This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Hi Editor.
In recent times I have included a link under the external links section for the topic 'Time for Print. This link is to an Australian Time for Print community website.
Upon reviewing the page history it makes the following reference after my edit:
(Reverted to revision 302191458 by ClickRick; fails WP:EL. (TW))
Considering this page has links to other modeling websites that are not dedicated to Time for Print (and my site is) I am wondering why my link is constantly being removed?
The Wikipedia page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_for_print
Thank you for taking the time to review this request.
Regards John Thomas--Mooseh (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. The term Time for Print is used to describe an exchange of services for outcomes (ie: photos). The website Time for Print is a comminity website that brings like minded people together who engage in the Time for Print practice. It is not a modeling website, it is a community of like minded people.
Having said that, I am happy to accept that the page within Wikipedia is around the definition of a term.--Mooseh (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I need "Help to understand what is and is not appropriate behavior, and how to deal civilly and rationally with [a] editor"
How do I rid myself of this situation? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 03:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec; undent; responding here to keep discussion consolidated). Wow; I hadn't known about much of any of this. I certainly never said that I had made a mistake in making the deletion. One thing that I think was missed in the outline above is this diff by the uploader at the original PUF page, long after it was closed. When I deleted File:Copy of 12062009755.jpg per the FFD I also deleted File:Malik Ambar.jpg since it was brought up and the deletion was uncontested at the discussion, even though it wasn't explicitly tagged for deletion (so it was a bit of an IAR deletion). When the reupload was nominated for deletion and I saw it at PUF while nominating other images, it seemed like a clear case of G4 so I went ahead and deleted it again. I believe that all three of these deletions were accurate at the time, and unless the User:Nefirious can provide proper information about the image (e.g., where it came from if it wasn't from the newspaper), WP:DRV seems like the proper next step for them to take. Certainly most everything in this diff seems either A) wrong or B) bad faith. Here's my feelings on those comments:
Based on Exit2DOS2000's other evidence, especially this which I think is safe to assume was the same user, there seems to be obvious harassment going on here. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello all. I believe if the file in the Malik Ambar article was deleted through arbitration then why wasn't I invited ? An editor could come with a valid reason and state why the file should stay. Or if some other user has a problem with the file he could explain me the same. If convinced I can give him/her the green signal to delete it. By the time someone invited me the file had already been deleted. I believe this step taken was not justified in anyway. There is already a discussion thread for the article Malik Ambar, so why is there a need to discuss the same in a different forum. However, I take back what I said and apologize for using the world 'careless'. Also, I would like to say, I am a random page patroller, recent change ptraoller and also a new page patroller and so I do keep a track of articles everynow and then. I had even tagged one of the article, which I presume was created by the User:Exit2DOS2000 as unsourced and the tag still remains as the editor failed to reveal his sources. So I believe I wasn't wrong here since I would keep a track to see if there has been any improvement in the article as a resposible wikipedia editor. Hope we can sort this out at the earliest and get back to editing. Have a nice day. Nefirious (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
No notification was sent to me in this case. You can see my talkpage, the post is nearly two months old. I had then reposted the picture with relevant sources and the picture remained active, since I believed that the image was deleted as it did not cite any sources. After citing the sources I was convinced that the picture won't be deleted and suddenly someone deletes the picture without even discussing the same in the dicussion forum of the article. And the uder Exit2Dos removed the pic Ambar Siar.jpg,the very same day he called me to dicsuss. And LOL at completly inappropriate...its my duty to check articles as a responsible editor. Wikihouding is different, I read it. And what is this with this ExitDos user, it was ExitDos who removed the picture of Malik Ambar and how could I create an acccount and then remove the very picture I uploaded. I dont think that makes sense. Does it ? Nefirious (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
First and foremost you need to talk politely to editors -- Don't talk of "your duty" in this context , wasn't acceptable. Please ensure that you change your tone and i'll be grateful to you for the same. About the image, as I earlier said, it was only user Exit2DOS2000 who was involved in requesting deletion of the image. He did not invite me for further discussions and did it all by himself and as I said that the image is more than a 100 years old and qualifies under the old pdf license, plus the sources make the picture look more authentic. About some other user similar to Exit2DOS2000, have no idea. I never created an ID of that sort, you can check his IP with some administrator. And why would I need to create another ID when I already have one ? Nefirious (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Causes of the Financial Crisis of 2007-2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:Farcaster has created a several articles off of the Subprime mortgage crisis main article. I've found multiple errors involving neutrality, tone (ambiguity in the leads) and original research and tagged both of these articles, with detailed comments on the talk page. He's removed one tag, claiming mediocre edits as resolving major problems.
As an example, he's using a excerpts of a Bush speech to explain the causes of the subprime crisis. Edits that are POV and ridiculously void of factual content. How do I deal with something this large if the guy is unwilling to cooperate? Scribner (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Ford FE engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Scheinwerfermann continues to abusively edit/complain/denigrate the Ford FE engine article without ever being satisfied. He has actively damaged the article by adding short hidden sections whose headers in bright green cut through images.
This is a continuing issue. He has archived past discussion pages complaining about his actions and continues to sully this article with nitpicking complaints. He complains, without specifics. It is far beyond abusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.240.231 (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Where do we complain about bureaucratic spiteful and lazy editors, not only editor Scheinwerfermann who will not allow himself to be satisfied and continues to beat up on other contributors, but now also apparently editor Athanasius1 who only has one stock answer for all problems..."discuss on the article's discussion page". Examining the article in question's discussion page's archives going back years is seemingly too much effort.
This Scheinwerfermann once upon a time had multitudes of citation requests buried in the body of the article. Those citation requests were provided. Because he apparently has a grudge against the article he now is asking for "citations" in general??? He refuses to be satisfied. More, he has screwed up the formatting of the article. Pretty sweet bureaucratic gig being able to pass sentences without ever saying why.
Just where do we complain about THIS kind of stuff?? Obviously not here; someplace buried deep in the bowels of Wikipedia where only the most bureaucratic of editors can dig to?
I am NOT satisfied with these "results"/"answers". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.241.87 (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
What a two-faced liar. Here you're all obsequious and officious, in private messages you're all 'what a jerk'. AND, you still won't discuss this article on the article's discussion page. Obsequious, officious and obstructionist, reminds me of a line from 'Animal House', Dean to Bluto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.159.130 (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I have not edited any articles on Wikipedia. Yet I have received warnings about inappropriate comments on articles listing that it had been done by my IP address. How do I go about resolving this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.194.126 (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Austriamicrosystems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The name Austria Mikrosystems is not used since years. The company name is austriamicrosystems I changed in Text and Links, but I´m not able to change in Headline! I´m asking for your assistance here, because I could not find out how to change the Headline! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.166.112.250 (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I added some content that I thought was notable to United States Military Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It was deleted by another user as "not notable" Since he is more experienced than I, I avoided my instinct to undo the change. I reviewed the guidlines on notable and I think that my additions met that criteria and added to the article.
Can you take a look and let me know if this is just a matter of opinion or did I do something wrong?
Eurbani (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Where would the reference go since it applies to the whole section. I'm assuming at the end? Eurbani (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
In the palestinian people article, the population is (likely intentionally) being inflated by double counting the territories. I corrected it, only to have it reverted back to its inflated figure. I don't want to get into an edit war, how else can these inflated figures be corrected? 76.69.249.32 (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to say that the user Wiki libs is reverting my edits with at least say why.
