Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:16, 14 March 2008

Archives

• v
• t
• e

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

repeated removal of content on "St. Thomas More Collegiate"

Good day,

The point: an anon users continues to remove referenced content.

Background: I created this page (St. Thomas More Collegiate) some time ago. The school had a difficult period in the 1990s (al;legations of sexual abuse threatened to close the school). This content has been repeatedly been removed by the same anon user (216.232.59.112). I tried to resolve the issue by asking for a discussion on the discussion page and (when that invitation failed) also posted my argument on the discussion page. The user has done this at least 3 times. I don't want to enter an edit/ revert war. Perhaps providing semi-protection for the article would help? Please help. Thanks, Hu Gadarn (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I have returned the deleted text to the article (again). Thanks, Hu Gadarn (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That IP is a vandal. If you see more unexplained deletions from anonymous editors, feel free to undo them. I will monitor that editor for other vandalism. Sbowers3 (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted text returned again. Same editor blanking without explanation. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Kukishin Ryu Article Assistance

Hi! I am having problems / a dispute with one of the other users "Derala" over the content of the Kukishin-ryū article (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kukishin-ry%C5%AB&action=history). I've tried to reason with them, but they are not reasonable ( please see http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Derala for more details ). I would like to request a lockdown of the article temporarily...or something of that nature.

Thanks!

Mekugi (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hot Mess- Can't verify facts, bad links

I can't seem to remember how I came across this article on Dennis Galer Goodwin, (maybe because it's tagged for orphan?) but the external links are bad, I can't find anything to verify the facts (other than a casual mention in a BBC and CNN article, but who knows, they didn't cite their sources either, maybe they were referencing Misplaced Pages!) I tagged the article with whatever templates I could find that seemed appropriate, but I don't know what to do next. Should I remove the external links? Any suggestions/help would be great! Elliott Shultz (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You might want to bring it to WP:AFD. Follow the instructions there. Justin_(u) 22:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous user reverting content to old version with unsourced paragraph

What can be done about an anonymous user repeated (a dozen times over many months) reverting an article to an old copy of an article where he/she inserted information about a school kid project?

See: Special:Contributions/71.60.211.222

I put up a talk section, but no reply: Talk:Rhombicosidodecahedron.

Is this grounds for blocking, or should we just keep reverting forever?

Tom Ruen (talk) 03:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tom, It is annonying for sure - I have actually found the link http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04063/280160-55.stm - The Pittsburgh Post Gazette copy reads a lot better than Kids at St. Germaine School in..... Indeed such persistence is disruptive.

The easiest solution, other than waste time reverting edits all evening is to request a block now and again at Administrator Intervention against Vandalism, after a couple of blocks such persistence may wane (or collapse like said St Germaine's school rhombicosidodecahedron). Kind regards, -- BpEps - t@lk 06:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Mike Lupica deletions

To whom it may concern, I am one of two editors who have been disagreeing about a section of peer criticism on the Mike Lupica page; WKnight94 is the other. A record of the dispute can be found on the article's talk page and edit history, as well as two separate discussions that occurred on the WP:BLPN page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=183164546#Mike_Lupica and http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:BLPN#Mike_Lupica

A series of changes and reductions to the material were made, many in precise accordance with Wknight94's stated editing preferences. At the conclusion of this latest process, WKnight94 deleted all the relevant material anyway, and announced he was "just about done discussing" the matter. Thank you for any oversight and advice you can provide. 208.120.225.14 (talk) 14:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My edit summary here says it all. 208.120.225.14 is under the mistaken impression that this has become Wikiquote - and also that adding only quotes slamming a living person is acceptable under WP:BLP. They make no point that isn't already represented and are intended solely for inflammatory purposes. 208.120.225.14 misrepresents the accordance with my "preference" (which is actually WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:NOT#DIR policy) and also misrepresents consensus above as at least three other people wrote in to WP:BLPN agreeing in principle with me - and the one person he claims as agreeing with him is apathetic at best. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Let it be noted that in his/her edit summary for deleting the material, WKnight94 is currently claiming to be following the suggestion of User:Xymmax, who had only just posted on the Mike Lupica talk page 12 hours earlier, "I really have no objection to in their current form," while simultaneously signalling his/her intention to expand the text for additional context, not to delete it.

The editors who WKnight94 claims "agree in principle" with him/herself have written (in part-- see above referenced discussions), "While the sections shouldn't be removed completely, they could certainly be slimmed down," "I agree that some criticism is appropriate, but probably a few sentences would be enough. Can there be a compromise on a shorter version, one that includes no blog references?", "Perhaps the section could be edited down to one paragraph?" and "If there is carping about the relative length of the criticism section, to me it's preferable to lengthen the positive and neutral POVs than to truncate the valid assertions (which despite claims to the contrary are not only blogged)." No editor other than WKnight94 has supported deletion. The only consensus was for a reduction in size. In direct response to that advice, the section is now less than a third of its original length.

A few further items. WKnight94 now appears to suggest that Wikiquote is where external critiques and observations about a person and their actions are supposed to go. WKnight94's assessment of what constitutes "inflammatory" material has expanded beyond the disputed text to include a New York Times book review. Furthermore, specific passages and instructions from WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL, WP:BLP and so on have been cited in support of the disputed material's relevance, but to no effect. One of WKnight94's evolving arguments was that sportswriters are unreliable sources regarding their fellow sportswriters, which would be a new relevance standard for Misplaced Pages.

His/her series of rationales for opposing the material may be reviewed and judged on the 3 relevant threads. Ignoring this one dispute, his/her edit history otherwise seems very diligent, thoughtful and disciplined to me, and I have been perplexed and exhausted by this process. 208.120.225.14 (talk) 17:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Your first statement is blatantly false. Read my quote removal edit summary again please - no mention of Xymmax. Your citing of specific passages in WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL, and WP:BLP have been nothing more than blatant Wikilawyering - missing the point of the spirit of the policies and guidelines and twisting them in some way that supports your flawed argument. The book review you mention is a perfect example of the inflammatory nature of the quotes - a quote where a backhanded compliment is followed by a nasty attack, and the whole quote is masked as a benign example of a book review. POV pushing at its finest. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

WKnight94, February 29, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mike_Lupica&diff=194878627&oldid=194878058: "Trim Whitlock drama to exactly what was proposed by User:Xymmax at WP:BLPN."

User:WKnight94 is well aware of Xymmax's subsequent talk page comments (i.e. "Overall, I don't think there should be a problem harmonizing the rest of the article to accomodate this." (Feb. 27); then, "I really have no objection to in their current form" (Feb. 28)). WKnight94 even responded directly, and negatively, to the most recent of Xymmax's posts. Then, WKnight94 cited a February 21 comment as his/her justification for deleting the material anyway.

Various edits, deletions and reductions have already been made in response to the advice of editors Xymmax and WKnight94 (as well as others). Only one of them is completely dissatisfied with the result. Apologies to Xymmax for the necessity of quoting his/her posts. 208.120.225.14 (talk) 19:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, look how muddy the waters are here now! Just like every other venue. Mixing and matching edit summaries... First you say that I used Xymmax's name as I was "deleting the material" but now you're pointing to an edit where I didn't delete material - you're pointing to an edit where I moved material to a more appropriate place on the page and changed it to be exactly what Xymmax suggested. Hence my statement that I'm not discussing this for much longer - this issue has gone in circles for far too long and the words from me and other people and Misplaced Pages policies are being twisted into pretzels all for the sake of POV pushing. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

At Wits End

Hi.

