| Revision as of 22:19, 17 September 2007 editJ-stan (talk | contribs)5,849 edits →strange dispute concerning Covenant College: dispute resolution← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 06:27, 10 September 2023 edit undoJalenBarks (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Rollbackers102,991 editsm Reverted edit by 37.129.153.200 (talk) to last version by MJLTag: Rollback |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{help contents back}} |
|
__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{help contents back}} |
|
|
{{Notice|On 31 May 2021, ] concluded that ] should be closed down in an effort to consolidate help venues. New requests for assistance should instead be directed to either the ] (an area specifically for new users) or the ].}} |
|
{| cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" align="center" border="0" width="100%" style="margin-bottom: 5px" |
|
|
|
{{superseded}} |
|
|- |
|
|
|
{{/Header}} |
|
| style="background:#cedff2; text-align:center; border:1px solid #a3b1bf; border-bottom:none; font-size:150%;" | Editor Assistance: Requests |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|- |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
| style="background:#F5FAFF; border:1px solid #a3b1bf;" | {{shortcut|WP:EAR}} |
|
|
|
|counter = 132 |
|
*Please try to stay brief and neutral in your description of the issue with which you need help. |
|
|
|
|algo = old(1d) |
|
*If you are asking about an article that was deleted, please provide the exact title so that we can check the deletion log. |
|
|
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive %(counter)d |
|
*Please avoid copying large quantities of article text to this page. |
|
|
|
}} |
|
*Remember to ''']''' your posts. |
|
|
*Please <span class="plainlinks"></span> to post your request. |
|
|
|} |
|
|
{| cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%" style="margin-bottom: 5px" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| style="background:#F5FAFF; border:1px solid #a3b1bf;" | |
|
|
*If would like quick access to some advice for the most common questions and issues, this can can be found in the ]. |
|
|
*Resolved, stale and other old discussions are archived, but if you need to return to an archived discussion, you can start a new section and note the old discussion. |
|
|
*'''Assistants''': Please tag each settled request as '''{{tl|resolved}}'''; all other requests should be marked as '''{{tl|stale}}''' after ten days of inactivity. A thread can be archived after being tagged for two days. |
|
|
|} |
|
|
{{archive box| |
|
|
*] (7.4.2007~13.5.2007) |
|
|
*] (14.5.2007~20.6.2007) |
|
|
*] (21.6.2007~14.7.2007) |
|
|
*] (15.7.2007~2.8.2007) |
|
|
*] (3.8.2007~1.9.2007) |
|
|
*] (current) |
|
|
}}] |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
== edit keeps getting deleted == |
|
|
{{resolved|No new incidents. --] 21:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)}} |
|
|
Hi, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
I made an edit both yesterday and about a month ago to the world music page (http://en.wikipedia.org/World_music). I am adding a site at the bottom of the list to the directories and portals section. The site I am adding is worlddigibeat.com. Can you please tell me why this site keeps getting removed? The site focuses on 3 different world music categories (desi/bhangra, reggae, reggaeton), provides video, news and a lot more. |
|
|
|
|
|
Why does my edit keep getting deleted? {{unsigned|Egvandell|13:55, 5 September 2007}} |
|
|
|
|
|
I assume your {{user|216.27.153.34}}. You may want to add it to the talk page for discussion before re adding. a cursory check would indicate it may not comply with ].--] 15:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Should I add my own talk page, or use the one above that points to my IP?<small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:53, 5 September 2007</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
::I apologise for being unclear. You should suggest that you would like it added, on the articles (]) talk page. This way other independant editors can decide/discuss if it is appropriate for inclusion. --] 16:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It looks to me as if the site is being cut as spam. It's not an information source, but a music-related social networking site that seems to make its money from facilitating music sales of independent artists. So I'd call it inappropriate under ]. '']'' <small>] ]</small> 01:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
{{resolved|--] 21:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)}} |
|
|
Seeking some outside eyes on this article. A dispute about the acceptability of an external link is in danger of spiralling out of control. A new editor responds to my comments with, bad faith personal attacks and accusations that I am being untruthful. They made a bunch of changes that were factually incorrect, changed the historical basis of the article and that were riddled with OR and POV. I asked them to source the changes, left them for 24 hours and only changed them after the editor admitted they had no sources. I'm now being attacked again, threatened with mediation and I'm tired of it. Before it gets messy could some experienced editors wander by and cast their eye over the dispute and offer an outside perspective? I think the new editor is taking my actions too personally and I'm hoping that having some extra input would help them understand the need to comply with our core policies. Also, if I'm actually acting like a complete dick having someone tell me would also be useful. Thanks ] <sup>'']''</sup> 22:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:This seems to be increasingly typical. Try to follow the system and all you get is abuse. I have not investigated all the background as I type this, but if it is just between you and the other party, I recommend a ] request. For more than two parties, an ] is required. '''''] ]''''' 22:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::My experience of 3O is that it best works for pure content disputes and there are 2 1/2 parties. I'm hoping that some outside input will avoid the need for an article RFC. