Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

How should citation format be done for foreign language citations?

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm helping work on an article on userspace for reintroduction into mainspace, and whilst there are >9 english citations, ~50% of the remaining ones are in Chinese. I'm considering changing the citation style to something like this:

• "中華文化與西方的文化交流的許多重大事件，最早發生在馬六甲，而不是在中國土地上". (Google Translate)

What exactly should the formatting style be? The manual of style doesn't really provide a clear position on this, only stating "shouldn't be used as only sources", and "needs translation".

Thanks for the help!. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Erk... I initially completely misread what you were looking for. My best suggestion would be that you should translate the quotes and maybe use a direct quote in the article instead of just referencing the site. I'm sadly not sure how to translate this though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You'd need to provide an English translation in the references section, in a standard format of some kind or other. I don't think it would hurt to provide a foreign-language reference after the English one (on the same line). Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 07:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

So would that mean switching the order around in the example citation? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 15:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Hrafn

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've encountered multiple problems in dealing with User:Hrafn in connection with the Chuck Missler article. I told Hrafn that if the problem persisted I would take it to WP:AN/I, but because I'm not requesting a block, that forum may be inappropriate, so I decided to try posting here.

The underlying issue is a dispute about whether Missler is notable enough for an article. That dispute, of course, is properly raised at WP:AfD, not here. My concern here is with unilateral actions by Hrafn based on his personal view of notability, and his removal of talk-page comments expressing disagreement with him. For convenience, I'll create a subsection for each issue, so that editors can comment on them separately. JamesMLane t c 22:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn's disregard of WP:AfD

In brief: The Chuck Missler article was twice nominated for AfD, based on the nominator's assertion that Missler was nonnotable, and it twice survived (i.e., was not deleted). Hrafn, considering Missler to be nonnotable and hence disagreeing with the result that Wikipedia should have a standalone article about Missler, blanked the content and substituted a redirect to a one-line entry in a listing, and disparaged the AfD's. His position seems to be that a lone editor who considers an article subject nonnotable may act on that belief regardless of what anyone else says. This would be a very bad precedent and should be rejected.

Background: An editor who considered Missler to be nonnotable nominated the article for deletion in January 2006. The result of this first AfD was "no consensus", so the article was kept. Another editor who considered the subject nonnotable nominated it again in August 2006. The result of this second AfD was "speedy keep", with five editors responding, four of whom favored keeping the article, all four of whom affirmed Missler's notability, and one of whom added that the nomination was by a banned user.

In February 2008, Hrafn made this edit, blanking the entire content of the article and substituting a redirect to a one-line mention in List of evangelical Christians#Authors. When Hrafn was reverted a month later, he promptly re-reverted, stating in his ES, "Rvt: unexplained revert of redirect of article on non-notable topic". This month, I reinstated the article, noting in my ES, "redirecting as nn is improper when the article has survived AfD". Hrafn by this edit again removed all the content and substituted a redirect, stating "Restore redirect: per WP:ONEEVENT and per WP:AFD's EXPLICIT disavowal of control over redirects".

If an editor believes that the subject of an article doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, the appropriate action is to list it for speedy deletion, citing an appropriate WP:CSD criterion, or to nominate it at AfD. In this instance, the article has been nominated twice. On each occasion, several Wikipedians gave their opinions that the subject was notable. On each occasion, the result was that the article was kept. Nevertheless, Hrafn has now unilaterally decided that these other Wikipedians are wrong, that Missler is nonnotable, and that Wikipedia should not have a standalone article about him. Hrafn has implemented that result without using CSD or AfD, and without using WP:DRV.

You can read the ensuing discussion between Hrafn and me at this former version of Talk:Chuck Missler. In sum, Hrafn made two major points. First, he quoted this passage from the AfD policy: "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." He apparently interpreted this as meaning that substituting a redirect never requires an AfD and can always be done by a lone editor. My response is that some problems don't require deletion, but some do, and nonnotability is in the latter category. For example, if someone were to create a new page at Charles Missler and write a couple sentences of bio, the correct response would be to remove all the content and substitute a redirect to the Chuck Missler article. No one would contend that the Charles Missler article would have to be nominated at AfD. The difference is that, in that instance, Wikipedia would still have an article about the subject. Duplicate pages is an example of a problem that can be handled by a redirect, without an AfD. Nonnotability, however, is not such a problem. Nonnotability is the single most common basis for AfD. For example, by Hrafn's reasoning, this recent AfD was unnecessary, as the nominator could instead have unilaterally removed all the content at Bizz buzz and substituted a redirect to Drinking game. The same could be said of practically any current AfD. The use of AfD to resolve notability disputes can't be circumvented by twisting the redirect policy. That would be true even if the article had never been nominated, but the violation is especially clear where, as here, the article has twice survived AfD.