I need assistance from an editor with expertise in music theory and notation.

I have useful credentials in music and journalism; in a "past life" I have played French horn, guitar, keyboards, etc., majored in advanced music theory at a leading conservatory where I taught theory, sight-singing, and dictation as a graduate assistant, had private students, and became a fairly well-published music critic (articles, interviews, record reviews) specializing in 20th-Century classical music.

Browsing Misplaced Pages in the summer of 2006, I happened upon the article on "A Hard Day's Night (song)." Under the heading "Music and lyrics," I saw a lead sheet image of the first verse, with guitar chord notations correctly in the key of G but notes transposed to the key of C. The lead sheet accompanied an analysis, properly referenced to a published source, that is expressed in the key of C and that references the notes of the lead sheet rather than the notes of the copyrighted recording and printed music, which are in the key of G. The lead sentence under the heading itself states, correctly, that "The song is composed in the key of G major ...". Not being familiar with Misplaced Pages policies and procedures, I added a paragraph to the main article to clarify that the lead sheet and analysis were in the key of C while the chord notations were in the key of G. Editor Hyacinth moved my comment to the talk page under the heading "Image," and left a boilerplate welcome to Misplaced Pages on my talk page. I welcomed the opportunity to make my point in an appropriate forum, so I started on the talk page, on which several other people noted the same problem and got responses from Hyacinth that indicated that he wasn't getting the point. Getting no response from Hyacinth or anybody else, I left a respectful note on Hyacinth's talk page, which is to this day unanswered.

At that time, the article had Featured Article status and was under FARC review; I read the FARC discussions and another person had said the same thing I (and others) did. I chimed in with my agreement that this was a serious problem in the article.

In addition to its problem with the key of the song and the note names, the analysis is, I believe, a minority viewpoint, uses some terminology whose explanations in Misplaced Pages are referenced primarily to the author of the analysis (ladder of thirds), and has one very serious glaring error in obvious contradiction to the Misplaced Pages (and all other sources') explanation of the term (passing tone ... the author asserts that the note he is using as the tonic is a passing tone, when said note is approached through a direct fifth in the context of a tonic chord). Of course, A Hard Day's Night is not exactly the kind of material that academic music theorists publish anything about, so there is no alternative and more reasonable analysis to be cited, but I know that if you asked the opinion of three or four academic music theorists, none of them would come up with anything as convoluted, and none of them would call the tonic note played against a tonic chord a leading tone. When somebody turns to Misplaced Pages for information about the song, they will either 1) not know how to read music or follow an analysis, and not care, 2) know a bit about music but not enough to evaluate the problems in the article, and again not care, 3) know a bit about music and take the analysis as proof of the song's "depth" ("Hey man, it's got a ladder of thirds and even a passing tone! Pass the joint ..."), 4) see the problems with the analysis and figure the author is entitled to his opinion, but notice that the lead sheet is in the key of C, 5) see the problems with the analysis and have enough expertise to recognize that the analysis is not in the mainstream and wonder why it is included at all. Readers in the last two categories may also conclude that Misplaced Pages is not a good source of reliable information. I think the analysis, as an oddball viewpoint, would be appropriate in an article about its author but not in an article about the song.

Near the end of my talk page discussions, I made three suggestions for improving the article while retaining both a lead sheet and the analysis (minus a few words). Hyacinth's response was still unsatisfactory, and a bit insulting to me or anybody else who can see clearly and self-evidently that the notation of the lead sheet is transposed to C. He has recently modified the lead sheet so that the chord notations do not appear, which I proposed as an option in my first suggestion, but did not label the new lead sheet as being in the key of C, did not state that the analysis is in the key of C and corresponds to the transposed lead sheet, and did not ellipsize the leading tone assertion. He did add more quoted text from the analysis, containing a term that is defined nowhere in Misplaced Pages or any other source I have ever seen.

I am unwilling to become a Misplaced Pages editor. I do not wish to make either the changes I would do if I were being paid to edit the article (which would be to scrap both the lead sheet and the analysis as inappropriate to the article's purpose), or the changes I suggested, only to have them reverted by somebody who has demonstrated in his responses to my concerns and elsewhere on the same talk page in response to others that he cannot ascertain certain self-evident facts, and then get into an editing war, and then go for arbitration, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

I am mindful of the community nature of Misplaced Pages and the possibility that, absent any talk-page debate involving more than just Hyacinth and me, the article will stand as it is. If that is the case, too bad for Misplaced Pages that nobody with the competence and time to make a simple improvement cares enough about such a relatively trivial point to see it through, because it implies that there are many such relatively trivial points that are misleading people who seek reliable information from Misplaced Pages. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to improve the article short of editing it myself, but my hope is that a competent editor will take this up.

Thanks ...

AlanH212 (talk) 18:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

I suspect a lot of the sources violate WP:SPS and WP:COI in the reference section but when actually looking at the article they do seem to be reasonable, albeit turning the article a bit biased as it covers one side of the story too much. Can someone have a look at the situation and see what is the appropriate action here? Thanks. --antilived 00:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what you are trying to say. Use the talk page at Talk:Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident if you have concerns and discuss it directly there. This is not the place. discuss there first. BpEps - t@lk 01:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have been there you would have known that I am already in active discussion, except it's only between me and a FLG-activist that is going nowhere. I have raised the concerns there as well but I am merely asking if this is indeed in violation of WP:SPS, as a lot of the sources are from FLG-run websites. Is this too much to ask for? --antilived 09:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Vulgarity in Protected Article about Bob Marley

The most recent edits to

http://en.wikipedia.org/Bob_Marley

edited by a user called Coolryan2500

contain passages like this:

Perry suggested the two get involved in the Gay Porn industry together as a dinamic duo, "The 8 inch Chicken Luvas". Marley first rejected his first proposal, but later reconsidered due to his increasing addiction to chicken, he was spending nearly $2000 a day on chicken and it was becoming to costly. The dinamic duo was soon sponsored by KFC and they made millions, but one day on the set for his new porno, "Chickens Getting Fucked By Gangsters", Marley was brutally raped and murdered by a chicken. The chicken grabbed Marleys 8 inch dick and bit it off, then it ripped open his ball sac and drank all the slippery juices, then it gave Marley a Purple Nurple and gently sucked all the milky juices out. Marley was dead after about 2 hours of this, and then the chicken gently Madeout with Marley and ran away, the chickens name was Carrot Top...and he was never arrested, all the chicken left behind was a little bit of Cum, KFC and a really hot Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition.

The post is protected so I can't fix it.

I've fixed it, and the editor's on a permanent vacation. Thanks for the report. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

user continues to post unverifable information. What do i do now??

Article in question is Home and away

this is been going on for a while now. I have been working on the page Home and Away and it is clear that in the past people have been making up information in regard to what characters are leaving and going. As a result i am taking a stance and demanding that such claims are backed up by a verifiable source. I have read the relevant policy and believe i am in my grounds to do so. I believe that demanding sources is essential to uphold the integrity of the article .