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 22:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Right, I have read through all that discussion now. Clearly, the link is unsuitable, based on your expert assessment of its content and you are right to leave it out. I see that two other editors came out in support of your position, which is welcome, but seemed to have relatively little tangible effect. I see from Shanebb's contribs that he is quite happy to remove other links from the article, so maybe there is a bit of a double standard there. I would offer my opinion at the article's talk page, but I cannot claim any knowledge of the subject, which I think would be advantageous in successfully persuading the other parties. '''''] ]''''' 23:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Article: Bloodlines: Harry Potter == |
|
|
{{resolved|Decision of AFD was to keep the article. --] 21:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)}} |
|
|
Has a tag reading (app) citations needed re: treating this topic as fictional (it is) but not linking to real world data for clarification. |
|
|
|
|
|
I have no connection with the article at all, but having read it, it is quite clear - and quite correct as it refers to it's topic. No one with any background in breeding/genetics should have any problem following this material (and I do not think it really needs a sub-section on Mendel - gene splicing for those likely to read it). |
|
|
|
|
|
If response or further details needed, I am ''<e-mail removed>'' {{unsignedIP2|14:39, 10 September 2007|168.184.250.122}} |
|
|
: What's the title of the article? ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 14:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::No matches for the name provided, so I guess we'll never know. Never mind. '''''] ]''''' 15:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I think the article is ] which has been the subject of a deletion discussion (]) because it flies close to ]. It currently contains {{tl|synthesis}} {{tl|Primarysources}} and {{tl|book-in-universe}} tags because of concerns that the article does not follow closely enough the guidelines in ], particularly "Articles dealing with fictional subjects, characters, objects, events, or locations should discuss their authorship and their significance outside the narrative." The article does not explain or assert its notability, but appears to delve rather deeply into itself in the manner commonly termed ]: "One of the major aspects of fancruft articles is that they tend to focus entirely on their subject's fictional relevance, as opposed to their place in the real world." As such the tags appear to be appropriate in alerting both readers and editors to questionable aspects of the article that may need a ]. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:yellow;">''']''' *** ]</span> 20:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
{{resolved|--] 21:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)}} |
|
|
The Misplaced Pages entry for the highly respected Arab journalist and political commentator Abden Bari Awtan has unfortunately attracted the attention of contributors who wish to undermine his position for political reasons. The latest 'edit' contains several slanders - including alleged support for Osama bin Laden and a claim that Saddam Hussein funded Mr Atwan's newspaper. |
|
|
|
|
|
These are extremely dangerous, completely unsubstantiated allegations and, as a professional journalist myself, I find it inexplicable that there is no filtering process to avoid this kind of attack of which the victim could, of course, be completely unaware. I have tried to edit the article on a number of occasions, including changing the spelling of his name which at present is incorrect transliteration, but these are immediately removed as new defamatory material is added. |
|
|
|
|
|
I will edit the article again now but please advise me of what action can now be taken to ensure these dangerous slurs are not repeated. |
|
|
|
|
|
Misplaced Pages is considered a trustworthy information source and it is surely in the interests of everyone that it remain so? {{unsigned2|09:54, 11 September 2007|Annalasim}} |
|
|
:I saw from your contribs that you removed a referenced statement from this article, which is likely to attract warnings. I recommend that you revert yourself and open a discussion about it. '''''] ]''''' 10:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yes and no. The citations supported the quotations from the subject. However, the inflammatory, and possibly defamatory, coloring given to those quotations was not. Since there was little point to the cited quotes other than to provide context for the commentary, cutting them is at least arguably the right thing to do. Misplaced Pages policy on ] favors aggressive deletion of badly sourced material and original research (i.e. editors' personal commentary). |
|
|
|
|
|