Sacred Reich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I would like to ask a administrator to say him to stop with it, please.
Bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoaquimMetalhead (talk • contribs) 15:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm requesting assistance in removing the following discussion on the talk page of the Peer39 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, wherein someone personally attacked me. The issue was resolved within Editor Assistance (see here), and I don't want to have to cut and paste my response to the Peer39 talk page, as it would be even further off-topic and in violation of talk page guidelines. Before removing the section myself, I figured I would ask here for further assistance.
Thank you. --FeldBum (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Florinda Handcock, Viscountess Castlemaine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [1] So far "merge" seems to be winning but the article will still disappear and seem to set a precedent for hundreds more articles of peeresses to be merged as well. I am not too wiki experienced but the template ((Ireland-peer-stub)) implies notability just because she is noble. Anyway how can I find wikipedians sympathetic to my cause without being accused of "canvassing" I don't even know if I am allowed to add anything more to the discussion. Daytrivia (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
It is really great having the advice, input, and guidance of experienced and concerned wikipedians to turn to. I was under the impression that "Florinda" was notable simply because she was the daughter of an Earl and the wife of a Viscount and that her social, and other obligations were implied by her title. I enjoy doing the research, and although I will follow the discussion page, I will make an effort to take the advice of several editors and look for something other than Lodge or Burke's nobility records before creating this type of article. Daytrivia (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a serious lack of documents on women, but still there are some. Such issues regard Homosexuality - almost nothing is included about female homosexuality and the Instruction and Advice for the Young Bride even proposed for deletion while it is the only well known document on women's life in 19th century - which was pretty much the familty life at that time. I need assistance in expert historians, and voters for the Instructions, also Gender roles in Eastern Europe after Communism lacks faminist historian to writa about it. --SofieElisBexter (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Picasso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I could not find an edit this page button on on the page responding to "Picaaso" search entry I assumed that it is because Wikipedia need to protect themselves from vandalism. In the section Political view Picasso is reported to be suspected by some of cowardly ignored the necessity to take real political position during the world wars. It appear to me and probably to some other that, though this criticism should be reported, it should also be balance by facts that contradict it. In the 1930, 1940, 1950 Picasso has been reported as taking clear "pacifist" stand. More specifically in his work as an artist he clearly addressed the theme " Make love ! Dont' make war" He did so decade in advance on the popularity of this label. It is also politically remarkable that in the 1960 Picasso migrated to a new theme: The artist isolated in a narcissistic contemplation of himself. Taking into account that Picasso was a painter, a sculptor, a draftsman but not a writer, not a politician, not really a philosopher The testimony of these theme show that his concerns about Violence, poverty and freedom are not hypocritical stand hiding cowardice. It is also a fact that Picasso has shown a great deal of interest with Bull fight. which is in its core addressing the subject of physical courage. I believe that reporting on these aspect of Picasso's life deserve to be mention for the sake of a more neutral approach. I also believe that they would also contribute to the interest of many reader and that it would probably insult none. Most probably the best way to create the changes I intended is now for some editor to make them to his best which is probably better then i was able to.
My name is Pierre Cornu. and you have my email herewith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.13.99 (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Doug Stanton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I should like to appeal a ruling made by one of your editors concerning links added to an entry. If I'm not doing this right, please explain to me how to do it properly.
"Hu12 (talk)" informed one of several editors of The Internet Review of Books today that several links we have added to entries are spam, according to Wikipedia policy, and deleted those links.
In each case, the links targeted a book review in the IRB that was germane to the entry. For example, a few days ago I posted on the "Doug Stanton" page a link to a review of his book "Horse Soldiers" that I wrote. Certainly I am closely involved with the review, and with the publication. I am not, however, in any way involved with Stanton.
I'd argue that such a link is legitimate. Like Wikipedia, The Internet Review of Books delivers information to people interested in the things it discusses. The IRB makes no profit, though it carries a few ads, and none of the editors are paid. Our costs are borne by contributions. Five of us founded the publication to replace the rapidly disappearing review sections in major newspapers. The LA Times and the Chicago Tribune, for example, have discontinued their review sections; so have other papers, and so will many more, for obvious reasons. They are sorely missed, and we are trying to remedy a genuine lack.
The IRB is not just some blog with a single person sharing notions about a book. It is a professional publication. I and one of our other editors are members of the National Book Critics Circle, which restricts its membership to professionals. Nearly all our reviewers are published authors, some of them well known.
Readers of Wikipedia--not many, but several--have clicked on those links since they were added. They clearly want more information on the author's book. We had intended to put links from all our reviews (about twenty a month) wherever appropriate--on author pages, or on pages devoted to some subject the author covers, and would like to be permitted to continue that project.
We have no axe to grind, except our desire to be read. Of course our reviewers have opinions, but so do reviewers for the NYTimes. Those opinions are offered by knowledgeable people. We think readers of Wikipedia might be aided in their search for knowledge. Few authors would object to this.
Thus I'd like to ask that you make whatever exception to the rules is necessary to let us continue.
Thank you for hearing me.
Carter Jefferson, editor The Internet Review of Books <redacted address> Carterj98 (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what your definition of a blog is, but the IRB is a Website. We also have a blog, for which there is a link on our index page. It seems likely that you looked at the blog but not the Website. The NYTimes has a lot of blogs attached to it, but it's a Website. So is ours.
I am aware of your policy concerning self-promotion, and I think it's a good policy. I think, however, that your policy of linking to professional reviews should override that in this case. All we get from posting those links is an occasional hit. They won't make much difference to us in the long run. We think we're giving Wikipedia gifts, not the other way around.
As for professionalism, you *must* be aware that hundreds, if not thousands,of people have begun newspapers, magazines, and all sorts of publications without paying themselves. If and when we make money, we'll pay all our reviewers, and pay ourselves last. Right now, for example, a crew of laid-off reporters is running a publication called newjerseynewsroom.com, hoping that someday they'll make enough from ads to get paid. Virtually all academics, including me, have written reviews and articles for scholarly journals and got no pay at all for them. They're all professionals. The New York Review of Books was started by writers while the NYTimes was on strike; if they got any pay, it wasn't much. A professional is defined by college degrees and experience. I got paid when I reviewed for the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune, but they were making good money at the time. One of my editors has published a memoir (U. of Iowa Press). Others have had essays published in print and Web venues, and been paid for them. The Rutgers University Press published a biography I wrote. Many of our reviewers, who work for free, have published novels, essays, and non-fiction books with reputable publishers.
As it happens, four of our editors are retired and can afford to work free for a while. Two are still employed at other jobs and choose to spend scarce free time working with us.
I have asked my editors if any of them signed their work "GolfinBadger." Three of us definitely did not; when I hear from the others, I'll let you know.
Carter Jefferson
141.157.189.73 (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Nobody has "talked" on this issue for several days, but I still would like to make an appeal. Would somebody please explain to me how to do that?
Thank you.
Carter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carterj98 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to cite an article in several different places in my wiki. Instead of appearing once in the references, it appears as many times as there are citations to it.