What if a person continues to add information that is not sourced correctly. I have spoken to this user via thier talk page several times however they continue to add unsourced information, and i just simply revert it. I have issued warnings but im not sure what else i can do? Is it a blockable offence. The user has made no attempt to resolve the issue. Yet i have several times. I've got to a point where i have no idea what to do next. Any ideas??? Thanks

Printer222 (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Shinnyo-en help in resolving an issue

Hello! I am a priest of the Shinnyo-en Buddhist order. My name is Mark Pinto, and I serve at the US Head Temple in Burlingame California. One of my responsibilities is Community Relations, and in that role, web content is playing an increasingly important role. As such, I researched the Shinnyo-en piece in Misplaced Pages and found it to be sincere in intent but not accurate in some regards and not relevant for the non-members of the order. As an example, the author cites the Chicago temple as the second largest Buddhist temple in the US, but it is not even the second largest temple within our order. Another point is the use of the word Bakku Daiju which means nothing to English speakers and even Japanese are not familiar with that word. Therefore, I removed the piece and replaced it with information that is widely available, accurate and perhaps more relevant to the public at large. I believe now that I went about it without properly introducing myself. For that I apologize. At this point, I would greatly appreciate your advice in allowing me to place content on the web site, information that is copyrighted to Shinnyo-en, which I have permission to use, as person in charge of information in the US. I travel a lot, but someone there should be able to help you to get in touch with me. You can find out how to get a hold of me by visiting our website. By the way, I am the webmaster for the website. Thank you in advance for your assistance! Pintomarke (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Pintomarke

John McCain article - Natural-Born point

Hello,

Multiple editors and myself have been asking nicely for a small point in the John McCain article about his birth in Panama and how that might relate to the the Natural-Born reference in the US Constitution.

I believe it belongs somewhere in the main article since it directly relates to his career goal of being US President. It currently is hidden away in a footnote surrounded by inappropriate/inaccurate commentary. Several editors have continuously blocked dozens of compromise solutions to this problem.

Can I get some assistance on this before I attempt to escalate this to Dispute Resolution?

Thanks Hutcher (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This article or section is written like an advertisement

I've been editing Dai Bai Zan Cho Bo Zen Ji (http://en.wikipedia.org/Dai_Bai_Zan_Cho_Bo_Zen_Ji) for awhile now and it still has this banner "This article or section is written like an advertisement" above it. It also still has the banner "This article or section is missing citations or needs footnotes." I've tried to follow suggestions from the banner links and have made several improvements, but I don't know how to get ride of the banners or who to ask to delete them (assuming I've done enough editing). Any help you (someone) can offer in regards to these banners would be appreciated.

Thank you,

zenquaker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenquaker (talk • contribs) 07:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't see any citations. Inline citations are important so we can tie the "facts" presented in the article to proof of verifiability. If you have solved a problem in the article, you're welcome to remove the tag yourself. However, if you're unsure as to whether you've solved the problem or not, discussing the situation on the talk page or discussing the situation with the user who added the tag is usually the course of action I take. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

User: GSWClan

Hello.

I created a page for GSWClan at the weekend - but i have had my account blocked.

Why was it taken off without consultation with me?!

It was the first page i created and I apologise if you think i Vandalised wikipedia but i think you will find you are wrong.

Misplaced Pages say: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism; careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism.

My attempt to improve the site may have been misguided or ill-considered as i thought anyone could post anything. Like what im typing now is my PERSONAL opinion and CANNOT be considered vandalism.

personal email address removed 195.68.31.231 (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You left a pretty nasty note on the blocking admin's talk page. Can you explain that? Thanks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ganci

Doctordotcalm (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The page I submitted "Ganci" was rejected because the text was found on a web page. The page on which the text was found was a page that acknowledges that I wrote and submitted the original. Therefore the copyright is mine and should be allowed on wikipedia. Please advise personal email address removed Doctordotcalm (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am copying a reply from the talk page of that article:

The trouble is that we have no way of finding out if this is true. The Site doesn't say that the text is released under any particular license, and in fact says that copying is only allowed if acknowledgement is given to the website (which we won't do). What you need to do to make this article acceptable is get the website it is copied from to state that it is released under the GFDL. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if that answers your question. What's more, the article seems to be missing reliable sources that back up the verifiability of the text of the article. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

My recent edit of Ted Kaczynski

Everything stated there is true. He could be contacted to see if it's not so. I knew him as a fellow classmate at DLI, and I list my webpage, www.rickhyatt.freeservers.com so that the photo of he and others might be seen, as well as further details. This does no harm to him; it helps his case! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.164.110 (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't know the intentions of other users, but I'd have to guess that your addition was removed because www.rickhyatt.freeservers.com doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's definition of a "reliable source". The edit summary doesn't say for sure so feel free to ask User talk:Skomorokh if you want more information. As always, try to give other users the benefit of the doubt. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Article entitled Russell Longcore

Dear Editors:

I posted an article about myself entitled Russell Longcore. There was a person with the name Victoriagirl who challenged my article. I wrote back and answered her concerns, yet a few days later, my page was deleted.

I am pretty unhappy that my page was deleted upon the comments of a person who had nothing to do with my site or its content. I'm also pretty unhappy that the editors of Misplaced Pages did not ever contact me before deleting my article.

I wish to challenge the deletion and want my article placed back on Misplaced Pages. If there are other changes and revisions that you'd like to see, please let me know what I can do.

Thanks-

Russell D. Longcore personal addresses removed

Your article was deleted after a deletion debate at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Russell Longcore. At the top of the debate is the signature of the admin who actually deleted the article. You could ask him to restore your article to a subpage of your user page so that you could work to improve it. Please read WP:Notability (people) so that you will understand the reasons for your article being deleted. Sbowers3 (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not allowed to add external link

I have had three messages telling me not to add links to my website. My site - http://www.murderuk.com - is a resource used by criminology and other crime related studies, students fro colleges and universities around the world. On several pages that list UK based homicide, l have added my site as an external link, as an area of further study for students and those interested in reading further. mine is a fact based site, featured in several leading crime books, as well as being featured on Crime & investigation TV. So,. why am l being told NOT to add my link?? I am only adding it where appropriate, unfortunately one of your moderators has an issue either with me or my site. i fully understand that you have to be careful that people are not adding inappropriate links, these are not.

Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tezza UK (talk • contribs) 13:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Inline citatations that enhance an article are fine, but external links are often deleted by editors because they do little to help an article. The same goes for "See Also" lists which should be wikilinked within the article.

looking at your site (I took Dennis Neilson as an example), you list no sources for the infomation you present. So it just presents readers with much of the same information they have already read. Just checking how many times your article is linked on Misplaced Pages (Misplaced Pages external links), it doesn't seem exvessive, but all of your recent edits have been to add your own site to Misplaced Pages without actually asisting in the editing process. So your edits appear suspiciously like Spam. BpEps - t@lk 15:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Mass editing all articles of WP:Hockey without consensus

I'd like to know exactly what I should do when a few people aligned with WP:Hockey have edited all player pages in the project without the consensus of the group (especially because there are a fair number of us that object to the new changes). I would just like things like this put to a vote before they are done, since the debate that continuously spurs them (has been going on for months/years) will most likely never be resolved. I'd just like to know exactly what I should do now that all of these pages have been edited without consensus. Thanks. Hazelorb (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

They've all been reverted already until such a time as concensus can happen. (if it ever happens). -Djsasso (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) When you say 'the group', you mean WP:Hockey? An important thing to remember is that Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and (I don't want to sound bitchy when I say this, but...) WikiProjects don't own associated articles.