::There's no preventing this kind of thing in an encyclopedia that anyone in the world is allowed to edit. that's why we need volunteer groups like the ] and so on. The best thing is for knowledgeable people interested in accuracy to keep an eye on articles that attract this kind of thing and fix problems as they arise. ] is available for extreme cases, but that's an absolute last resort when it comes to articles. '']'' <small>] ]</small> 23:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::My most recent properly referenced citations and quotes were indiscriminately removed by 'web hamster'. I have been reprimanded for removing a 'referenced' quote (even though it is not from a trustworthy source) for which I apologize and have now left the offending (mis)quote in place. However I must expect the same respect surely for my entries - one of which was a quote from the US PBS broadcast (the equivalent of the BBC)!!? I cannot help but wonder what hidden agenda is guiding 'web hamster' and 'Ice 77' that they feel they must portray Abdel Bari Atwan in an untrue and unflattering light. Do these contributors have any 'specialist knowledge' of their subject? I do, as a professional journalist who has often met and talked with Abdel Bari Atwan as well as reading all his editorials which are translated by the BBC monitoring service. Surely encylopedic entires should be created by people with specialism n the subject described? Please will somebody intervene and take appropriate action. This level of indisciminate vandalism bringing the whole Misplaced Pages project into disrepute. User ] 10:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You do not need any specialist knowledge to edit articles. WP does not make that kind of demand. Frankly, it is hard to tell ''who'' has issues with bias in this matter; we are only seeing your side of it, which primarily involves casting aspersions on the other parties. I will ask the other editors for comment. '''''] ]''''' 15:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I have now requested comments from the two editors concerned so that we may get a fuller picture. '''''] ]''''' 15:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
I think ] would be a better place for this discussion. Basically ] has been introducing POV and editorialising into the article in order to counter what he sees as unduly negative content. He claims that a quote sourced from the Jerusalem Post is incorrect but hasn't substantiated this. Any unsourced contentious material about a living person can and should be removed without discussion. However problems with properly sourced material need to be discussed on the article talk page or if that fails on ]. ] 16:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Agreed. A perfect example of which is currently on the article's talk page right now. It was reported that Atwan was denied entry to Australia on the grounds of his attitude to terrorist organisations. It appeared that this was a false report but as it was discussed first it was never entered into the article. If either Ice77 or myself had an agenda to defame or denigrate Atwan then that would have been a perfect opportunity. Neither of us did as we both only have the intention of being accurate whether it puts Atwan in a good light or a bad one. We both leave Mr Atwan to provide the controversy. --] 16:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*I was asked to look at the relevant article by another editor who was concerned that ]'s edits were biased, disruptive and verged on vandalism. He/she was frequently making POV statements with no citations to back it up (e.g. the continued attempts to decry MEMRI: "MEMRI is not a reliable source" "it's a Zionist interest group" etc). He/she continually deleted swathes of text on that grounds that he/she didn't think it was right or that it was defamatory. When I came into the equation I attempted maintain neutrality and prevent an edit war. I've reverted and changed both Annalasim's edits and Ice77's in order to achieve a compromise. Personally I have no agenda or even an interest in the subject of the article. Prior to the commencement of editing I'd never even heard of him. I then went off and did research, some of which is in the article. The article history and diffs should speak for themselves. I edited and included any material that was sourced from ostensibly reliable sources whether it put Atwan in a good light or a bad one. As a public figure if his supporters don't wish to see his words in print then they should advise him to keep his mouth shut and not try to delete them once he's spoken them. Throughout the history of this article Annalasim has been pedantic, histrionic and biased. I've placed warning notices on her talk page twice for deleting sourced text and replacing it with unsourced editorialising and personal opinion. Just today I warned him/her that should he/she make any more of these edits then I would bring his/her attention to the administrators. Presumably this is Annalasim's attempt to forestall that. I am perfectly happy for any administrator to audit any of the edits I have done to that article and compare them to the edits made by Annalasim. The words will speak for themselves. --] 16:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Thanks, both of you, for responding. It is pretty clear from your comments that ] is not being as cooperative as he could and should be and lacks the grounds for pushing accusations of bias on your part. It is clear that you are working in good faith. I agree with you that a BLP noticeboard post, or