This is the code I've been using first reference: "<"ref name="four">" enter reference "<"/ref">" Second reference: body text."<"ref name="four"/">"
Next to the second reference, the references section at the bottom says "Cite Error: Invalid "<"ref">" tag; no text was provided for refs named four. "
Can you please point me to instructions on how to reference the same article more than once?
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinxynix (talk • contribs) 23:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm an IP editor. When I try editing any AfD to comment, I can open an edit window, but apparently I can't save my edits. I tried several AfDs and every time I try saving, nothing happens. IPs aren't generally blocked from contributing to AfD discussions, only from nominating articles for AfDs, and this IP is not blocked in any way. I can edit all other openable pages without any problem. Something odd is going on with AfDs. - 91.187.64.57 (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm requesting assistance in removing the reference tags on the IncrediMail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. I have attempted fix up the page with reliable third party sources and user:Hafrn is claiming that articles as authoritative as NYtimes are not reliable references. I am trying to improve the page but this user seems to a personal vendetta of some sort. As opposed to continuing to volley back and forth with a seemingly irrational user, I am kindly requesting further assistance.
Thank you. Shirarae (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I have been trying to make what seem to be credible changes here. I cannot understand the basis of these tags. I would be grateful if an experienced editor could assist or guide me in finding appropriate references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirarae (talk • contribs) 14:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I am still confused why references such as brighthub.com, that seem to be accepted throughout wikipedia have been deemed insufficient here. I am grateful for the feedback. I am trying to learn how to do this right. I would be grateful if you could have a look at the links and advise further. I find it confusing that each one of them deserves the tags that User:Hrafn has placed. To me it seems that he is spitefully flagging the whole page. I am trying to learn the process. Could you explain to me where he is right and where he is wrong.
Thanks. Shirarae (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I want to create a page using my full name and middle initial, Frank J. Keegan, that can be accessed from an article that comes up in search of my name, Frank Keegan, without middle initial. Seems simple. What am I doing wrong? Thanks. Frank Keegan (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Frank Keegan
My article (biography of a living artist) titled 'Marc Bogaerts' was deleted on the 3rd or 4th of May 2009, few hours after publishing it in Wikipedia. I would like to know the reason. Not knowing what was wrong I don't know how to fix my possible mistakes. Yourtinkywinky Yourtinkywinky (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I wrote an article about a colloquialism, and it was deleted under the criterion of "original research." My article included 8 references to reputable Internet sites, which explained the origins and nature of the term. When the article was tagged for deletion on the talk page, I questioned this, and an editor claimed that I needed a source that stated that the colloquialism existed. I do not see how this is a reasonable expectation; surely a site seldom exists that simply states "[Colloquialism] exists as a colloquialism" for every possible slang term. I provided evidence of the term's basis, history and prevalence. Surely the very nature of colloquial terms is that they come into use gradually, rather than from one particular occurrence. Upon searching for the expression on google - in brackets, ensuring that only the words in the correct order are found - 544,000 results came up. I am unsure as to how I am meant to "prove the expression's existence," other than finding a website that makes the statement - "[colloquialism] is a colloquialism." Would citing a site that simply uses the expression be suffice? I undertook considerable research for my article and it was certainly not original. It would be much appreciated if an editor can offer ideas how I can prove that it is genuine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Higginson21 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips, but even after consulting your links, I believe that my article has reason to stay. Firstly, it is not a neologism, as I did not create the term myself. I have undertaken research and studied its history. Secondly, I understand that Wikipedia is not for definitions, but my article certainly did not do this. Since the colloquialism "dunt dunt dunt" refers to a specific occurrence, I was describing this occurrence and how it affects us. Surely many other articles could be considered definitons by this same criterion - for example, is an article about the sport of cricket a definition, simply because it explains what it is? I would certainly like to fight this deletion, and I am amenable to changes that editors suggest to my article to make it more worthy of wikipedia's standards. Is there anywhere on wikipedia that I can post my article, for editors to look at, without actually uploading it to the encyclopedia? If any editors would be willing to assist me in the improvement of the article, I would largely appreciate this.
I may seem to be repudiating the rules of wikipedia, but I am not. I simply do not believe that a legitimate reason has been proposed as to why my article is not worthy of the site. All required criteria seem to be met in terms of the article's concept, but perhaps my execution of the writing of the article was awry. Is there anyone who could help me to improve it? Thanks very much. Higginson21 (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but does anyone know the answer to my other question? Is there somewhere on wikipedia that I could post a draft of my article, and request assistance from other editors on meeting wikipedia's standards? Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Higginson21 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Moved here since it's all part of the same conversation --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Can I please call upon experienced editors to help me with an article that I wrote. It was entitled "Dunt Dunt Dunt" and was deleted by wikipedia's editors. I am happy to accept that changes need to be made to it. I have copied the article into my sandbox: User:Higginson21/Sandbox . Could editors please look at my article and the deletion log and help me to change it so that it will be suitable for Wikipedia's standards? Thanks! Higginson21 (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
AndrewHowse, I appreciate your feedback. Would referencing a source that simply uses the term be suffice? As I am sure you appreciate, for particular slang terms, there will seldom be a reputable website stating "(term) is an accepted term." What would be considered an appropriate reference? Jezhotwells, my article is completely serious; you should not be so presumptuous when making accusations. Thanks very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Higginson21 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Sinhalese people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In the "Genetic Studies" section of the sinhalese people article. User: Edwards Scholars who I also think is 76.111.25.195 keeps on adding information that is unreferenced or information which has a reference, but the reference does not support what the text is saying. The user also keeps adding a study on Indian ancestry, which is not relevant to the page. The user thinks this study is relevant just because Sinhalese subjects were used in the test. The user does not listen to criticism and keeps reverting any changes to his entry. Another user; Icemansatriani, also thinks Edwards Scholar is adding "irrelevant and often wrong interpretations of the references". Which is mainly "Opinion". Please see the talk page for a better understanding of the conflict. Thank you for your help.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinpg (talk • contribs) 23:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
A massive discussion was made debating the relevance of several external links. In the end a 3 to 1 consensus was reached to establish criteria for the inclusion of related links. You can see it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ear_training#Promotional_links
Well the opposing editor on a whim wiped out the content agreed upon and also wouldn't accept the criteria previously accepted when another user requested inclusion in the discussion page. I found out he financially benefits from the behavior we've been seeing, namely he wipes out all links in the perfect pitch, ear training and music theory pages and guards them. Still he preserves his own original research on the perfect pitch page without the same criteria he demanded from us. He sells ear training, relative pitch and perfect pitch software for a living and benefits from such actions. I've documented evidence of a conflict of interest on the discussion page and would like a third party to intervene or advise and say what's the next step.
Erin Fogle (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Mediation/moderation is definitely necessary. We're at an irredeemable impasse. Our respective positions are spelled out-- well, more like drawn out-- on the Ear training discussion page, for those (masochists?) who wish to sift through it all, although I could easily summarize my perspective if requested. aruffo (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Wiki:
I have indeed received "scary messages" (your term) that I'll be blocked from editing if I continue to contribute uncited information.
The "scary messages" were about my edit of the Hunter S. Thompson article and the Gonzo Journalism article.
