Revision as of 01:33, 12 August 2007 editAarktica (talk | contribs)4,839 edits rm archiving whitespace.← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:57, 12 August 2007 edit undoLester (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,805 edits Article at a stale-mateNext edit → | ||
Line 124: | Line 124: | ||
::Per your statement to {{admin|Durova}}: '''' I think you should stop neglecting your child in order to edit Misplaced Pages. There is '''NOTHING''' here that is worth more than your health or especially your child. ] 12:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC) | ::Per your statement to {{admin|Durova}}: '''' I think you should stop neglecting your child in order to edit Misplaced Pages. There is '''NOTHING''' here that is worth more than your health or especially your child. ] 12:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
:--] 05:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC) | :--] 05:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
== Article at a stale-mate == | |||
Hello! | |||
In the article on ], the Australian Prime Minister, it is becoming almost impossible to add cited information, as a couple of other editors keep immediately deleting it. | |||
The latest example is a simple 2 sentence paragraph that I added, about how John Howard in the 1980s voted in the Parliament for immigration to be selected on race. Here's a link to the talk section about it: | |||
] | |||
You'll see that 2 editors, ] & ], keep deleting the content. The rest of the editors appear happy with the content, as long as the wording and language is not too colourful. | |||
This whole article is a real problem. It's got whole sections of uncited info. Some editors appear happy to leave it that way. If I try to add cited info, those same 2 editors, ] & ], immediately delete it. | |||
I tried placing "FACT" tags on contentious statements in the article, and people remove them. It seems the article can never be changed. | |||
thanks, ] 10:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:57, 12 August 2007
ShortcutTo make a request for assistance, please click here to post a new section. Please make a brief and neutral description of the issue with which you need help and remember to sign it. 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 {{resolved}}; all other requests should be marked as {{stale}} after ten days of inactivity. A thread can be archived after being tagged for two days.
Purge page cache on server to force refresh.
Archives |
UechiRyu Information
Hello from Okinawa.
On 02 July I posted a question to Shikai Shaw on both of his talk pages but have not received a reply regarding the source of his information.
Here is my post; it's self-explanatory. I only wish to find the source of an apparent leak of my unpublished ms extract.
---
Info regarding kata names, etc Hello from Okinawa.
I wondered - where did you get the information regarding meanings of kata names, etc.? Most of it is from my personal writings and essays, much of it word for word.
How did it come to you?
Actually, I don't mind it being posted as alternate meaning or supplemental information; I am just puzzled about the source. I didn't share that with many people, and the Zankai is the only UechiRyu association or style that uses these meanings.
If you prefer, you may post to me privately.
<<removed e-mail>>
Regards to all,
Seizan 21:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Seizan 23:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if it is unpublished, no one can use it. If anyone posts OR material, it is unverifiable (as distinct from merely unverified) and can be reverted. You would be within your rights to remove the material from whatever article is involved, though in light of your position, it may be better if you provide the necessary details here for a neutral party to attend to it. This will reduce the risk of conflict. Adrian M. H. 00:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- There is a forum for discussing articles with copyright problems on WP. Perhaps the audience there can amend the article to avoid any plagiarism pointed out... --Aarktica 17:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Posting Music Chart Information
Hello
My name is Rafel Corbi. I am the Managing Director of the European Country Music Association. This organization takes care since 1996 of the weekly compilation of the Pan-European Top-100 Country Music Radio Chart (view www.europeancma.com). They are considered as the official country music singles chart for Europe, with 200 hundred stations and DJ's reporting us from 14 different european countries.
I've been trying for months to update your charting information for country artists with the positions they have obtained in Europe too. I feel this is a very interesting information as Europe is the largest music market in the world.
However, anytime I or any of my assistants update a page with that information, in less than a week all this information dissapears.
I wonder what's happening and if somebody doesn't like this info, cause in other music formats there's info about UK, Japan and other countries charts. Why not with country music????
Please let me know what happens.
Pages as Pam Tillis, Kenny Chesney, Keith Urban, Tracy Lawrence, have been updated and the information dropped.
