| Revision as of 02:08, 2 July 2012 editKudpung (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors109,140 edits →Georg Andreas Böckler: reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 06:27, 10 September 2023 edit undoJalenBarks (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Rollbackers102,948 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 ].}} |
|
|
{{superseded}} |
|
{{/Header}} |
|
{{/Header}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|counter = 115 |
|
|counter = 132 |
|
|algo = old(14d) |
|
|algo = old(1d) |
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
== Biased Editors at Sigmund Freud Page == |
|
|
{{ear|a|] (]) 13:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)}} |
|
|
I submitted an arbitration request about this and was referred to Editor Assistance by the arbitrators who declined the case. |
|
|
|
|
|
Misplaced Pages needs to deal formally with the very divisive and important topic of Sigmund Freud, whose ideas have many adherents and many harsh critics, a well known and longstanding controversy akin to the evolution controversy in its scale and the passions of its partisans. A very aggressive editor, ], has written a lead to the Freud article that gives undue weight to criticisms of Freud and underrates his importance within psychiatry and neuroscience. It isn't an accurate reflection of the controversy, which is more justly reflected in the "Science" section in the body of the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
] refuses any alterations to the lead and has reverted all my edits. He refuses good faith discussion or compromise and is bullying and uncivil. |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sigmund_Freud&diff=prev&oldid=497167818 |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sigmund_Freud&diff=prev&oldid=497166629 |
|
|
|
|
|
I reached out through recommended dispute resolution steps in the Talk pages, and I proposed a number of small changes that left the majority of his lead intact and restored some balance to the lead with reputable well-sourced material. He rejected them all with much hostility. |
|
|
|
|
|
] says openly in the Sigmund Freud Talk pages that a negative / critical view of Freud is the only correct one. His user page lists numerous articles he has created that rely exclusively on sources that roundly disparage Freud, biographies of Freud, and anybody who dares to find value in his work. |
|
|
|
|
|
The "Freud Is Dead" / "Freud Is Not Dead" wars have been ongoing for a hundred years now, but ] does not acknowledge his partisanship and is determined to ban anything that honors Freud’s importance to psychiatry and psychology from the Freud page lead. The page used to be rated a "good" page, but is no longer, and with good reason. ] and other Freud-bashers have made the Misplaced Pages entry on a very important figure biased, warped, and inaccurate. |
|
|
|
|
|
The page ought to be defended from this editor and others that have inflexibly distorted the Freud legacy as partisans of the Freud wars. ] and those who agree with him have ample opportunity to vent their spleens in veiled form and quote all the Freud-bashers they want on the Freud page and in many other pages, but people who know and value Freud's work ought to have a say in characterizing Freud as well, no? I notice that Creationists are not allowed to deface the Darwin page lead in this way.] (]) 18:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:You could try a ] to attempt to resolve this content dispute. ] (]) 18:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Audit Commission - can I get some advice please? == |
|
|
{{ear|a|] (]) 13:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)}} |
|
|
{{La|Audit Commission}} |
|
|
Hello, my name's Jim and I work at the Audit Commission. We've noticed that a large amount of information about the National Fraud Initiative has been added to the Audit Commission's page in the last few weeks and I'm after an opinion on whether you feel it's appropriate. I asked the same question on the talk page a couple of weeks ago but as yet I've had no response. |
|
|
The National Fraud Initiative is a very small part of what the Audit Commission does but it now takes up the majority of the article. I wonder if the new information could be summarised as one or two points and moved to the criticism and controversy section? Obviously I have a COI so I won't be making any edits but I'd be pleased to get your opinion. ] (]) 10:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I referred it to ], who already had some experience with the article, and he's dealing with it. Regards, ] (]) 16:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks very much for your help. ] (]) 15:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
{{ear|a|] (]) 13:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)}} |
|
|
Recently, a lot of from the article on the Buchla 200e. It was because there wasn't enough discussion on the matter. However, these sections were by ] in 2006, and AFAIK classroom like content like that was forbidden even back then. Why can't we just remove it, there is obviously no one who wants to rewrite it in the proper style. I don't even think it's possible. It's original research too. --] (]) 12:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:I tend to agree, the deletion was fully justified. The material consistes solely of first person how-to and is completely unreferenced. If sources had been provided it might have been possible to rewrite from the sources, but there clearly are no sources - the author is writing from personal experience. You should first be attempting a dialogue over this on the article talk page, or with the other editor directly. If that goes nowhere and no other editors give an opinion you could try an ]. ''']]''' 13:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:I could add that this is only the worst aspect of a poorly constructed article. ''']]''' 13:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Right, that article seems to be a tutorial rather than an encyclopedia entry. Most of it should be removed. --] (]) 03:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Photo incorrectly lists me as the author== |