Having said that, if the changes are against consensus on the article, then they will be reverted by the community. If they are against the consensus of the WikiProject, I am not competent to advise you, BUT I don't know of any policy which allows the conventions of a wikiproject to over-rule independent consensus on particular articles. In other words, if the consensus on the article's page by the article's editors is in conflict with overarching WikiProject conventions, as long as they are within WP policy, I don't think you (the WikiProject) can impose your values on the article. But, I may be wrong, and I look forward to others' input. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 18:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the group (WP:Hockey) is divided in two so there IS no consensus. There was a compromise, or so I thought, but apparently it is not really well liked by either side. Hazelorb (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, got it. Well, I'd suggest you ask for editor input, from places like 3rd opinion, Request for comment, or if there's a WikiProject Sports? Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 21:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with Anchoress, and like to reiterate that Wikiprojects have absolutely no special authority over any article. One Wikiproject was already disbanded (by deletion) because it was being used for bloc-voting and coordination of reverts to in effect own articles. Wikiprojects are meant to be tools for collaboration, not competition, and one certainly need not ask or agree with the Wikiproject to edit articles in the area. Mediation can also be helpful if the dispute is beginning to degenerate into bitterness or edit warring. Seraphimblade 22:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sins of a Solar Empire External Links Conflict

OK. I have repeatedly had to add a couple modification and community clan links and one editor keeps removing them. Fist calling them SPAM and now stating that such things are prohibited. Yet I see them on the World of Warcraft page, Eve and others. So what is the deal? He has also stated that if I add them again he would have me blacklisted.

His user name is: Skywalker. The discussion thread is: User_talk:SkyWalker#Deletion_Query.

I'm actively trying to build the community on the official forums and I would prefer to use the official Wiki page for references instead of small commercial wikis sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.155.84.234 (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:External links, fansites should be avoided. Any editor is acting properly to remove them. With more than 2 million articles, some of them will include things that shouldn't be there. That is not a precedent for wrong things in other articles.

The editor did not say that he would have you blacklisted; he said that he would have your links blacklisted so that the software would automatically disallow them.

When referring to articles such as EVE Online, it would help if you used the full name of the article and if you put double square brackets around them. Eve and EVE Online are two different articles; Sins and Sins of a Solar Empire are two different articles. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Love Tractor

Dear Misplaced Pages -

I am in a well known Athens Georgia based rock band called Love Tractor. The band is still together, has a recording contract, plays and tours, makes albums, has legal use to the band name and is TRYING to make a living.

Ex members of the band, and/or their friends and /or their family members and/or fans continue to erase the information posted about the new members of the band and the new albums and write in 'Misplaced Pages ' that the band broke up in 2001 and thats the end of it. They are sour grapes and cannot deal with the fact that the band contiues on without them, so they rewrite history . We would like the fact that the band continues on - have its history represented, and we do not have the time to be contiually policing your encyclopedia for their sabotage. can you help us ? thank you.

Billy - musician, Love tractor - Athens Ga. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.86.109 (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source - e.g. a newspaper or magazine article - to verify the continued existence of the band? Is there a source to verify that it is a continuation of the original band, and not a different band with the same name? Sbowers3 (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no reference currently to support the breakup of the band, and there's some stuff on fansites (not suitable as refs) supporting the continued existence of the original band with a largely new lineup. I've found a source for most of the content of the article and added a {{fact}} tag to the line about the breakup - if no citation can be found stating that they've broken up, that line can be removed. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 18:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Martin Garbus

Could someone take a look at Martin Garbus. Other than COI do you see any other problems? Something bothers me and I can't quite figure out what it is. Is it appropriate to have a "Clients" list? It seems unencyclopedic to me but maybe that's just me. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree the clients list should not be in the article, regardless of sources. Unless there's a particularly noteworthy trial on behalf of a client, it doesn't merit mention. Also, I think I know what you mean wrt the overall tone of the article. I too can't quite put the finger on it, but I think it may be due to a strong emphasis on active voice throughout the prose ("what Garbus did/has done"). As a reader, I would expect far more explanations of circumstances, implications etc. Dorftrottel (troll) 18:05, March 7, 2008

Baha'u'llah's picture on the Baha'i Faith wiki article

Dear friends at Misplaced Pages,

I realize that this picture has been the source of much comment and discussion; please allow me to add my own contribution.

Baha'is generally only see Baha'u'llah's picture when they go on pilgrimage to the Shrines in Israel. You may not be aware that getting permission to go on pilgrimage is a multiyear process and is very different than say going to a cathedral to sightsee. Pilgrimage is part of one's spiritual journey and transformation and so is not undertaken lightly.

On other Misplaced Pages sites in the past, I have seen where a link to various surprising plot elements in a movie or a book has been put under a link labeled "spoiler" and then one has to click on it to see or read the content. Why cannot the same be done for this picture that is so precious and deeply respected by some 7 million of the world's people? To leave it out on public display as you have done is quite offensive to me personally and I hope you will reconsider your position on this matter.

Thank you. Helenkosings (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns and this subject has been discussed amongst editors for several years. You can see the current discussion here Photo Talk. I personally favour a clickable box with any kind of material that users find offensive but the counter argument is that we would have to do that with every article or that it represents censorship.

If you edit your monobook.js file here and insert #m1{display: none;} this will stop you seeing images again on wikipedia. Otherwise, I doubt there is any other help we can offer here. -- BpEps - t@lk 15:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

tavalon tea posting

a few weeks ago I posted an article for my favorite tea place in New York, tavalon tea bar. I went to show my friend today and saw that it was taken off, listed as "potential crap." Please know that I'm not associated with tavalon in the least, except that I want other people to know about it (isn't that the point of wikipedia?). Please reconsider my posting! thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.117.161 (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what happened here I can't find a deletion log for it - it has 4000+ google hits and even a albeit short NYT review "It's always time for tea. I can only suppose that the article was very short and that you hadn't included any of the food reviews about the cafe. "potential crap" generally means that the "article does not assert its importance" rather than you spamming Misplaced Pages. I would invite you to create an account, start the article in your sandbox and get some other editors to help you with prose, formatting and very important making sure that you source the claims about the cafe. -- BpEps - t@lk 16:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Inventions in the Islamic world