Hrafn's other principal argument has been to disparage the prior AfD's. He apparently feels free to ignore the first AfD because the result was "no consensus". He described the second AfD as "ludicrously superficial", a conclusion he justified by expressing his !vote-by-!vote reasons for disagreeing with the 80% of the responding editors who favored keeping the article. He also concluded that the reason for the "speedy keep" in the second AfD was that the nomination was from a banned user. My response is that, if he thinks a "no-consensus" result might now be changed, or if he wants a non-superficial discussion, he should start a third AfD, a course I specifically suggested to him. Alternatively, I also pointed out that , if he thinks either AfD was closed improperly, he could raise the matter at WP:DRV. He did neither.

Relief requested: I suggest that an uninvolved editor revert the article to this version, the one immediately before Hrafn's most recent substitution of a redirect, without prejudice to the restoration of material previously removed by Hrafn (some of which I think was properly encyclopedic), and without prejudice to Hrafn's resort to DRV or AfD in pursuit of his goal. JamesMLane t c 22:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

JamesMLane's disregard of WP:AFD

Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD.

— WP:AFD

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn's disruption of a talk page by suppressing another editor's comments

In brief: Hrafn has removed from the article talk page two threads in which I expressed my reasons for disagreeing with his actions. He has left behind, in their stead, only a summary of his position.

The dispute in the foregoing subsection was pursued in two threads at Talk:Chuck Missler between Hrafn and myself. By this edit, Hrafn put the second thread in an archive box, with the "reason" on the template being a statement of his position. I didn't accept this preferential presentation of his views. I corrected this bias and began a discussion on Hrafn's talk page, but Hrafn responded by removing both threads and placing them on my user talk page, again leaving only a summary of his point of view. He gave the explanation, "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article".

This is another reflection of Hrafn's unilateralist approach. He decided that my comments were mistaken, so he removed them from the page. (He also removed his own extensive comments but left in the gist of what he had argued.) In this, as in his disregard of the prior AfD's, he seems unable to deal with the concept of a good-faith disagreement. My comment was that the article should be restored to the form -- a full article instead of a redirect -- that it was in from its creation in 2005 until Hrafn's edit almost three years later. That was the form in which it survived two AfD's. Hrafn is certainly entitled to disagree, but it's preposterous to claim that expressing a preference for that form is "not relevant to improving the article".

Relief requested: I suggest that an uninvolved editor examine this edit and restore the userfied threads to the Talk:Chuck Missler page. A simple "undo" won't work because another editor, BlueMoonlet, has since engaged in a discussion with me. You could go back to this version, copy the last two threads, and paste them into Talk:Chuck Missler. A few polite words to Hrafn about the general tone of his comments might also be a good idea. JamesMLane t c 22:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the deleted conversations but put them in a {{hidden}} template. I wouldn't strongly object if they were taken out of the template. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that the action I just described was only on Talk:Chuck Missler. I am not touching Hrafn's talk page, per WP:Talk#User talk pages and WP:DRRC --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

JamesMLane's disruption of a talk page by WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

In spite of first pointing JamesMLane to the box of advice at the top of WP:AFD that states "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately", and then to the more explicit passage quoted above, this editor insisted on continuing to debate the point, argumentum ad nauseam. I therefore archived (and later userfied) this thread per WP:TALK#Others' comments "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article" and left as a summary this explicit WP:AFD passage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorting through all this