|
|
{{ear|a|] (]) 13:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)}} |
|
|
For the image available at ] it incorrectly lists me as the author. I am *not* the author. It was taken from a blog with the actual author's permission but at this point I no longer have the records so it might make better sense to delete the image. Not sure how to achieve this. -- ] (]) 02:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The file has actually now been so needs to be dealt with there. Commons has a page for . ''']]''' 19:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Wikilink as a reference? == |
|
|
{{ear|a|] (]) 13:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)}} |
|
|
{{La|History of the Falkland Islands}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Can a wikilink to another article serve as a reference? A paragraph in ] has been by a user, and another user that no further ref is needed because of the wikilink. --] <small>(])</small> 06:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:If it is a piece of information in need of a citation, such citation(s) should be placed in the article according to the guidelines in ]. A reader should not have to link over to Misplaced Pages article "B" in order to search for a reference for material written in article "A". That really wouldn't make any sense. |
|
|
:If the content is contentious, discussion should take place on the article's talk page. ] (]) 06:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:I should also ask for a clarification: when you added the ''fact'' tag, which specific information where you looking to have cited? This could be where the confusion started over the wikilink. ] (]) 06:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks Langus for once again demonstrating good faith, I don't know why I might ever assume that you ever presume bad faith. It must have been my bad faith that missed your courtesy notice you were raising it elsewhere. Once again thanks for demonstrating good faith, many, many thanks. See also ]. A tag on a wikilink, which is all is there is just ridiculous. Its not contentious. ] <small>]</small> 14:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The passage that WCM claims is only a wikilink actually reads, "Islands that may well have been the Falkland Islands are also shown on the maps of ], a Turkish admiral of the period who drew ]." What is more, I believe this to be a disputed claim, so how it can be argued this does not need a citation is beyond me. ''']]''' 18:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I agree, my understanding is that Martin Hogbin didn't challenge a wikilink, he challenged a statement. |
|
|
::::@WCM: regarding your accusations, I hope someday you'll understand that a disagreement doesn't imply an assumption of bad faith, it's just that, a disagreement. And judging the input obtained, it seems my intuition was right. |
|
|
::::Ironically, the only demonstrable assumption of bad faith is yours against me, two comments above. --] <small>(])</small> 20:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::It was just a wikilink, to an uncontentious observation, written carefully to show it wasn't universally accepted. Both of you, enjoy your victory - for the dull and uninteresting. Langus, one day you might realise I don't assume bad faith but your constant questioning of my motives is irritating. ] <small>]</small> 22:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*From what I can see, the situation has developed over everyone's confusion about what a "fact" tag is referring to. From what I have read, the tag was not meant to request a reference for the wikilink, but rather for the "islands which may be the Falkland Islands" part. In any case, another editor appears to have removed the material in question. Please remember to keep the discussion civil; we're all here to improve the encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== searching reliable source == |
|
|
{{ear|a|] (]) 13:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)}} |
|
|
How to find reliable source and how to find public domain images for wikipedia article? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:It depends exactly what you are looking for. There are many databases you can search such as ], ], ], ], ]. If you are looking for a specific topic, more specialised databases such as ]. For images there is ] and ]. There are also libraries of course. Hope that helps. ''']]''' 19:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Candidate infobox == |
|
|
{{ear|a|] (]) 13:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)}} |
|
|
{{La|United States Senate election in Maine, 2012}} |
|
|
|
|
|
So the situation here is that the Senate race lacks an incumbent and has a high-polling independent. There has been a revert war over what is the proper order for candidates in the lead infobox. One editor suggests it should be alphabetical because thee is no incumbent, while another suggests going with the party that currently holds the seat. Is there an existing policy on the issue? |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 01:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Probably best to seek advice at ]. ] (]) 18:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==] is constantly being vandalized and protected== |
|
|
{{ear|a|] (]) 13:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)}} |