Re the latter, I am supplying information that only I may know. I doubt that others who were alive in Louisville in the 1940s and 1950s, or at the University of Arkansas in 1961, would (a.) have these memories, and/or (b.) ever have thought of applying those memories to these two subjects. I have no personal investment in getting this information on wikipedia. I do think it is of historical importance, however, and that my status as a professor of Linguistics ought to be good enough to allow me to report it.
Re the former, I re-edited the piece to try to make it completely factual. I think I have done so. I point out that the documentary film on Hunter S. Thompson omits certain facts and events. It is a fact that it does: these facts and events are themselves well-documented in all sort of places. I can, if you wish, cite those. It is also a fact that the film's omission of these facts and events, intentional or unintentional, belies and undermines the historicity of its narrative for those who know of those facts and events. Again, I have no personal investment in this -- although I did know Hunter slightly in Louisville long ago when we were kids.
Thanks for reading. God bless Wikipedia. Leo Daugherty, University of Virginia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.196.211 (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there,
I added some information to the reverse discrimination article and also cleaned up some of the grammar. But now somebody keeps deleting the section I added (In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007), decided together with Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, "The way to stop discrimination based on race is to stop discriminating based on race.")
This is a legitimate, referenced post.
Thanks for your help,
Kate Fitzgerald Malke 2010 (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I am trying to write a wiki page on an acquaintance's company--it's a start up and I just want to write a description of the company. I'm trying to be encyclopedic, but every time I save the page, I'm told it is marked for speedy deletion. I looked at General Electric's page and keep the same tone, but I keep getting the notice that it's marked for speedy deletion.
Can I get some suggestions?
Thanks!
ArmenianClarinet —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmenianClarinet (talk • contribs) 18:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I have been watching the article Battle of Antietam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Recently an editor has changed the casualty counts for the battle that are listed in the infobox to figures which are supported by a seemingly amateur website, against longstanding figures which are supported by citation in the prose and by the US National Park Service website. I have reverted the change twice clearly pointing to the refs and a talk page explanation, here. The change has been made again, without comment; I believe there is some POV pushing going on here. What can I do to maintain the correct figures as I am unable to change them back now without violating 3RR? This is the first time I have encountered this situation so I would appreciate some help. Sswonk (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Donnell_Heights,_Baltimore
O'Donnell Heights Housing projects are almost exclusively Caucasian so why is it listed with "United States communities with African American majority populations"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.94.105.45 (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there,
I am trying to get Coldwell Banker Intercontinental Affiliates on Wiki. I have designed their website and written all the content on www.cb-ia.com.
I have toned down the text so it objective and not an advertisement, however my review is still pending as the text I have submitted on wiki is similar to the text on the cb-ia.com website I have created.
Please advise on what I can do to address the copyright problem.
Thank you Waseem <e-mail redacted>
Link to pending article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/COLDWELL_BANKER_Intercontinental_Affiliates —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waseemht (talk • contribs) 11:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I am concerned that the image used on the article Female body shape constitutes pornography. My teenage children have browsed this website as an educational tool and I do not wish them to encounter such images. The image in question can be found around halfway down the page, captioned "Real woman demonstrating the hourglass body shape". Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Concernedfather (talk • contribs) 21:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Nude photography is a style of art photography which depicts the nude human body as a study. Nude photography should be distinguished from erotic photography, which has a sexually suggestive component.
The explanations here are a little disingenuous; the reason there's an article on female body shape and none on male body shape; the reason there's a photograph of a nude woman but none of a nude man on human body shape, and the reason WIkipedia's editors chose the particular photo under discussion are all the same, and is an open secret: we're on the Internet, and a lot of hormonally activated teenage boys who might not get to see real nude women edit here. They edit what interests them, and that's nude girls. The fact is, that the photo is certainly not pornographic, but it certainly is there at least partially for titillation, even if some care to think otherwise. But the photo won't be removed: the community here likes these pictures. Viewing the photo won't have much of an effect on your children, though I understand wanting to protect them from her sagginess. - Nunh-huh 11:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Conviction of Michael Shields (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am very unhappy with Jw2035's comments towards me that I am vandalising this page. The current page contained innacuracies and not a lot of information on the case.
I replaced it with information such a dossier containing the facts for Mr Shields and the facts against. I also included a confession from Graham Sankey which was a relevant part of the case. I didn't once use my own views as I didn't want it to be biased. I wanted people to get as much information as possible with verified facts.
All my changes were rollbacked and I received a final warning to stop vandalising the page. I was upset that Jw2035 had referred to me as a vandal and if he was not happy with my changes could have changed or deleted some of it rather than rolling it all back.
I have discussed this with the user but he has reiterated that he thinks I am a vandal and am biased.
I would like a second opinion on this as I think Jw2035 may be biased himself, having looked at his changes under his old username of Jw2034, he clearly does not like Liverpool Football Club. Of which this case has some relation to.
If you would like some ideas of what I think is currently innacurate with the page, I will use a section from the start of the page.
Nine witnesses, both Bulgarian and British, later testified at the trial and many of them — including Georgiev himself — positively identified Shields (in an identity parade and in the court) as a person present at the crime scene and as the perpetrator of the crime.
The witnesses were Bulgarian, there were no British witnesses testifying against Mr Shields. Mr Georgiev didn't positively identify Mr Shields as he had stated that he only saw him from behind. He had said he most closely resembled the attacker. Some other witnesses also weren't postive that it was Mr Shields. Also, the three other people in the identity parade didn't resemble Mr Shields at all, they were all Bulgarian and very different in appearance. This is an important part of the case that hasn’t been mentioned. Also the fact that his picture was posted in the press before the ID parade has not been mentioned. These are all relevant facts to the case.
I think these comments are innacurate and biased which is the reason the information was changed. I think all the facts need to be known on the case for people to be able to form their own opinion.
Some of the information I put in was as follows..
Mr Georgiev had told police that he had not had a good view of his attacker. Mr Shields’ image had been published in the Bulgarian media prior to this identification.
Both of these things are facts of the case, not biasism.
I would be grateful if another editor could review the page and make any relevant changes for people to get the full picture of the case. Thanks.
Please note that my changes were under user 86.14.122.51. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Castinglazyshadows (talk • contribs) 19:16, July 24, 2009
Could someone please check out this portal I've created and tell me if it's ready to add the template to the right to related articles. Thank you • S • C • A • R • C • E • 22:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
In the Tiger Airways Australia article I have included the date of the axing of their Perth-Adelaide route (which has been disclosed to agents), however this has been removed by Bidgee claiming the booking engine referenced (showing the flights no longer operating) does not meet the verifiability criteria.
Airlines all over the world cut routes everyday without issuing press releases as they do not like to publicise failure and every airline route change is not considered newsworthy by the media. This is reflected on many other airline destination sections across Wikipedia that do not cite media releases, they are accepted based on output from reservations (GDS' such as Amadeus, Sabre etc. or proprietary set-ups) systems which do not lie.
Appreciate a third opinion. Thanks. 60.228.249.121 (talk) 07:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I am new to Wikipedia as editor. I have just edited a page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Thessaloniki) and I am eager to know whether I did everything alright (I also made more changes to it today, before I got an account).Eunapios (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Ürményháza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Jermenovci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I wish to refer to below note from the Editor " Twinzor " Say hi! 14:19, Dec 2008 and point out that nothing has changed, despite assurance received. Ürményháza still can not be accessed directly unlike Jermenovci. So, the problem, the unfairness remain unsolved.