Yours, Rafel Corbi <address removed> — Preceding unsigned comment added by rafelcorbi (talk • contribs) 17:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- It appears that you need support in establishing notability for your association. Many editors have an allergy to conflicts of interest — both real and perceived. Planting links to your website probably triggered the reversions you mentioned.
- Speaking of which, do you know if there was any explanation given (either as edit summaries or posts on talk pages) for the reversions? I doubt that your edits were undone using flimsy arguments.
- In any event, I would suggest contacting members of WP:COUNTRY — a community of Country music enthusiasts. They may be able to help you further regarding this matter. Hope this helps. --Aarktica 18:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- "Many editors have an allergy to conflicts of interest" – that would explain the sneezing and watery eyes that I get sometimes! I just thought it was hay fever. Anyway, as my fellow EA respondent wrote, ELs are usually treated strictly because they can sometimes ring alarm bells. COI is a serious issue, because it can undermine the pillar that is neutrality. Another vital policy is that of verifiability, which requires that material be verifiable with suitable independent sources (and preferably actually verified by them with citations). I have not had the time to check whether your additions were referenced, but if they were not, or they used a primary or unreliable source, then that would have been a reason. Adrian M. H. 18:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Problem with editing
Hello, I am one of the editors for the biography of Raul Julia Levy. I have repeatedly had to come in and change this profile to its original content - only to find that certain individuals that having nothing to do with Raul Julia Levy, constantly changing this page and writing untruths.
I am sending you the corrected version and I would like to know how we can prevent this from happening. This is hurting another person's life and is not right at all.
Thank you. <content redacted.> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.6.33.147 (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- It seems as if you may be missing one of the key points of WP; namely, its collaborative nature. Your post here suggests that you are affected by the issue of a conflict of interest and an attempt at ownership. We cannot really judge the bias – if any exists – of other editors when we have only read one person's opinion of their edits. It may well be the case that they have born in mind the maxim "verifiability ahead of truth" and are making properly referenced additions. These additions may actually be promoting a balanced view of the subject – good and bad – but you may not be able to see this clearly if you have COI and ownership issues. One good example of the problems at work here is your comment "...the proper biography that should be posted..." which serves to demonstrate the issues to which I have alluded. Adrian M. H. 23:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Comments expanded Adrian M. H. 00:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- This information appears to be available elsewhere on the WWW; makes me wonder if this qualifies as WP:COPYVIO... --Aarktica 00:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Absolutely, if it is published elsewhere verbatim (or very close to it) and it is not a fork of WP's content. If you have a URL whose content matches the current revision, that needs to be stripped back, rewritten or reverted. Or speedy it if there are no good revisions and a rewrite is not really an option. Adrian M. H. 00:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have elected to remove that content before the page is cached by external search engines. --Aarktica 22:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
HELLLLLLLP... what did I do? And what can I do?
I joined.... wrote my first article.... then it was removed for being a promotional thing or advertisement. I read the ways to correct it. I tried to do so but then it was removed. Then I asked for help by posting in a couple areas... I got zero responses and now I cant seem to do anything. I was honestly trying to post my first article. Do I need to edit other things first? Do I need to prove myself by walking on hot coals? What do I need to do? Someone please help. PLEASE. Thanks. Dannyglasband 07:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- You don't need to do anything special - but your article does need to meet our inclusion criteria. You can find more information at Misplaced Pages:Why was my page deleted? If you email me the article text (g1ggyman@gmail.com), I can take a look at it and tell you how to make it meet policy, and thus not be deleted. Giggy 07:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Take careful note of the pages to which there are links on your talk page and bear in mind that many subjects simply cannot meet the minimum requirements. For what it's worth, it certainly helps new editors if they first read, then edit, then create, in that order. Few do, which is one of the factors in the number of articles that have to be speedied every day. Adrian M. H. 08:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Morgellons article
Resolved – No further action necessary. --Aarktica 23:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)This article has been a constant source of editing wars. In the word of an unbiased observer: "I've seldom seen so much bitter, mean-spirited, hostile prejudice, without even a hint of justification for it ." (Mukrkrgsj:discussion page) It is a full time job -- 12 hours a day -- to try to keep this article unbiased. I'm sure that was not the intention of wikipedia to create this kind of editing nightmare. A biased article has the potential of seriously harming a group of people who may be suffering from a disfiguring and disabling newly emerging disease. This issue should be taken very seriously.