|
|
here is what i wrote, everything is based on facts. the current version is praising him as if he actually won a "wonderful award, when in reality, it is totally fake! and the administrators are vandalizing that page, protecting it , they don't want people to know the truth about bo guagua. i start to wonder if they get paid by bo guagua himself, so that the world won't know the truth about him. |
|
|
|
|
|
i challenge anyone to point out what i wrote in the following is not based on facts. go ahead. here are the few things which are being reverted by several agents. they claim that i "violated" rules, if they have time to revert what i wrote, why can't they edit what i wrote? {{unsigned|2602:306:CC6B:6B90:156A:D24F:FCE8:F749}} |
|
|
|
|
|
<BLP suspect material removed> |
|
|
|
|
|
:I have no idea whether or not that material is correct, but posting it here instead after it has been removed under the ] policy is not the solution. You should first discuss the issues with other editors on the article talk page and try to reach agreement there. ''']]''' 19:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
someone put a protection for that article, therefore, it can't be edited any more. that is why i am reporting it here. isn't this "editor help"? if i can't edit, some editors should help. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:You can request another editor to make an edit for you by placing the {{tl|edit semi-protected}} template on the article talk page. But before you do that, you should read ] to make sure that your post is going to comply with that important policy. ''']]''' 00:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Kruse entries== |
|
|
{{ear|a|] (]) 13:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)}} |
|
|
Dear Administrators. My contributions about members of the Krus-family are systematicly sabotaged! |
|
|
What can I do to avoid this type of problems? ] (]) 10:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
The entries of concern are: ], ], ] and ]. 4 other deletions are not disputed for now. ] (]) 11:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Please do not ]. You have for the first case, and there is an ] for the second. I have no idea what your complaint is for the other two. Also, please do not throw around accusations such as sabotage unless you are prepared to back them up with relevant ]. Just because you do not agree with the actions of others does not mean they are not acting in ]. ''']]''' 13:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Albania== |
|
|
{{ear|a|] (]) 13:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)}} |
|
|
Dear administrators. I have an issue in the ] page with a map added in the Ottoman Empire section of the history page. The map has been created by ] according to a source he has provided. I believe he has misread the source (the source shows Albanian land-holders, not 'Albania') |
|
|
|
|
|
The map shows the purported existences of a region called 'Sancak of Albania' 1385–1466. As I have said in the talk page, this map does not represent the whole of the modern-day territory of the Republic of Albania (since important cities such as ] and ] were only taken by the Ottomans in 1478 and later). |
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed, according to the historian he keeps mentioning ] "In the south the sand̲j̲aḳ of Awlonya (Avlona) (see:]) and in the east that of Ohri (see:]) were created and in 1479 the sand̲j̲aḳ of Iskenderiye (Scutari) (see: ]) was formed in the north..." (see:Arnawutluḳ." Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Brill Online , 2012. Reference. 2012) |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 10:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Please continue to resolve this issue at ] where it is being discussed. Please also be sure that any maps or images are accurate and that they may be used within our copyright regulations (e.g. derivative work). --] (]) 01:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== help with editing and staying on the right side of other editors == |
|
|
{{ear|a|] (]) 13:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)}} |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/Thornton_Heath |
|
|
|
|
|
I made an addition to the Thornton Heath article (link above) where I mentioned the fact that it has a malapropism 'alter ego' "Fort Neaf." |
|
|
|
|
|
I am obviously not writing this in the correct manner since other people have twice removed the reference. All the citations for this that I can find are in message boards rather than on more established sites, and indeed the reason I knew about this soubriquet in the first place was through editing user-submitted classified ad text in a magazine. |
|
|
|
|
|
However, it remains that this is indeed a fact and one which pertains directly to Thornton Heath. I would like help perhaps rewording or changing the format of the entry or the citation (or both) so that there aren't such obvious grounds for disapproval on the part of other editors. I am unfamiliar with how to go about this myself. |
|
|
|
|
|
In searching for a better citation on the internet, I realize that there are a few instances where people have used what I originally wrote and quoted it for their own purposes, presumably citing this back becomes circular and redundant, but it hopefully lends credence to my assertion that it is a real phenomenon in the first place. And if this little factoid didn't appear in this entry, where would it go? |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks! |
|
|