Could it be fixed and checked out afterwards? Thank you. --Attilaurm (talk) 07:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Reference:I've redirected the page Ürményháza to Jermenovci, so the article is now accessible via either name. When conversing on Wikipedia talk pages please always sign your posts by typing 4 tildes (Attilaurm (talk) 07:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)) at the end of your post. This will automatically produce your signature & timestamp. Thanks! — Twinzor Say hi! 14:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned about the neutrality of this article [Kamen Rider Decade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and all articles named Kamen Rider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I renamed the article to 'masked rider' and have since provided multiple sources to show that the name is the official english name given by the production company and also commonly used in the west. The problem is that there is two users blocking me. there has been no census thus far as the article is of low importance, but i have provided all the evidence and am following wikipedia guidelines on naming conventions. I would appreciate if anyone can help with the article in question. Drag-5 (talk) 06:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Eduardo Bours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eduardo Bours Castelo (Governor of Mexican State of Sonora) biographical page is not updated. Wikipedia fails to mention that his State is in turnmoil over the fire deaths of 48 infantes in a government-operated nursery and that he (Governor Eduardo Bours Castelo) is being blamed by the the majority of the Sonoran population as the culprit. Weekly protests of up to 20,000 civilians have taken place since June and they end either at his palatian government building or at his official residence, with massive number of people asking for his resignation. In May 2009 he announced his plans to seek the Presidency of Mexico in 2012 but this tragedy that ocurred on June 5th 2009 has all but evaporized any chance he might have had to be Mexico's next President. The popular uproar resulted in his party (PRI) loosing the Governorship of his State of Sonora to an opposition party (PAN) for the first time since the Mexican revolution of 1910. His acceptance numbers plummeted to the lowest acceptance numbers of ANY Governor in Mexican history and now he faces the possibility of criminal charges after his succesor takes office in September 2009. Please update his biographical page. Thank you.
Proof/Sustaing of evidence:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/06/15/mexico.day.care.anger/index.html
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?at_code=437176
https://bilingualbrains.com/ABCparents_claim_justice.html
http://www.globalpost.com/webblog/environment/mexico%E2%80%99s-daycare-fire-not-even-babies-are-protected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.14.20 (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Right to exist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor has written a new version of this article. He is convinced his new version is better than that arrived at over years, and constantly reverts to his new version, which involves deleting large amounts of the article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I wrote a page for Grant & Eisenhofer law firm last week and it was nominated for speedy deletion and deleted soon thereafter. Most assertions made in the page were cited with valid sources. I also read many pages on other law firms before writing Grant & Eisenhofer's to ensure that only appropriate information was included. The neutrality of the article was disputed before it was nominated for speedy deletion, the neutrality may be questionable but how can that be addressed by other users if the page is deleted? I would like feedback on how to edit this page to ensure that it is not speedily deleted again. Thanks. Steph0513 (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't really have a connection with the firm. I am just a summer intern who decided to write a wikipedia page for the firm, I'm not being monitored, it is my own independent project. Again, I looked at many articles for other law firms and the second version of the Grant & Eisenhofer article (posted and deleted last week) was comparable to those. Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom's page proclaims they are "prominent" in the first sentence of the article. Perhaps you could be more specific as to what "reeks" in the Grant & Eisenhofer page. I was very careful to eliminate the diction that seemed too favorable to the firm. Since the page only provided information regarding the history of the firm, the firm's methodology, and the firm's practice areas I'm not sure what else can be changed without compromising the information made available. I agree that the first version of the page (one that included attorney profiles and case descriptions) did not meet wikipedia's standards. However, the second version was a complete re-write and it was tagged for not meeting wikipedia's neutrality standards which I can understand, but speedy deletion seemed unwarranted. Steph0513 (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand what your issues are with the page. However, I still do not think the way to solve these problems is to repeatedly delete the page. I know, as I'm sure you do, that looking good is not the purpose of wikipedia - so I'm not concerned with making the firm look good nor does my employment rely on a favorable wikipedia page.
Regarding the promotional language, most of these assertions are facts. If you do not care for the phrasing or think other sources are necessary, those problems are easily remedied without deleting the page from wikipedia immediately. Grant & Eisenhofer does represent institutional investors who have been damaged by those factors listed above; obviously if the investors were positively affected, a law firm's involvement would not be necessary. The firm has represented more than 100 institutional investors, this is a fact. I will look for this fact in other sources, just because gelaw.com states it should be enough. Law firms can't lie about themselves on their own websites, it would be completely unethical and fraudulent. Of course not everything that is disclosed on gelaw.com can be found in secondary sources, this does not disprove or invalidate anything on gelaw.com. The list of the six largest securities class action settlements is also a fact that should not be disputed just because it is from the firm's website. I cited their website because there is not a composite list of the six largest securities class action settlements of this exact kind. I am happy to find six separate articles that provide the settlement amount and lead counsel, but none of these will explicitly state that the settlement is, for example, the third largest to #1 and #2. The case philosophy of extreme selectivity has both positive and negative connotations, I did not take a side. I was absolutely not trying to imply that Grant & Eisenhofer was at all responsible for the $2 billion dollars in whistleblower bounties. I think this is clear since the firm was founded 11 years after whistleblowers began receiving bounties in 1986.
Most law firms in the United States have wikipedia pages. Most of their pages are not neutral; and yet, most of their pages are still on wikipedia. I have no problem with this - everyone should know to take information from wikipedia, or any source for that matter, with a grain of salt. Deleting a page that is completely factual just because of its language undermines the purpose of wikipedia. The page should be left up to be edited by other users. The information is all there and I can find additional sources if necessary, but if the page is continually deleted, I will presumably be the only person working on it and that may never produce a completely neutral article to meet your standards. Steph0513 (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to make a report on user The Clawed One for continually harassing other users on this particular article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dissidia:_Final_Fantasy I fear a content/edit war may spark from this, but I am personally more concerned about him riding high on a horse he doesn't own. I request that something be done to keep his attitude in check, please. --JJimbo3 (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
3RR is not needed, he hasn't edited the article. The Clawed One (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear editors, I'm trying to post an article about Wokai, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. It has garnered several mentions and I believe it qualifies as significant under Wikipedia guidelines. I've posted a draft on User:Euwyn since the article is locked. Would dearly appreciate any assistance in (re)creating this article. Euwyn (talk) 03:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a wikipedia biography entry for myself, Barbara Biggs.
Recently some information was added to my entry about a national protest campaign about the Family Court I organized. This was a national campaign held in five cities around Australia.
During and after the campaign several father's rights websites, including Dads on the Air, Dads in Distress and the Shared Parenting Council had included vilifying material about me on their websites.
They have now gone into the wikipedia site and added information to the discussion forum disputing the information provided. The person who made the entry did not provide citations, but I have since edited and added many citations to the entry so that the information is now indisputable.
My policy is not to respond to anything on these anti-women sites about me and I'd prefer not to respond to the comments on the discussion board for this reason. It only fuels further derogatory responses.
They have added some information about a false passport I had in 1977 which is fine - it's in my books anyway. However, many of the other comments they've written on the discussion forum are untrue. For example, they have said that the national rallies were attended only by my friends. Considering the five cities were thousands of miles apart, this is not possible and I have also added citations about the rallies which appeared in various newspapers around the country. (Coverage also appeared on 3-4 TV stations in all cities but I don't have citations for these.)