Islamic Pov pushing in the Inventions in the Islamic world article, selected quotations (often from highly dubious Islamic sources) are used to claim an invention is Islamic, all I want is a small part to say that just because the invention happened in an Islamic controlled state doesn't mean the inventors were devout Muslims. This goes against the pov pushing agenda though Oxyman42 (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment : the article is about "Inventions in the Islamic world" it does not mention the Quran or aspects of the Muslim faith. I only came across the article by looking at Recentchanges, if you think the article if POV then instead of adding another POV source like this (which appears to be straight out of conservapedia) - state what is wrong and where. Instead bias has been introduced (copy pasted in fact - a first person opinion) in the lead section from FrontPage Magazine. Pahari Sahib (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

reply: surely a way of trying to balance a debate is to include opinions from both sides? There are about 100 quotations from dubious Islamic sites, or quotations carefully selected and taken out of context to support an argument. I added that (single) quotation after several others were deleted by pov pushers such as "many of them (the inventions) had direct implications for Fiqh related issues"

this quotation was supplied by a Muslim when it suited the point he was trying to make but deleted it when I added it to the article as it did not support the pov agenda"In English we use the word “Islam” with two distinct meanings, and the distinction is often blurred and lost and gives rise to considerable confusion. In the one sense, Islam is the counterpart of Christianity; that is to say, a religion in the strict sense of the word: a system of belief and worship. In the other sense, Islam is the counterpart of Christendom; that is to say, a civilization shaped and defined by a religion, but containing many elements apart from and even hostile to that religion, yet arising within that civilization."Bernard Lewis in What Went Wrong

Any edit which goes against the pov pushing agenda is deleted by someone from WP:ISLAM which is unlike a normal Wikiproject as it is a group of pov pushers intent of pushing their views rather then improving wikipediaOxyman42 (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I am not a member of WP:ISLAM, but you should at least try and follow WP:MOS and cite it correctly - and not overload the lead section with your POV. Pahari Sahib (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be a wikiproject just to monitor the stuff coming from WP:ISLAM, I did try and cite it correctly, but every time I try and add something here it is reverted by pov pushers from WP:ISLAM. the whole article at present amounts to one big pov push from WP:ISLAM and it is somewhat beyond one person to check 150 odd quotations to see if they are correct Oxyman42 (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If you believe there is a 'big pov push' from whatever quarter, I suggest you take it to Misplaced Pages:AIV. Pahari Sahib (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Alliance for Young Artists & Writers

What to do about an editor who has taken ownership of an article and refuses to communicate with any other editors? The Alliance for Young Artists & Writers is notable so cannot / should not be deleted but the article is sourced only from the subject's website. I have repeatedly tagged it with {{onesource}}; other editors have added {{primarysources}} and {{unreferenced}}. The "owner" keeps removing the tags without doing a thing to improve the references. I have left notes on the article's talk page, and on the user's talk page but he does not reply. Suggestions? Sbowers3 (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You've done what you can with honey, it's time to break out the vinegar. Add the tags back and if they're removed, start with {{Uw-delete2}} and escalate.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You can also ask for editor input from several sources: 1) Third opinion; 2) Request for comment; and 3) Any associated WikiProject (check the list for relevant WikiProjects). Good luck! Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 19:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Scyscrapers in Lithuania

Hi. Is there an easy way to correct the spelling of this category ? There's apparently no 'move' option for categories. CultureDrone (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. I guess that proves posting your post here was an easy way:-) For future reference, the dedicated place for such requests is at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion#Speedy renaming and speedy merging.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - and such a simple page to remember for the future :-) Where's that bookmarks button... CultureDrone (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

History of Midway Atoll

This article appears to be a simple copy and paste of the history section from Midway Atoll - is there any reason this should exist as an article in its own right ? CultureDrone (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

External links in CrimethInc.

The article concerned is CrimethInc., an anarchist collective and publisher. The issue is whether or not a series of reviews (critical and positive) of CrimethInc. publications should be included as external links in the article. Some of the proposed links are currently included and quoted from as references. User:In the Stacks thinks that all of the links should be included as external links, and that using them as references instead is effectively burying them and thus a violation of WP:NPOV. I think that references should not be duplicated as external links, and external links to book reviews which are not suitable as references (for WP:RS reasons etc.) should only be linked from the book article, rather than CrimethInc., the publishers article. There has been edit-warring back and forth for months on this issue, and I would most appreciate it if you could weigh in at Talk:CrimethInc.. Regards, скоморохъ 17:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for assistance, please, a user deleted my sourced&referenced material

in the voice pelasgians, in the setcion "pelasgian as hellenic" i added this sourced material.

According to modern scholars , the Ancient Greeks used this theory as a legend of national legitimation to serve the political propaganda of the city-state, tracing their line of descent right back to the age of myth.

1] C. Baurain, Rome, 1989, page 131 "Heracles dans l'epopee homerique", Heracles, actes de la table ronde de rome 2] S. Gotteland, Paris, 1995, page 379 "Genealogies mythiques et politiques chez isocrate", actes du VIIIe colloque du centre de Recherches mythologiques de l'universitè de Paris.

3]W. Burkert, 1979, Los Angeles and London, Vol XLVII, page 78, 97, 379 "structure and history in Greek mythology and rituals", Sather classical lectures.

the user Megistias deleted all i write violating the rules of wikipedia that allow me to enrich articles with sourced material.

the reaction of this user was very agressive, for more informations it can be read the last piece in talk-page of "pelasgians"

thanyou

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

ok, for the moment i think it is ok, resolved for the moment.

thankyou aniway! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PelasgicMoon (talk • contribs) 22:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Link Problems on Dusty Springfield Article

Dear Sir/Madam... I recently launched a new informative Dusty Springfield website www.dusty-springfield.com . It is a very dedicated piece of work with no adverts or commercial background. This is the reason why I thought it would be appropriate to install a link to my website on your section about Dusty Springfield. We do a lot of charity work and are constantly uploading lots of new finds onto the website. This is why we (the admin team) are extremely surprised that we got into some kind of undefined trouble with the link on wikipedia.

Our link has now been deleted several times and when I asked a fellow wikipedia moderator about the reasons for this action I got no answer. I didn't know that the wikipedia policy might contain a paragraph prohibiting any kind of external link exposure on the encyclopedia entries? And if there is such a policy why can entries such as the one of Joss Stone, James Brown, Elvis Presley, and thousands more have a link section - why not Dusty Springfield?

In the history I can see that a moderator or member (?!) called ravenfire removed my link each time with the side note: "removing inappropriate link" Could you please tell me what about my website is inappropriate? I can't see anything. However if there is something inappropriate I will of course change it accordingly.

I would appreciate any kind of help with this.

Kind Regards,

M.C.— MargotChanning (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC).

Sure; it's bad form to promote your website on Misplaced Pages. You may benefit from reading Misplaced Pages's policy on promotion and Misplaced Pages's policy on external links. скоморохъ 22:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Your site is a fansite which is a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. In addition, it would appear you have attempted to insert into Dusty Springfield, a multitide of times under a varing aray of IP's;

MargotChanning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
91.125.172.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
89.0.170.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
80.189.117.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia - Content that does not belong in an encyclopedia is excluded.. Misplaced Pages is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Misplaced Pages is not a place to to promote your site.--Hu12 (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Link to "People's Park (Berkeley)"

The subject link is all screwed up. It sends you to "People", after getting to the first web page, when you click on People's Park (Berkeley) 62.63.164.163 (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Charles Burke

I'm not sure what you are saying. I wikilinked the name of the article above. When I click on it I end up at the right article. Where was the link that you saw that didn't work? Sbowers3 (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Advice requested in Psychohistory

I and another wikipedian are having trouble to communicate with an editor, User:Ishmaelblues, who doesn't seem to engage in meaningful communication in the psychohistory article. Please see the ongoing discussion in Talk:Psychohistory#Burden_of_evidence. What Ishmaelblues keeps posting in the article (and reverting our reverts) reads like a personal attack on the founder of psychohistory, a living person. (I have tried to communicate also in his user talk pake without success.)