--] (]) 20:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Hello. First, I do not see any discussion of this issue at the article's talk page. Content issues should be discussed at the talk pages first. If that discussion is unproductive, then a request can be made here. Anyway, I have looked at the material which seems to be more along the lines of trivia, and is not something which would normally be included in an encyclopedic article. If you still want to include it, please discuss with other editors on the Thornton Heath talk page. Regards, ] (]) 20:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Please read ] which will explain what sources are acceptable. ''']]''' 22:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==I want to report Barek vandalizing pages repeatedly== |
|
|
{{ear|e|] (]) 13:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)}} |
|
|
this person has repeatedly vandalizing this article of ]. he frequently delete the following paragraph. first, he deleted it, claimed that it was not confirmed even though he can easily find plenty of articles about it if he spent time searching it online. now, he is still deleting this entire paragraph even though it has the web site which he can confirm. this news was reported by "Wall street journal", why is he vandalizing this page? |
|
|
|
|
|
he is a ridiculous person, he is vandalizing this article with malicious intent. someone should ban him assp. |
|
|
|
|
|
"], a french architect, someone who was very close to her was arrested in ] in early June of 2012. The Cambodia government is currently deciding if they will send him to France or to the Chinese government for further criminal investigation.<sup></sup>" <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--><small>(<span class="plainlinks"></span> in good faith to allow citation link to function properly ] (]) 00:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC))</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
:Please ]. Also, talk about other editors ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
:There are several problems here. One of them is that his actions are not necessarily vandalism. Vandalism is ''intentional disruption of Misplaced Pages'' and ''does not cover content disputes''. Barek happens to be a Misplaced Pages administrator, so he is not likely to be vandalizing Misplaced Pages and probably has a good grasp of policy. You, on the other hand have violated Misplaced Pages's ] policy. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Regarding your addition — you did not initially cite a source. Barek might have not realized that you did add one on your ''fourth attempt''. Walk away from the situation for a little while and calmly approach Barek explaining what happened. --] ] 23:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Also, please sign your posts using four tildes <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. It's standard Misplaced Pages practice. --] ] 23:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:FYI this editor has been blocked at least four times previously for violations of the ] policy, edit warring, and sockpuppetry -- see all the recent IPv6 edits in the ] article, starting with and his subsequent . ] ] 00:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I've rangeblocked the user. <span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:14px"><b><font color="#4682B4">]</font></b></span> <sup>(<font color="#99BADD">]</font>)</sup> 00:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Posts have been deleted several times, even after being approved by an editor! == |
|
|
|
|
|
The information about State Youth Orchestra of Armenia has been posted on Misplaced Pages several and has been deleted every single time! Once even approved by an editor, it has been removed after some time! |
|
|
The article is written with appropriate amount of links and references! |
|
|
|
|
|
Why do our posts get deleted all the time? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> <small>(Moved from talk page to this page. — ] (]) 14:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC))</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
:The only requests which I could find are those listed which were declined because they were made in the wrong forum and in the wrong method. Please see the instructions at ] on how to submit an article, but I would note that ] already exists and, if it is the same organization, could use improvement. I note that your account has been blocked. Your username must be for you, individually, only. A name which implies which you are editing on behalf of a group or organization is unacceptable. Regards, ] (]) 14:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Looking at the history of ], it appears that you are trying to make the article into a promotional piece, which is not appropriate. You should not extensively quote every review of a performance. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">]<font color="#0095c6">of</font>]</font> 15:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Incorrect Data == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greetings! |
|
|
|
|
|
The wiki page for Marycrest College indicates that it is / was located in Toledo, Ohio. |
|
|
|
|
|
This is incorrect. Marycrest College has always been located in Davenport, Iowa. |
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed this error when facebook linked the educational information on my info page to your article, and it now shows this incorrect location on my facebook entry. I have never been to Toledo, Ohio, nor was Marycrest ever located there. |
|
|
|
|
|
It would be wonderful if someone could correct this on your Marycrest College page. I do not know how to do this. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Nielsen <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:You also asked this at ] and someone has answered there. -- ] (]) 16:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