I'm not sure how to resolve this without involving myself in discussions with these people which I don't want to do.
Is it possible for an independent editor to take a look at the entry and discussion forum and resolve the dispute?
Kind regards
Barbara Biggs <e-mail redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.205.91 (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
How do you make a totally NEW draft without editing another page? Like how do you add a page to a book that is not from Wiki? Can you even do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiG14 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
University of Chicago (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dear Editor,
Yesterday, I added two rankings on the University of Chicago web page/Wikipedia topic, and was later deleted. The person who deleted my edition cited that it was because those rankings were categorized as "boosterism". After understanding what defines "boosterism", I believed that the ranking published by the Princeton Review does not qualify to be boosterism, since, 1) the founder of the ranking was not a graduate of the University of Chicago, 2) I am not a student at the University. In addition, who is to decide whether a ranking is "significant"? A ranking gathering opinions from 150,000 students from 366 colleges was somehow "insignificant" surprised me. If a person can dictate what should go on an article or a topic on Wikipedia, we won't need enthusiastic contributors like me. 5:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.188.80 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC
Please explain why the Princeton Review does not meet the guidelines, when other rankings do. I agree that Youtube is not an appropriate source, but deleting others' helpful editing is wrong. I am new to Wikipedia, so I am not clear as to how signatures work. Does news articles like this meet the reliable source criteria (http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_chicago-stanford-best-for-undergrads_1048812 )? The Princeton Review's ranking was not based on the founder's opinions. It was based on scientific data. In no way did it infringe boostism. Also, in other universities' discussion forums, users could make various suggestions. That is not the case on UChicago's discussion forum; it is tightly controlled by a few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.188.80 (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=%22princeton%20review%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn and therefore their statements would seem to be notable opinions about the topic. Is abortion murder? The topic is covered by wiki. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
After contemplating for some time, I decided to cease contributing on Wikipedia, where everyone should be equal, except some people are more equal than others. Some people are able to dictate what other people should say. I think the way Wikipedia is constructed is problematic. If I Google "Wikipedia sucks", I can find amalgamate of people who share my view. Good luck. 24.86.188.80 (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Mount Ararat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi I've had an account for a couple of years but this is the first time I've been involved in anything I would consider a dispute. I noticed a broken citation on the article a couple of days ago, so I reverted the IP poster's edit to the last working version. The broken version was re-inserted again without comment on the talk page so I requested semi-protection. The page is now being edited by user User:Monlonet, whose only edits are in the Ararat article (still no response in the talk page). This seems like a good opportunity to get some practical experience in managing a dispute, so I'd appreciate some hand holding though the process if it's appropriate. Jminthorne (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Cam'ron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello i was just writeing today concerning your page for the rapper"Cam'ron".On the page it states"Cam'ron was also questioned on 60 Minutes about the "Stop Snitchin'" campaign. When asked if he would tell the police if a serial killer was living next to him, Cam'ron replied "I would probably move," but wouldn't inform the police. Cam'ron has had contact with the police in the past. According to The Smoking Gun, New York Police Department records indicate that Giles filed a police report with police after he was assaulted at a Harlem playground in 1999.[8]"I taking this would move to somehow discredit the validity of what he said on sixty minutes.#8 provides a link to the police report in question whereas on page two of the actual police report pertaining to description of suspects "UNKNOWN".So everybody loves the smoking gun.Loves to quote the smoking gun.If mr Cameron Giles apoun being asked by authoritys to give a description of his attckers and he provided no description where exactky is the smoking gun in this story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.90.191 (talk) 09:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Australian Capital Territory Debating Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The ACTDU page is being vandalised again. Recommend locking it for a while again after reverting vandals. Have already asked an admin to do so.JJJ999 (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I am editing the above-noted article title. How do I place references in a list at the end of the article and index them with numbers that appear above in the text? I need to know the specific steps involved, because I seem to be leaving one of them out.
Thanks for your assistance in this regard.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lodestar22 (talk • contribs)
I'm not sure how to nominate an article for deletion. the page about jayme langford needs to be deleted. it's just a way for her to advertise, which is disallowed on wp. thanks 174.49.116.149 (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I am in a dispute over content for a living person and I am requesting assistance to resolve the dispute. I have added material to the Mark Weisbrot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page and this material is repeatedly removed by two individuals. The dispute is documented in the talk pages, but essentially this: 1. Material that I have added links to blogs -- this was removed and I do not dispute that at this time.
2. References to the authors own work published in socialist magazines was removed when it is relevant to "who the person is" as he is one of a very few that does this.
3. References to a Book Review of his work -- by a well-known book seller (Amazon) a professional review was deleted which correctly characterize the man's work as 'liberal'
4. References to interviews given to self-described socialist magazines and organizations like alternet.
5. References to a speech he gave to the Left Forum, 2007, where the topic was "Forging a Radical Political Future ". where he represented "movements and tendencies on the Left" is verifiable, relevant, representative of his radical views.
I assert these are at least worth mentioning in the article, and clearly describe the man accurately as a liberal/progressive/leftist or radical economist. He as much self-describes when he gives a speech at the Left Forum 2007, representing movements and tendencies of the left. I have not even discussed the man's well-known connections and support of the socialist Hugo Chavez regime, and I dont' think that i need to at this point. The work speaks for itself, as does the weak, constantly changing arguments in the dispute. They wholesale undo every edit that I have made without any proposal for a compromise except "do it their way' We are not going to do it that way. People come here for information they need the whole truth, not the cherry-picked truth that the other editors desire.
Kindly assist in the editing of this document. Thank you.--Altoids Man (talk) 05:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Emilio Delgado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In this edit, User:Savoirflare (who has never edited any other article, since joining in October 2008) replaced the entire text of Emilio Delgado. The new text appears valid, if a bit promotional, and includes details not in the original text; the new text, however, is unwikified and omits some information from the original text. It reads as if it was taken from an official biography, but a Google search turns up nothing. Any thoughts? Powers T 15:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
Whitby Mental Health Centre in Whitby, ON Canada has changed its name to Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences. I have updated the content on the Wikipedia page, but cannot change the title of the page. Also the link to the page should be both Whitby Mental Health Centre and Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (Ontario Shores).
Please advise.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxtonk (talk • contribs) 18:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello - I was editing something and my log-in went. I'd like to hide my IP. How do I do that? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm new to Wikipedia. I read the Karl Rove article last night and I'd like to put a heading at the beginning of the article that lets the reader know this article is biased.
In doing research on Rove, I find the Wikipedia article is definitely slated to the negative perspective. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be neutral. I question the neutrality of this article. In addition, this article is poorly constructed. It is confusing and does not flow in an informative manner.