Thank you very much.

—Cesar Tort 03:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert War to remove "Disputed" tag on "White Privilege"

Someone put a disputed tag on the White privilege article, and someone? (a few different identities) keeps reverting and removing it, dismissing the points raised on the discussion page. Seems to me that is kind of vandalism, if not just a revert war. If the neutrality is disputed, do others have the right to usurp control and immediately remove the tag? Please, some objective help!

No, there is no justification for removing a {{disputed}} tag unless all parties have agreed that the dispute is settled, or the unsatisfied parties have made no effort to respond to dispute resolution initiatives. скоморохъ 05:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless there are no valid concerns presented at the talk page, only "I think white privilege is racist against white people." Should I place a NPOV tag on George Bush because I think he's racist? NPOV, disputed, etc. tags require a legitimate concern to be raised on the talk page - if none is raised, the tags are (rightly) removed. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

dispute over adding new theory about Mid-Atlantic Ridge

user: vsmith who has admin powers has blocked me unjustly from adding content to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge page after I started adding content which he did not approve of. He cited several reasons including fringe theory and neutral point of view regarding why my content should not be considered. I cited references for my addition and countered him by posting excerts from wp: fringe and wp: npov on his talk page to demonstrate that my addition conforms to Wiki guidelines. I am still blocked from the page and he refuses to post any info regarding my additional content on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge page. I am looking for assistance in how to handle this issue. I want to have all the relevent theories represeneted on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge page. Thank you.--68.251.40.176 (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm with User:Vsmith here. A creation science explanation, citing to a "Grizzly Adams Production" program on the putative discovery of Noah's Ark, is properly excluded from scientific discussions as "fringe". (See the Grizzly Adams website, http://www.grizzlyadams.tv/, to gain a sense of that production firm's approach to scientific inquiry and method.). JohnInDC (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

On user:vsmith's talk page, I reference a book by Dr. Walt Brown about his Hydroplate theory whereby Dr. Brown explains in detail his scientific theory and he has posted that book in its entirety online . Dr. Brown is putting forth scientific evidence and his work is open to scientific criticism if anyone in the scientific community disagrees. It is his book and his work that is referenced in the "Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark" by Grizzly Adams Prod. Grizzly Adams isn't the source of this theory. I simply referenced the movie because I figured someone else would do further research into getting the sourced material. So now I've done the research and posted it on Vsmith's talk page. Instead, Vsmith simply blocked my from adding this info which is why I appeal here. What do you suggest I do?--68.251.40.176 (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you are out of luck. The creation scientists might be right and the mainstream scientists might be wrong but that is something that only God can know. And for our purposes it doesn't matter.

From Misplaced Pages:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

Dr. Brown's book was published by the "Center for Scientific Creation" and within Misplaced Pages that won't be considered a reliable source. Had it been published by a well-known mainstream company, then it could be considered a reliable source, but would still be considered a minority view, if not a fringe view. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

wp: fringe theory: "Creation science — The overwhelming majority of scientists consider this to be pseudoscience and say that it should not be taught in elementary public education. However the very existence of this strong opinion, and vigorous discussion regarding it amongst groups such as scientists, scientific journals, educational institutions, political institutions, and even the United States Supreme Court, give the idea itself more than adequate notability to have articles about it on Misplaced Pages."

Is this not proof enough from Misplaced Pages's own manual that this creation science theory deserves to be posted under the Mid-Atlantic Ridge page? How are people supposed to know about emerging science if the encumbant science is treated to an unnopposed election? We seem to think in our 21 century minds that all has been discovered and no further scientific hypothosis is needed. The prevailing theories about the Mid-Atlantic Ridge have been held in the mainstream scientific consensus for a little over 50 years; not very long at all. There are still scientists today putting forth new theories and publishing these theories. Regardless of the publisher's credibility, the theory has been published and is available for any to read. It is not a half-baked theory; it has been thoroughly thought out and is available to be criticized. The author welcomes any scientist to debunk his theories in an honest discussion. This is a relevan theory and deserves to be noted on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge page. --70.89.194.153 (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you have missed the point of the entry you quote. It says that, in spite of the fact that Creation Science is viewed as pseudoscience by the overwhelming majority of scientists, the topic itself is notable and thus - itself - appropriately the subject of a Misplaced Pages article or articles. It does not say that pseudoscience is appropriately included in scientific Misplaced Pages articles. I concur with the assessment of User:Sbowers3 above. JohnInDC (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How to achieve consensus

How do admins always know when to delete/keep a certain page on XFD? Is there a certain page for this, or is it just based on plain common sense?

And for that matter, how does a deletion qualify as controversial? Two One Six Five Five _ʃ 18:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, crap--I asked at the wrong page. Sorry! Two One Six Five Five _ʃ 18:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Falun Gong

A dispute has arisen over my attempts to insert a paragraph into the article about Falun Gong. Despite serious attempts on my part to achieve consensus, my edit keeps getting undone. Could an admin please have a look? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

From Misplaced Pages:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

Your insertion might be true but that is almost irrelevant. What matters is whether the facts are referenced and verifiable through reliable sources. If you add true facts without any reliable sources then your edits likely will be removed. The other editor clearly explained why he removed your edits: Your first statement did not match what the source said; Your second statement was from a source that might not be considered reliable under Misplaced Pages's definition of reliable source; Your third statement did not have a source.

If you can find reliable sources for all of your statements then you almost certainly can include them. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And further, on the topic of Administrators: unlike the units called 'Admins' on many other sites, our Admins don't act as moderators. They are not mandated to weigh in (with authority) on content issues, only procedural issues. Any opinions or actions they take editorially are as fellow editors, with no extra weight or authority. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 01:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Zorbing Article

I am the Franchising and Licensing Manager of Zorb Limited, based in New Zealand.

The article "Zorbing" was put up by another party and many inaccuracies have been posted to the article. I do my best to keep the facts as straight as possible but the article seems to be edited back almost immediately.

We have three main issues with this article:

(1) Use of the term “Zorbing” to describe the activity which adds fuel to the argument that the term is generic, something that we strongly dispute as holders of the registered trademark “Zorb”. (2) The irrelevance, inaccuracy and defamatory nature of the Company History section. (3) Inaccuracies regarding Zorb itself, eg Zorbs on water – we do not use Zorbs on water and this is a serious safety issue.

Please advise how best to proceed.