There's been more than one Marycrest College. The Iowa one, founded in 1939, was originally named Marycrest College, became Teikyo Marycrest University and finally Marycrest International University. That school closed in 2002 because of financial shortcomings. We can't help you with Facebook mixing up the Marycrests. --] | ] 17:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Help with a hoax == |
|
|
] is a hoax. No sources on the page are listed and a quick Google search for "new Parappa cartoon" turns up nothing. I marked it as a hoax and proposed it for deletion, but then my edits I need some advice on how to deal with this.--] (]) 17:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:I've nominated the page for speedy deletion. ] (]) 17:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::'''@Dr.Starky:''' Let me just supplement that by saying that, unlike a ], which you tried, the page creator does not have the right to remove a speedy deletion nomination from the article himself. If he does so, it will likely be replaced (though I will not be surprised if the article is deleted before he has a chance to remove it). Regards, ] (]) 17:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thanks for the speedy response guys!--] (]) 19:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reversing/revising alerts? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have recently edited an article attempting to reverse the posted alert about 'multiple issues', some which date back more than a year but have no specifics. I've tried to address the issues that I could (writing style, references, citations), but don't know how the process works, and what will satisfy a reversal of the alert etc. Obviously, we would like the alert removed. In providing facts, stats and history, often there is unavoidably a single source of information. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:Please provide a link to the page - also you mention "we". Is the subject something with which you have a]? ] (]) 09:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Probably ]. ] (]) 04:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::I've left a message on the user's talk page about ]. ] (]) 04:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::The article is a blatant example of promotion and there may be little else possible other than stubbing it (deleting all but the lead) and competely rewriting it. I have also noticed that a previous editor was blocked for ] at ]. A ] may determine whether or not you or your IP address are that same user. ] (]) 05:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::User blocked for blatant COI. PeterABrown is the advertising manager for the institution. --] (]) 05:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ambiguous acronym in title == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{La| Systematic Protein Investigative Research Environment (SPIRE)}} |
|
|
I just made this page and moved it from user test to article. I would like people to be able to search Wiki for SPIRE and get to it, or at least to the page of potential SPIRE hits since it is ambiguous. how could I go about making sure it comes up in a search? |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you |
|
|
Beth |
|
|
:Hi Beth, The page has been moved to ]. It needs essentially a complete rewrite to remove promotional language, properly source it, and make it comprehensible. Right now it sorely lacks context, is filled with unexplained jargon and still reads like a commercial despite that I have removed some overt ]. Regarding your question, you listed it at ]. That is how people will reach it who type in "SPIRE", if it's not deleted.--] (]) 11:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== American Staffordshire Terrier page, temperament section == |
|
|
{{ear|m|to ] ] (]) 12:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
An anonymous user that is apparently hellbent only mentioning positive aspects of Amer. Staffie temperament is removing any additions or changes I make to this page, going so far as removing additions I made from the source that anonymous user cites, calling highly regarded peer-reviewed journals "dubious", and removing interviews of the president of the society to which they refer. This and the users total anonymity means that I cannot assume good faith. The dispute resolution board has been no help. Please look at my edits that occurred as of June 28, 2012 and see if a blanket wipe of all of it is even remotely justified. ] (]) 00:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Original research is not allowed in wiki just if it comes from a reliable secondary source. Your other reference was about the pitbulls however this is the Staffordshire Trerrier article. None has agreed with you here however you keep vandalizing the article: |
|
|
|
|
|
1.you can't use directly info from the ATTS site since it is primary research 2. your second source Christensen, E. et al. (2007) Aggressive behavior in adopted dogs that passed a temperament test doesn't mention the American Staffordshire Terriers, nor does it the ATTS, it's another temperament test. perhaps it needs a different article 3.your third source Snopek, Roxanne Willems. (2006) Dangerous Dogs. Altitude Publishing. Alberta Canada is from a person who run various anti-pitbull sites. 4.your forth source Duffy, D. et al. (2008) Breed differences in canine aggression is reliable, even if you misquoted it as the article states that Pitbulls showed to greater aggressiveness toward other dogs however less toward humans compared with other breeds. However the American Staffordshre Terrier is not mentioned, t is about the American Pitbull Terrier Usre Wvguy8258 is making fun from the article trying to push his personal views, basing his edits on "comon sense", own research published on the article's talk page, links to pitbull attacks on the article's talk page and calling owners idiots and wikipedia unreliable because its democracy. On the dispute resolution noticeboard none agreed with user ] however his ignoring all our requests. ] (]) 07:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Please do not ]. The discussion is still open at ] and should be resolved there. ''']]''' 11:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::The help there has been minimal. The anonymous user and I cannot move forward. We need someone to look at both our proposed edits and come to a reasonable outside decision.] (]) 19:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Please stick to the] as the debate is going on] (]) 19:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Low-sourced topics - in search of advice == |