perhaps a ], would be an appropriate step towards resolving your dispute. ]; I hope that you can work more positively and civilly on this article. Your intentions appear to be good, but you just need to take a different approach and collaborate better, I think. '''''] ]''''' 22:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== strange dispute concerning Covenant College == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure how to best sum up the dispute. Right now I and another editor Flowanda are in disagreement over some content in the ] article, in particular the section titled "Accreditation non-compliance warnings and restoration". The issue as I understand it is that one of the citations refers to an official statement from Covenant College which was distributed via e-mail and appears only in that blog, which also happens to be my personal blog (which I give in my user profile, along with full disclosure of all my other possible conflicts of interest). |
|
|
|
|
|
Third part input over the dispute was corrected, and he felt that in this situation it was not inappropriate to cite the "e-mail-within-a-blog", but only that the section needed to be shortened as not to give "undue weight" to that section in regards to the rest of the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
The other editor, Flowanda, did not agree with this recommendation, nor with a later suggested resolution, claiming that his concerns were not addressed. |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not really sure what to do at this point. I feel like I've tried to drill down to the core issue, namely, is it ok to cite a blog that contains an official statement from Covenant College on a matter that has been determined to be noteworthy? I understand it's a tricky situation, as blogs are typically NOT acceptable sources. |
|
|
|
|
|
Any help/guidance in resolving the issue would be appreciated. |
|
|
|
|
|
Oh and, I'm in no way affiliated with Covenant College. I did attend there 5 years ago. ] 05:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* You could ask for another ] or open a ] if you prefer. --] 21:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It looks as if the issue is resolved, possibly. 2 of the 3 editors involved in the discussion are in agreement, and I think the third is also, but they seem to still be frustrated and may bring the issue up again in the future. I suppose we could make this matter as resolved. Many thanks. ] 22:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
: This page is more for technical help or assistance with editing. Disputes should go to a ] organization. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 22:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Air Force Combat Controller - candidate for deletion == |
|
|
{{resolved|--] 21:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)}} |
|
|
I am not computer saavy, but am doing my best to construct subject Wiki. Misplaced Pages instructions overwhelm me and |
|
|
much of what I do is trial and error. So I often make mistakes. |
|
|
|
|
|
FOR EXAMPLE: I always provide sources for the IMAGES that I upload, but quite often they are removed within twenty-four |
|
|
hours. Some times I reload them a half dozen times before the "UPLOAD TAKES". |
|
|
|
|
|
Your assistance is requested to help properly format the Wiki and save it from destruction. I have put alot of hours |
|
|
into the project. |
|
|
|
|
|
Gene Adcock ] 18:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Firstly, images do not use sources as such; they use licenses and tags; get the wrong license and that is serious for obvious reasons, so they need to be removed. Leave the tag out and that is just as problematic. Is it actually the license tags to which you are referring? Upload an image that is copyrighted or something and that is even worse. Frankly copyright infringers should be nailed to something, but obviously, I have a vested interest in that, given the day job. I will comment on the other part of your query when I have gone away and snooped through the relevant pages/histories/etc. '''''] ]''''' 18:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::I just went to check your contributions in the usual manner and what should I see, but a user page masquerading as an article. Please take the time to read the ] and you will understand why this is up for deletion. '''''] ]''''' 20:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:OP seems to have misunderstood the purpose of this project. We're not here to "the collection and preservation of CCT heritage, history and exploits" or anyone else's for that matter where they are not suitable for a general encyclopedia.. This is an encyclopedia, after all, and its resources are not available for other purposes. |
|
|
|
|
|
:It seems clear that a wiki would be an ideal means to accomplish your goal, but you need to set up your own, on your own server. The software that runs Misplaced Pages is free and is ]. If you don't have the technical skills to do set it up and run it on your own, try to find someone who is. You are likely to find someone like that among more recently discharged AF personnel, and no doubt one of them will be able to help you. Ask around at veterans' organizations. You would have the advantage of being able to host it under your own domain name, which will make it easier to find, and you will be able to operate it by your own rules. (Hosting costs, but is fairly inexpensive. It's not difficult to find web hosting that will probably suit your needs for the neighborhood of $5-10/month.) '']'' <small>] ]</small> 23:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== NPOV tag without details provided == |