How can we make this article better? Thanks, Malke 2010 (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thanks so much for your help. However, I am slashing and cutting. I'm trying to make the article manageable by giving it a structure to start fresh. The bias it seems is in the choice of the things being put in about him and the things being left out. It is deliberately written to portray him as evil with no redeeming qualities. There is no mention of how Rove got Bush elected twice as governor and twice as president. The the Valerie Plume affair, where the prosecutor found no Rove involvement gets up there. See my point? Neutral means neutral. This article is so slanted I can't start making it coherent if I don't delete this stuff. Also, I do sign my changes. And I'm in the process so I haven't gone back to the talk page every time but I was planning to. I kept track of everything I did . So please help me and next time, please don't reverse edits without questioning me first. This is hard work and I don't take Wikipedia lightly. ThanksMalke 2010 (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The article with your rollbacks gives undue weight to only certain things in his life and does not give a true portrait. This is against Wikipedia policy. Also, tagging this article is absolutely justified. This is one of the most biased articles on Wikipedia that I have encountered.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Just seeking some quick advice before the real trouble starts:
There was a consensus at [[8]] not to include a certain passage in an article, and thus an IP user did not get his/her way.
Said user keeps inserting the passage and now sent me a "vandalism" warning for reverting it (I'm not sure whether I'm the only recipient or maybe he/she decided to play that spiel with everyone).
Should this user persist, what would be the appropriate steps in this matter? (There's a host of people reverting him/her every now and then, so none of us would fall into this trap, but nonetheless, just asking... also for future reference) Thank you. Seb az86556 (talk) 06:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
John Lennon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello, I am being accused by user: Radiopathy of being in an "edit war" by reverting edits three times on the John Lennon page -- however, it was he who started the editing and the information in his edit is incorrect. He also asked for a "citation" for something and I provided TWO references, then he slapped me with a warning.
I tried to reason with him, even email him, which he ignored, so I ask for help in this matter. I was one of two editors that made the John Lennon page a "good article" and we're just trying to keep it good and factual. Hotcop2 (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm a new wikipedia user and have been having some trouble with the Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. page. It has been re-written three times and nominated for several speedy deletions. However, today the speedy deletion tag was removed by an admin. This admin said that while the copy could use some editing, it did not need to be deleted. Another admin didn't seem to agree and subsequently moved the page to my user subpage User:Steph0513/Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.. I would greatly appreciate any editing assistance so this page can be moved back to the main namespace. I have also written another section "Notable Cases" that gives more detailed information on the cases listed in the current History section but was hesitant to post it because of the speedy deletion tag. I will post this new section for editing assistance upon request.
Thanks so much, Steph0513 (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes you did comment, and I took your comments into consideration when writing the current version. Since the page does have a Recognition section, should this constitute notability? - this is partially why I'm confused, if an organization has been recognized it is probably a notable organization, right? I did find more info on notable cases, the cases listed in the history section, but didn't want to post anything new until the existing page showed it had some staying power. Thanks! Steph0513 (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. I believe that the page in question does cite popular and reputable sources. The article has 60 references, approximately 5 of those 60 are the Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. official website. Most of them are news sources (i.e. The New York Times, USA Today, The Seattle Times, The Boston Globe) and legal resources (Chambers and Partners, RiskMetrics, Stanford Law School Securities Class Action ClearingHouse). There isn't a single assertion made within the article that is not cited. This is why I'm unsure of where I went wrong with the page. Is it possible for you to review the page and let me know what you think? Thanks, Steph0513 (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I guess everyone would be happy if you could single out one article about the firm rather than a case. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
"A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." Keep in mind that the source- news, review, journal, etc, may only mention the lawyers once but fully all of the case details rely on this participant- the strategy, the filings, the testimony- is all elicited from one of the litigating attornies. You can't cover a case without covering the firm presenting a case. And, ok, if they happen to get one or two notable cases, you may be able to argue "notability doesn't diffuse" but a long string of notable cases does suggest something about their business methods etc. I would argue this would be similar to a string of scientific articles that all use the same software for data analysis- the software may only get passing mention in most articles, there may or may not be any articles about the software although there may be some "how to guides" or articles about the algorithm it implements or maybe blog posts from scientific authors on how great it is, but AFAIK it could still make notability based on this. It isn't like they need to have a front page article on the firm to make it notable. I guess you could literally interpret the above quote taking "subject of" to mean that an article must be essentially about the firm, but by detailing their actions in the context of a legal action then articles about the litigation are about the firm as far as notability goes ( no?). It hardly seems necessary for their to be specific articles on the company although you would think that with enough notable cases, there would be relevant reliable coverage of the firm. Part of notability is almost tautological with being able to write a good article- if the firm fails notability criteria, you are left with puffery, gossip, ads, blog posts, stuff you made up, and trivial details. If reliable sources contain sufficient information to make a good article for the intended audience, it seems a reasonable interpretation of the above citation is as I have outlined. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
All references used in the Recognition section specifically pertain to Grant & Eisenhofer or one of their attorneys. I have listed them below. However, I agree that passing references should still be considered notable. After all, the publication could have chosen not to make any mention at all. Thanks, Steph0513 (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202424985891&slreturn=1 You can see that Grant & Eisenhofer was listed in the Plaintiffs' Firms Hot List Hall of Fame but you'll need a subscription to see the actual article.
http://www.riskmetrics.com/issgovernance/scas/scas50_2007.html
http://www.riskmetrics.com/white_papers/scas50_2008
http://www.chambersandpartners.com/USA/Editorial/33451#org_75451
http://www.chambersandpartners.com/USA/Firms/75451-33451/173260
http://www.chambersandpartners.com/USA/Firms/75451-33451/195681
http://www.delawaretoday.com/Delaware-Today/November-2004/November-2004-Table-of-Contents/ You will need a subscription to view this article as well.
http://www.directorship.com/the-2008-list-of-influentials-on-the-directorship-100/
http://www.boardmember.com/Legal-Briefs.aspx This features a few law firms, Grant & Eisenhofer being one of them.
Did you look at the links I posted above? Grant & Eisenhofer obviously does have substantial coverage and rankings. This law firm does not represent famous clients, it represents pension funds and other institutional investors (as noted on the wikipedia page) - hardly considered famous by anyone's standards. I'm not saying notability is contagious. I'm saying that some factor makes these cases worth noting in major publications. This factor is obviously not the plaintiff. It is typically the settlement size and scope of the case - the factor behind this is the law firm and the work it has performed. If a law firm can settle a case for billions of dollars through litigation, the case is notable as well as the law firm. I'm not proposing cause and effect here, I'm merely saying that when it comes to corporate law firms, they are recognized for their settlements and casework. The references I provided prove that this particular law firm has indeed been noted for these reasons. Thanks, Steph0513 (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
--AndrewHowse (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I stated that I have an internship which entails spending one week at various law firms. Grant & Eisenhofer was one of those firms. I noticed they did not have a wikipedia page during my time there so I independently started to create one. I no longer work there nor are they aware that I am writing this page. I don't think this is a conflict of interest, and other editors have already agreed on that. Other editors also questioned the reasoning behind the notability warning tag because it was clear to them that this law firm is notable based on rankings and casework.
I did read the wikipedia company notability page and still think this firm is notable. One source is a press release, only because I couldn't find that particular piece of information elsewhere. I'm not saying a press release is the best source of information, but it is certainly reliable enough to take facts from.