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if there's any advice, sage or otherwise, editors might have for those of us interested in writing articles about topics with few secondary sources (and when there are, it's largely anecdotal ... rarely on point). |
|
|
|
|
|
For example, I'm interested in newspapers -- but newspapers don't tend to write about other newspapers much (and outside of industry trend stories, TV news sites tend to write about them even less). If a newspaper writes about itself, is that reliable? What about in an op-ed or unsigned editorial? Their "about us" page? (Outside of ], ], ] and the like, there's not much sourceage out there -- especially when you're talking about five-figure circulation papers, to say nothing of the non-daily set.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Same goes for obviously notable places and attractions in small towns -- often without online sources, most of the ] would be in a faraway library. Are "about us" pages or obvious promotional sites OK? |
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to improve articles in these areas. Any advice you could give me that might point me the way of success would be, by me, appreciated. ] (]) 18:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You can, with caution, use uncontroversial factual material from sources associated with the subject. For instance, a newspaper could be used as a source for facts such as its own foundation date, but not for opinions such as "strong on investigative journalism". But such sources do not count towards establishing notability, which is the criterion for the existence of an article in the first place. For that, sources independant of the subject and discussing the subject in depth are required. ''']]''' 00:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::] may have some useful ideas on sourcing. This has bound to have come up before. ''']]''' 00:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate it. Most daily newspapers in the U.S. (my area of interest) are ] as historic institutions locally and as organs of record. Many of these articles are long-time extant on Misplaced Pages but lack much in the way of content or sources, to say nothing of useful content. ] (]) 11:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::If there is no material ''at all'' about a topic, then that is a distinct mark against it in regards of notability. On the other hand, if there is material, but ''not readily available'' (perhaps buried in a cardboard box in the basement of an abandoned building in a distant small town?), well, in the first place those would be ] sources, whose use can be problematic. But there is a deeper problem: in not being ''published'' in any form or place where others can review them (and generate secondary sources), such materials fail a necessary requirement of ]. It's like a famous astronomer once said: "if it's not written down, it didn't happen." So if primary sources are unknown and secondary sources don't exist, then the real problem is that no one has written the history. (Yet?) Until that is done there isn't much that can be done. ~ ] (]) 19:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Very important == |
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Sir/Madam, |
|
|
kindly, I want to divert kind attention towards an issue which is very important for us, all Muslims so kindly address this big mistake. |
|
|
Mistake is that you wrote the spelling of Muhammad as Mohammad which is a very abuse for us, all Muslims so plz correct this mistake in the whole Misplaced Pages.We ere kindfull to you as you are repespecting our feelings. |
|
|
Thankx alot. |
|
|
Javed. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:I am puzzled, surely the spellings in English are transliterations from Arabic to the Latin alphabet. Are there two spellings in Arabic, one of which is considered offensive? ''']]''' 09:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Georg Andreas Böckler == |
|
|
|
|
|
Was trying to find a place to point out an article problem I don't have time to deal with, but couldn't actually find anywhere for that sort of thing. This was the closest I could find. Anyway, the birth and death years are inconsistent on ] and ]. I think I can see why (the en-version is an earlier, 'years active' range and later research has uncovered the more precise dates in the de-version). But I'm not 100% sure, so leaving it here so others can see what they think. I suppose I could have posted this at the article talk page, but that might not have got a response. ] (]) 01:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Well, the article talk page is the right place. Here, we generally give advice to editors about what ''they'' can do. You could also try contacting other editors who have contributed to the article(s. You can find out who the contributors are form the article history . --] (]) 02:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
Help:Contents