|
|
|
|
|
The Bodies ...The Exhibition article recently has been tagged but no details of the objection were provided. There were some old sections on the discussion page that had made some suggestions, but the NPOV appeared separately. I made the edits suggested in the old posts. The person posting the NPOV doesn't seem to be interested in dialog. What should we do? |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you in advance |
|
|
] 04:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The article's at ], for the record. And the NPOV tag is most likely there because the criticism section of the article is more than twice as long as the rest of the article, which is probably far too much considering ] for neutral point of view. ] <small>]</small> 06:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
: I think your action was the proper first step. If you wish, you could seek a ] on the subject matter. Hope this helps, --] 21:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Kraków == |
|
|
|
|
|
Please help resolve an ongoing issue with ] (no user page) who's removing major parts of an article nominated by me for the FA status. I do not wish to engage in a ] and yet, the user keeps on deleting paragraphs which I write in response to requests made by FA reviewers. His rationale is ] and is followed by removals of virtually anything I write since my previous nomination. Here are his latest deletions including his edit summaries: |
|
|
* (-1,751) |
|
|
* (-1,720) |
|
|
] is poised to fail the nomination and has been adding his "oppose" votes in different parts of the nomination page (as if there were two or three of them). Here are some examples of his multiple "oppose" votes including his edit summaries: |
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
I responded to user's actions with the thorough explanation of criteria in the following edit made to the first nomination page: |
|
|
*) (+20,501) |
|
|
However, feeling ] by ] I also stopped editing Misplaced Pages for a month, which I'm used to doing everyday. I'd like to thank you in advance for responding to my query with positive feedback. --] ] 17:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Alternative technologies paragraph on Binary Economics == |
|
|
|
|
|
Could I please have some help arbitrating on: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
regarding the paragraph on 'alternative' technoligies, some of which violate the laws of physics as mainstream science accepts them. There's a whole lot on the talk page at the bottom. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 15:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
: If you'd like some basic dispute resolution, go to the ]. EA is about helping with problems some are facing, but there are many dispute resolution "professionals", if you will, to help in this area. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 20:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Help me post a new article == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have written a new article as "User: Jeffhoffman1" on the topic of Sharan Merriam one of the most prolific writers in Adult Education. How do I get it to post. That doesn't seem to be an option anywhere on the page I have created. I believe that I have followed all instructions. Obviously I'm doing something wrong. Jeff Hoffman {{unsigned2|03:44, 17 September 2007|Jeffhoffman1}} |
|
|
:I see that no one has welcomed you yet. I guess you must have been one of those that slip through. Creating new articles is a very easy process (a little too easy, actually). See ]. But first things first. Before creating a new page, you should familiarise yourself with some of the basics, like ], ], ], etc. together with some of the other links that will shortly be on your talk page. I am a bit concerned to see article content on your ]; that is not what it is for and quite a lot of new editors post content inappropriately like this. Some of them use it as a form of spam, though I can appreciate that you are not doing this. Please be sure to move it to a sub-page (something like ] for example) or keep it offline. Most of the editors who create articles do so offline or in sub-pages and only upload them when they reach the required standard. Post here again if you need further assistance. '''''] ]''''' 11:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== jann haworth == |
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Editors, I posted a page on this artist yesterday which seems to have been deleted. As to her notability, please note that she was a leading member of the British Pop Art Movement in the Sixties, co-designed the Beatles Sgt Pepper Album cover, has been referred to in over 6 reference books on modern art, and has had 11 one person shows, with forthcoming shows in Paris, Rome, Salt Lake and Philadelphia. Her work is represented in 6 public collections and she has published several books on art for kids. There are 12 references to her in Misplaced Pages articles already. In light of these verifiable facts I trust you will restore the page. Richard Severy {{unsigned2|15:07, 17 September 2007|Severy}} |
|
|
:I have no say in the matter. As requested in the header instructions, can you provide the exact title of the article, please? I first want to see the deletion log before I advise you in any detail. '''''] ]''''' 15:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
Help:Contents