Regards

Lizzie Dean Zorb Limited —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzie dean (talk • contribs) 03:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said on Talk:Zorbing, trademarks are covered by the WP:MOSTM policy. I've started a discussion about using trademarks as verbs. As for the factual errors, Misplaced Pages articles are written in a consensus process. An important part of that is verifiability. If you think there's something wrong in the article and there are no sources cited for that part, go ahead and correct it, but be sure to include reliable sources to back up your claims. — Ksero (talk | contribs) 10:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

neutrality dispute on 9/11

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello,

since January I am involved in a dispute with a dozen editors which seem to like the current article and seem to dislike my proposed additions. In my opinion, there exist more than 1 view on the September 11, attacks, which roughly can be described as:

• A: The official account of events before, on and after 9/11 is reasonably complete and truthful,
• B: The official account leaves all sorts of serious questions unanswered, and further investigation is needed before determining whether persons inside the administration may have been guilty of wrongdoing. (The more extreme variant of B would be to claim government complicity in the attacks)

View B has been reported on by RS every once in a while. View B has prominent adherents. View B is creating arguments and hypotheses based on facts which are undisputed and have been reported by RS. A number of those facts are not included in the 9/11 article.

first dispute

The "dozen editors" however do not allow me to add such facts, arguing it would violate WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:TRUTH, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTE to include even a single one of them. From talk pages and edit comments it is clear that these editors have a deep loathing of everything which reeks of conspiracy. They accuse me of POV pushing, and I believe they are pushing their POV, violating the guidelines in the process. They have the benefit that their view A is shared, at least openly, by most RS.

We have reached little consensus on anything. They keep repeating it would be illegal for wikipedia to report a fact which was published by an RS in the absense of (another) RS which says that the reporting of the fact is or was important.

That was the first dispute, the second dispute is that when talk page discussion did not give any new arguments which I thought made sense, finally I tentatively made the changes, being BOLD. They were reverted using i.m.o. very weak (or even lacking) motivation. I then placed a POV flag which was reverted as well, claiming there was no consensus for putting a flag there. I would say there is some illogical loop here.

• Who can help me with either of the problems, point me to past and similar situations, or anything? Thx  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why there hasn't been more consensus-making on the talk page... I'm also not quite sure why the reliable sources you were adding were removed. Sure, they could be expanded on, but they shouldn't be denied existence... going to get the editors involved and lead them here so that they can have a say. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That talk page has a huge amount of discussion, same issues over and over. But this is not an endurance contest...he can't make us say the same things over and over forever. At some point is needs to stop. RxS (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel's "view A" versus "view B" scenario is why the consensus of editors involved in this article has been rejecting his/her proposals for more than a year. Xiutwel's "View B" encompasses the conspiracy theories related to 9/11, all of which have no scientific backing described by reliable sources. Despite consistent efforts to inform this user that his/her proposal violates WP:FRINGE, and most policy, due to a complete lacking of reliable sources, he/she has chosen a path of disruptive tendentious editing, ignoring and criticizing Misplaced Pages's core policies to push a fringe theory. After fighting for more than a year, ignoring policy and consensus all of the way, Xiutwel proceeded to advocate the addition of a series of insignificant facts, claiming they helped represent "view B". Consensus was that these facts were minor and irrelevant. When asked to establish what was notable about the desired facts, Xiutwel's argument was that the article was not representing "View B". Adding a series of otherwise minor facts with the purpose of representing an unverified fringe theory in a scientific context is, of course, a violation of WP:FRINGE, WP:OR, and WP:UNDUE. Okiefromokla 01:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll just say that Xiutwel has been doing this for 2+ years now. These issues have been discussed time and again and rejected. Personally, I can't keep up with the volume of his posting on the talk page. Nonetheless, being loud like that does not equate to consensus for changes he wants to make. --Aude (talk) 03:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that he's persistent, but edits such as this seem to me to be well-placed. For example, it has a reliable source and introduces an excellent example. And, as we all know, regardless how crazy a fringe theory is, if it has received coverage in the media then there's no harm in including it. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

We have a subarticle for details such as that. There are dozens of subarticles about 9/11, and the main 9/11 article (per WP:SUMMARY) has to summarize them. Also, per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, WP:FRINGE etc., we need not devote more space talking about specific conspiracy theory examples. There is consensus on this point, though we always have a small number of vocal editors who keep pushing on this. Xiutwel, in particular, has been doing this a long time. It wears people out and is problematic. --Aude (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to come here, but I have nothing much to say that hasn't already been said by Aude and Rx StrangeLove. At this point in time, I have come to accept that this case needs to go to ArbCom before any of this is resolved. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

While against silencing minority voices, we do ban POV pushers, especially those that have been termangently arguing for inclusion of unfactual information in our articles. Arcom would need to look at the termangency of the situation, rather than the content, since they don't generally make content rulings.--MONGO 18:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I must conclude that every editor that has written in the above section, bar Master of Puppets who locked the article and was invited by me here, belongs to the group of editors which is already working on the article. I had hoped to sollicit some fresh opinions on the matter, whereas the present editors are rather entrenched. I will not rebut anything above, there seems no point to do so here in stead of on the article's talk page. If any outside editor is willing to help and take a look, please do. Here, or there. (And if any more criticism on my editing is due, you are welcome to post it, or un-archive-mode this section, but I do not see the point.)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 03:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Youth United

Hi.. i am a user on wikipedia, who has created an article Youth United earlier. I dont know why, but in spite of having done everything what I was told, there seem to be problem with some wiki admins now also. I would recommend you reading Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review#Youth_United before proceeding. Initially I was asked to supply some reliable third party sources, now I made available links of national newspapers, then too a very abstract issue of subtantiality of the coverage of the newspaper is raised. less substantiality of the article is always at the cost of neutrality or non advertising nature of the article, as should be the case. newspapers always cover incidents in a neutral and informative manner, so the very speculative issue of substantiality should be declined. although I have been using wikipedia for long and acquainted with its policies, I might be missing some technicality behind the issue, which may in turn can support my request. Seeking your help. regards, Extolmonica (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Eugene "Debbs" Potts

My name is Vikki Pruden and I represent the Eugene Debbs Potts Foundation. I am writing in regards to your entry about Eugene Debbs Potts. I am concerned about References 9 and 10, as well as External links to Historic Pottsville. We received a judgement against Mr. Shannon Fain in May of 2007. Linking any article or reference to his web pages is a direct violation of the judgement. He is not allowed to represent the Foundation as an officer or as a director which his web site continues to do. We would appreciate if you would delete any references or links to debbspotts.com or that of Mr. Fain. He does not have permission to use any photos of Mr Potts or of Pottsville. Mr Fain should not be allowed to edit or contribute any information concerning Mr. Potts or Pottsville. I will be glad to fax you a copy of the judgement for your records. I hope you can help us in a timely manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikkipruden (talk • contribs) 22:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ms. Pruden - Misplaced Pages doesn't have a central authority who can act on a request like this. By and large anyone can add anything to a Misplaced Pages page, provided that the addition meets the various tests for inclusion. See Misplaced Pages:Five pillars and Misplaced Pages:Simplified ruleset to gain a general sense of how things work. Likewise an editor may link to anything, provided that it is pertinent, reliable and so forth. The upshot is that so long as Mr. Fain follows the rules of Misplaced Pages, and his websites are appropriate to the articles that link to them, he will be left alone and the links to his sites will remain undisturbed. The converse however is also true - if you or anyone you know wants to take a crack at the Eugene "Debbs" Potts page and rewrite it in a manner that removes the disputed material, please do so. Just take care to explain the changes, and more importantly, to preserve the page as a viable entry - *edit* it instead of simply excising material. If the changes appear to gut the page or introduce a particular, non-neutral point of view, the page may be changed right back to the way it was.