I mentioned Skadden because they state that they are "prominent" in the first sentence of their page. This isn't neutral language. Notability can be established through rankings. Grant & Eisenhofer has been ranked by organizations who do just that - rank law firms (Chambers and Partners, RiskMetrics). Please don't try to persuade me that these rankings are meaningless. This law firm has been featured in various publications - Delaware Today, Directorship Magazine, Pensions & Investments Magazine, and Treasury & Risk magazine. Most law firms with wikipedia pages haven't been featured in Forbes magazine, this does not take away from their notability or accomplishments. Cozen O'Connor does not mention any feature articles in their References section but I don't doubt that they are notable. If the tone in the Grant & Eisenhofer page needs to be addressed, another editor should step up and work on that. An admin moved the article to my user page so others could edit it, so far no one has done that. Thanks, Steph0513 (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. Sorry, I did not know other editors weren't supposed to look over things there, since an admin told me that is why s/he moved the article there from the main namespace. Steph0513 (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Reading through the wikipedia notability guidelines for organizations and companies, I just don't see how rankings are excluded. I'm not trying to be confrontational and I'm sure you have read through this page extensively but I've copied the first paragraph of the page below and want to specifically discuss each part.
An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable.
In addition to the ‘state’ listings, certain practice areas, such as antitrust and capital markets, have ‘nationwide’ listings which include those firms and lawyers with national practices.
To see how we assess and rank lawyers, please click on the ‘Explanation of Rankings’ link in the left-hand bar.
http://www.chambersandpartners.com/AboutUs.aspx?pt=rankingsexplained
Gerald Celente (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Gerald Celente article was in poor shape, with unsubstantiated references and claims, with a NPOV flag (the article was practically an advertising piece for Celente). I spent a day thoroughly researching Celente, checking facts & sources, reading articles from reputable sources. I did an extensive edit. My revised version was solid, clear, well written, NPOV. I found differing points of view and included them with a reference after each line.
Yet another user reverted it so it's back to unsubstantiated advertising junk. Not sure what to do. Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
User:Endareth/IronKey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) After my initial attempt at a very basic IronKey article was deleted (fully justified, I really didn't do a good job on it before finalising it), I've put together another which is currently sitting in my user page. I'd really appreciate some reviewing by an experienced editor before I move it live. I'm concerned that it may come across as advertising (that's why my first attempt was deleted), and I'm also aware that it contains various primary source references which I think should probably come out before I put it live. FIWI, I'm not in any way personally affiliated with IronKey, just a user of their products. — EndarethTalk–Edits 05:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I need some guidance on how to deal with 207.161.70.152 on StarForce. Should I do anything different? --HamburgerRadio (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
DID I DO SOMETHING WRONG? ON MY LAST ENTRY OF ROSIE LOPEZ SCHLERETH —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schlerethhi (talk • contribs) 16:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I recently came across the page List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009, which is a redirect to the page Timeline of the Gaza War. I found it very strange that List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009 is a redirect to this page since there is a different page namely List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009 following the Gaza War that contains much more completely what any wikipedia viewer would want had they typed 'list of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel 2009' into the search. I went to change this thinking it was just a mistake when I found the page was protected for some reason. And so I was wondering if any administrator can correct this obvious blunder? I don't think the page List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009 should be deleted, but rather that it should be changed so that the redirect is removed and the contents of the page List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009 following the Gaza War be placed within List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009. The page List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009 following the Gaza War could then be deleted. The reason why I think this should be done this way is because there is already the lengthy page List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008. It makes sense to stick with the same naming convention instead of adding the extraneous addition 'following the Gaza War'. I wasn't sure if this was the right place to post this or if I was supposed to post it on the deletion request page.Chhe (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
American (word) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello. Another editor and I have had some content disagreements on American (word), and he started reversing all my edits to advance his own point of view. We had a little undo battle (a few times each), and started having a heated exchange on the talk page. I put a neutrality template on the page because of the bias that seemed to be happening there, and asked for administrator intervention. One admin suggested that I do dispute resolution, and that's why I am here, asking for your help. If you wouldn't mind taking a look at the talk:American (word) page, I'd appreciate your comments, whether you agree or disagree. The relevant discussion takes place at the bottom of the talk page. Cheers, --MoebiusFlip (talk) 09:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I need help removing a flag on my wiki page. It says that I do not have enough links, but the more links I add, the more my page looks like a link farm. I have gone through the "suggested links" wizard multiple times. How can I meet the article quality standards faster? I do not want to have a link farm. Gcornelius (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Steinway Model D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There're multiple issues and problems (talk--> please read my comments at the end of the talk) with an editor who has taken ownership of the article, has removed tags without making improvements and keeps reverting changes. Please help us to make a better article! Cheers --Karljoos (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, recently I began to edit on the article Rodolfo Valentin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and upon finding the article Sofia's Hair 4 Health, a charity founded by Valentin, I proposed a merger on the basis the charity is not notable enough, (is also well covered enough in Valentin artilce under Philanthrophy), and is both poorly referenced and contains some POV. However I soon encountered resistance from three users in particular, Rodoval, Susy parker and Nicole reutman on these two talk pages on the merger. (It's my first time proposing a merger and made the mistake of creating two seperate talk pages, here and here - has since been rectified).
All three users have the same argument against the merger, they also seem to write in a similiar manner. However the user accounts Susy parker and Nicole reutman both have very alike user pages and were created within seven minutes of each other, their first actions in particular were to quickly oppose the deletion of the Rodolfo Valentin in support of Rodoval (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodolfo Valentin), who I believe is the controller account. Yet again these same users, along with an anonymous IP user (who also just edits on Rodolfo Valentin's and Sofia's Hair 4 health article and writes in a similiar manner), have joined forces to oppose the merger.
Another thing which may or may not be connected is the user justice all the way, who was previously investigated for sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Justice all the way). I hold the suspicion that justice all the way is in fact Rodoval, or in some way working with him/her (Both were opposed to Rodolfo Valentin article deletion, and both have edited on same pages). justice also had two other accounts, Pampita and Ralicia for support, aka Susy parker and Nicole reutman (All four have similiar user pages). Of note is the connection made between Rodoval and justice in the investigation too. Both Rodoval and justice were also connected on the Rodolfo Valentin article, even now where justice's attempts to change the page have stopped, Rodoval has picked up.
I had discussed this issue with user Whpq (who is also involved with articles mentioned and has dealt previously with users involved) on his talk page as I was going to instigate an investigation, however on his advice I have come here first for help.
Would appreciated some help and direction on a course of action here.
Thanks, --RavensFists (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
respected sir, i hereby request you to create page titled 'integrated system of medicine' integrated system of medicine is of india. integration concept covers wisdom from traditional ayurveda & modern medicine. integration is important for humanity as a whole
with regards dr yogiraj vinayak deshmukh bams,pgcems main road pathardi tal-pathardi dist-ahmednagar pin-414102 Maharashtra,India phone(02428)222254 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.105.56 (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The commercial real estate business has begun refering to some office buildings as "Zombie Buildings".These are buildings that the owner can not fund new tenant improvements, they have lost all their equity, and they can not obtain financing. Recent article http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/03/16/story2.html The term was also used by Dan Neidich at the Sam Zell sponsered Marshall Bennett Conference 6/22/09. NickRavino (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The generally accepted "solutions" to Zeno's Paradoxes are in conflict with quantum theory, which requires different solutions. My edits and content pointing this out have been deleted by others who oppose these corrections.
Request for mediation or initial review of the arguments and guidance for contributors.
Links: Zeno's Paradoxes and the associated Talk:Zeno's paradoxes
Looking forward to your input.
Best regards, Steaphen (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)