I am proposing two options to put an end to all this until the CDC finishes its investigation. I am asking that unbiased editors -- those who have not been part of the editing wars -- to comment on my proposals.
1)According to Herd and Dyanega, the idea that Morgellons is a newly emerging disease is a "fringe" theory. Since the article is about Morgellons disease, and if the idea that Morgellons disease even exists is FRINGE, this article violates wiki rules by its very inclusion. Therefore, I am asking that this article be deleted until the CDC investigation is over.
-- or --
2) I propose that the following be the entire content of the article and that it be locked. It is completely neutral, states everyone's opinion.
"Morgellons" or "Morgellons disease," is also referred to as "unexplained dermopathy" (skin disease) by the CDC. In June 2007, a CDC website asserted persons with this unexplained skin condition report cutaneous symptoms, including crawling, biting, and stinging sensations; granules, threads, or black speck-like materials on or beneath the skin; and/or skin lesions. Some also report fatigue, mental confusion, short term memory loss, joint pain, and changes in vision. The CDC indicates the etiology of Morgellons is unknown and there is insufficient information to determine if persons who identify themselves as having Morgellons have a common cause for their symptoms, share common risk factors, or are contagious.
Morgellons disease is not a widely recognized medical diagnosis, and medical professionals' opinions about Morgellons disease are divided. Some health professionals believe that Morgellons disease is a specific condition likely to be confirmed by future research. Some health professionals, including most dermatologists, believe that signs and symptoms of Morgellons disease are caused by common skin illnesses or psychological disorders such as delusional parasitosis. Other health professionals don't acknowledge Morgellons disease or are reserving judgment until more is known about the condition.
The CDC will be conducting an epidemiologic investigation into Morgellons. Pez1103 11:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Would you please respond to my talk page? I am not sure how to proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pez1103 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 9 August 2007
- I am just shocked that you have brought this here after everything else Morgellons Talk page with reference to every other noticeboard canvassed. Editors assistance is not a forum - its aim is to give a speedy solution or to redirect you to another place - I'm sorry but I doubt anybody will give you anything but cold comfort here. Mike33 - t@lk 17:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I feel the same as Mike about the way in which you are approaching this. It is now starting to violate WP:POINT. I didn't even want to respond to this when I saw it this morning. Adrian M. H. 00:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- I posted a response on Pez1103's talkpage per her request here, but as she deleted it without responding, I'll repost it here:
- Per your statement to Durova (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): I am neglecting my health and my child trying to keep the article neutral and I cannot keep it up for much longer, I think you should stop neglecting your child in order to edit Misplaced Pages. There is NOTHING here that is worth more than your health or especially your child. Anchoress 12:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- --Anchoress 05:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Article at a stale-mate
Hello!
In the article on John Howard, the Australian Prime Minister, it is becoming almost impossible to add cited information, as a couple of other editors keep immediately deleting it.
The latest example is a simple 2 sentence paragraph that I added, about how John Howard in the 1980s voted in the Parliament for immigration to be selected on race. Here's a link to the talk section about it: Talk:John_Howard#Bob_Hawke_motion_on_race.2C_opposed_by_Howard
You'll see that 2 editors, Blnguyen & Skyring (Pete), keep deleting the content. The rest of the editors appear happy with the content, as long as the wording and language is not too colourful.
This whole article is a real problem. It's got whole sections of uncited info. Some editors appear happy to leave it that way. If I try to add cited info, those same 2 editors, Blnguyen & Skyring (Pete), immediately delete it.
I tried placing "FACT" tags on contentious statements in the article, and people remove them. It seems the article can never be changed.
thanks, Lester2 10:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)