More broadly, however, from the sound of it, the judgment is one against Mr. Fain personally - in which case your remedies lie against him and not against entities or persons who had nothing to do with that lawsuit (i.e., Misplaced Pages and its many editors). If either Mr. Fain's editing of certain Misplaced Pages pages or the content of his website violates a court order, then ask the court for assistance in enforcing the order. JohnInDC (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this should have been addressed on the article's talk page first. Please see my response there, and note that it was not Mr. Fain who was editing Misplaced Pages, another editor just linked to his page. Katr67 (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

My edits are being reverted on the basis that I'm not providing a source for a consesus

On the article for the Nintendo character Ganon I noticed that someone had placed a lead image. Looking at the discussion, no one has mentioned a lead image yet that image was left on (I haven't been active on Misplaced Pages for months). In any case I removed the image and left in the edit comment that the community had discussed this before and we should not have a lead image.

Having said that, I was reverted immediately for no adequately explained reasoning other than "I can't see that discussion". Mind you it's on the article's discussion page (not archived).

Here's the link to the article page's history: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ganon&action=history

Here's the consensus that was reached, the same discussion he says does not exist and is the basis for his reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Ganon#Image

What exactly should I do now? --HeaveTheClay (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, there was no clear-cut consensus on the grounds of removing the picture, most are thoughts on which depiction of Ganon should be utilized. Regardless, I've asked someone to step in because it's not worth warring over. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is proof that no agreement by the community was decided. I now ask that HeaveTheClay's undiscussed change be reverted. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The previous consensus was to leave it without an image, you can check that discussion for yourself in the archives. Someone added an image despite the disagreement on everyone for which should be the lead image. If we can't agree on an image, then we'll stick to the previous agreement of no image. Reverting my edit, which is going back against the previous consensus, is a fanboy and over-zealous judgment on your part.--HeaveTheClay (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nathalie Handal

To whom it may concern,

I am not certain what I am doing wrong. I get messages saying that I should not leave the page blank. Everytime I edit, it is reverted to what you have now. What you have now on Nathalie Handal is not completely correct and there should not be a link to Palestinian people. She does not represent a country or people. She is a writer.

Where should the correct info be sent for approval? Please help me out. Thank you so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NatHandal (talk • contribs) 15:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A really broad answer to your question is that in Misplaced Pages, changes to articles are arrived at by consensus rather than by fiat. This is particularly so for big changes. See WP:Consensus for starters. That means that if you have thoughts about what is or what isn't appropriate to an article, it is good practice to raise the issue - maybe even along with your proposed edits to resolve it - on the article's accompanying discussion page (which you can reach via the tabs at the top). There is no guarantee that your suggestions will gain a consensus but ideally the discussion process will at least tease out the pros and cons of the proposal.

When people make wholesale and unexplained changes to an article, the changes will often be reverted quickly. This may in large measure account for your experience. Perhaps the other editors disagreed with the substance of your changes too. (I didn't examine that and am not qualified to anyhow.) Ideally, the reverting editor might add something to the Talk page to explain the reversion and create a dialogue, but that doesn't always happen. (And it's been my experience that, broadly, the burden of raising the issue for discussion falls more squarely on the person suggesting the changes.) So my suggestion would be to try to go back to square one by raising your concerns at Talk:Nathalie Handal with an eye to engaging the page's other editors in discussion.

(I hasten to add that any edit you do propose must also meet the general requirement of verifiability, WP:Verifiable, as well as the many other policies governing the editing procedure. Mere opinion, even if personally well-informed, will not carry the day.)

Other, more experienced editors may have advice or comments too and you might want to wait a bit to see if anyone else weighs in on this too. JohnInDC (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for advice

Currently, I am having a disagreement with a fellow editor over a recent edit I made to Tort_law. See User_talk:Enigmaman. I would like an informal but independant assessment of whether either of us is correct. I would kindly request that you reply to my talk page, if it is not too much trouble. Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC).

I posted a comment on your talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Japan Steel Works

Please take a look at Japan Steel Works if you have a chance, and make sure it looks ok. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

External Link Relevance

I have posted an external link on the Wiki for Bill Hemmer that has been removed yet the linked page is mentioned in the article. This link has also been allowed to stay on the page prior to today. The link is to a web comic that features a character based on Mr. Hemmer. I assumed that the mention in the article would give weight to the link. Please clarify.

Scarlet Termite —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarlet Termite (talk • contribs) 15:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

George School repeated reversions, no discussion, then blanking page

The page for George School has been repeatedly re-edited with blog-like entries, then blanked, by (presumably) the same person using multiple aliases. The person has not participated in any discussion on the discussion page. Help!--Natcase (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Georgetown, Washington, D.C. - silent edit war

I could use a bit of 3d party assistance. A couple of weeks ago I reverted an addition to Georgetown, Washington, D.C., explaining my thinking in the edit summary. A week later my reversion was reverted by user Wikihw, without comment. (The original contribution came from an IP and I have no idea whether Wikihw is the same person.) I re-removed it, with a plea to take the dispute to Talk, where I made an entry amplifying on my reasoning: Talk:Georgetown,_Washington,_D.C.#Hollerith. Two days later the same user reverted my change to restore the entry, again without comment. I removed it again (3d reversion) with another plea to discuss the addition along with an entry on the user's talk page. User_talk:Wikihw#Hollerith_in_Georgetown.2C_Washington.2C_D.C.. The same user has again today restored the change, again without comment or response to my message. Another reversion would be my fourth. I don't want to engage in a silly edit war, which this is about to become; but at the same time it doesn't seem quite right simply to acquiesce in a change because the editor indefatigably reinserts it while refusing any attempt at discussion.

Thanks for any assistance. JohnInDC (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Murder of Eve Carson

http://en.wikipedia.org/Eve_Carson "The medical examiner said that Carson had not been sexually assaulted. Police also revealed that the niggers who allegedly killed her were both former parolees for violent crime and weapon possession."

(12) http://www.newsnet14.com/2008/03/13/unc-students-killers-were-both-on-parole/

(Note that the word "nigger" finds no place in cited article.)

Although I am very upset about the horrible killing of Eve Carson, I do not believe that it is appropriate to use the word "niggers" to describe the defendants. They are African-American (Black), not "niggers." Also, without knowing Eve Carson, I believe that a woman with her education would also be disappointed in this wording. (It may help you to know that I am Caucasian and am not decrying your wording for reasons of bias. I am unbiased and offended. Bigotry/racism is a disease, and I am disappointed that you are tainted with that disease.)

Likely the author of this article was very angry, and I am too at this senseless tragedy; but I cannot condone the use of racial slurs as a means of backbite or hate...and neither should any professional reporting agency.

Gildeon Kravitz (G.K.)

1. C. Baurain, Rome, 1989, page 131 "Heracles dans l'epopee homerique", Heracles, actes de la table ronde de rome
2. S. Gotteland, Paris, 1995, page 379 "Genealogies mythiques et politiques chez isocrate", actes du VIIIe colloque du centre de Recherches mythologiques de l'universitè de Paris.
3. "They choose the myth that the servants in order to support their politics, and after change it. They introduce the myth so that them servant for every political work."

• Misplaced Pages help forums