraph of a given page without browsing all the history of the edits consecutively.
I do not know how to search this in the WP special search. Does anyone know? Thanks. Couchworthy ( talk) 02:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Daniel 11 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi I entered a new paragraph at the bottom of the page about an alternate interpretation of this passage that places the fulfilment in the 20Cth century. About two hours later it was just deleted with no comment whatsoever. I don't want to get into a fight with the individual that just deleted it (User Erbce) but also don't believe that wikipedia is served by only representing a single view on the subject even if it is the majority view. What should I do if anything? There is no point me rentering the paragraph if he is just going to keep deleting it. Any assistance appreciated - thanks 59.100.10.67 ( talk) 08:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
ok thanks for explaining that. So I can only refer to material from published books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.10.67 ( talk) 09:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is an ongoing debate as to whether Arthur Wellesley's identity should be defined as Anglo-Irish, or simply Irish. There are some important contributions to the discussion. The main points for defining him as Irish are 1. He was born in Ireland 2. His family had been in in Ireland for at least 5 centuries before his birth. 3. His family shares a similar heritage with some of the most common Irish family names Burke, Fitzgerald, Fitzpatrick, Barry etc.
Main points defining him as Anglo-Irish: 1. He was a member of the Protestant ascendancy. 2. He did not engage with/or affiliate himself with Irish peasantry. 3. He went to high school in England.
I can not argue with any of the points above which support an Irish definition. The points which support an Anglo-Irish identity are, i believe, weak and irrelevant. Even if he can be defined as anglo-irish (although see Dunnettreader's posts), being anglo-irish, by anyone's definition, is still being Irish. At Wellingtons birth Ireland was a country, defined as the Kingdom of Ireland, and with its own parliament in Dublin. So I believe we can conclude that Wellington based on the status of the country at the time, the location of his birth, and the geneology of his family.
Can you please provide help with this current impasse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micielo ( talk • contribs) 22:45, 12 September 2009