• In terms of Hrafn's redirecting the article, it was done in Feb 2008, 18 months after the previous AfD was closed. Furthermore, the previous AfD was speedy closed as a bad-faith nomination by an impersonation account/AOL proxy IP, not necessarily because the article should have been kept. While it might appropriate for Hrafn to start a 3rd AfD, he BOLDly redirected it, and this remained unopposed until just now. At this point, perhaps a discussion at WP:PM would be appropriate if he still feels a M&R is necessary.
• Regarding the archiving of comments, I think it's rather inappropriate for Hrafn to have done that himself since it was an argument in which he was involved. It's fine for him to propose it be archived and waits for someone else to come along, or waits for JML to agree to it. I think it was fine for BlueMoonlet to restore and collapse it.
• Regarding JamesMLane and WP:IDHT, I'm not sure. To me, it's pretty clearly to BOLDly redirect an article that only has a no-consensus and a "reject due to bad faith nomination" under its belt. Now that JML has opposed the redir, it should be reasonably discussed per WP:BRD. I'm not sure if that's happening, but I do consider the overall tone of this thread and the discussion at Talk:Chuck Missler to be generally assumptive of "poor faith" at this point. That is to say, you guys are focusing on each other when you should be focusing on the article.

In the end, you both need a little WP:TEA. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree, I've put some obvious advice on the article talk page and on JamesMLane's talk page on getting on with improving the article instead of fighting to keep an inadequate stub in place. Since it's a redirect rather than a deleted article, the previous versions are readily available to reduce re-typing, but the sorely lacking reliable sources must come first. . dave souza, talk 09:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to discuss the issue of the topic's notability, and new sources that might establish this. I would agree that such (should it eventuate) would be a productive use of the article's talkpage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Until somebody can move JamesMLane off the AfD issue, I will however (do my best to) stay well clear. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As I've stated in response to dave souza at Talk:Chuck Missler#Report of editor assistance request concerning Hrafn, I care more about clarifying our general process than about the fate of this particular article. The policy is that if an editor believes that an article topic is nonnotable, he or she is certainly welcome to begin a discussion on the talk page, but where there's disagreement about notability, the appropriate forum for resolving it is WP:AfD.

What's important is that the dispute be resolved by consensus rather than unilaterally. I suppose that, in this case, that goal could be accomplished at WP:PM, but it's certainly not a typical merger. Hrafn merged very little information into List of evangelical Christians#Authors, omitting even the titles of Missler's non-self-published works. Hrafn made explicit that his real basis was alleged nonnotability of Missler. Notability disputes are the bread and butter of WP:AfD and that's where editors expect to find them. That's also where dave souza should bring his contention that the standalone Missler article was "an inadequate stub". JamesMLane t c 11:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Shorter JamesMLane: "I want an AfD, I won't change my mind and I won't change the subject" (to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill). As nobody else seems to think you should have one, nobody else seems particularly interested in further discussing the subject of whether you should have one, and there seems to be a WP:CONSENSUS for a redirect on Talk:Chuck Missler (with JamesMLane's 'no redirect without AfD' being the lone dissent), I don't really think there's anything more to be said. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As I told James at my user talk, I believe his concern is one that goes farther than this article, and may be a problem with the AfD process in general. I believe in his eyes, there should be an AfD to attempt to include more opinions from uninvolved parties, as frequently happens at AfD. However, the problem is that AfDs with a stated goal of redirection are generally frowned upon and may be speedily kept. As you aren't interested in deletion, Hrafn, you aren't going to go to AfD. But James won't AfD it either because it would likely be speedy kept as a POINTy nomination, and that would still say nothing about redirection. I think James' concern is warranted, but probably should be discussed where it will get a wider audience, such as WT:AFD or WP:VPP/WP:VPR. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Mendaliv, I appreciate your recognition of the broader issue. I feel some frustration that no one seems willing to think beyond the question of what Wikipedia should say about one nutjob anti-evolutionist. For example, no one has given an opinion on the Bizz buzz hypothetical that I presented above. It may well be that only in one of the policy forums you mention will editors think about that kind of question. JamesMLane t c 05:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

JamesMLane: from my viewpoint your "frustration" is mostly self-inflicted. Talk:Chuck Missler is purely for discussing "the question of what Wikipedia should say about one nutjob anti-evolutionist" (see WP:TALK) within existing procedures (which tend to 'speedy keep' AfDs nominated for redirection) and policy (which explicitly disavows AfD jurisdiction). If you want to discuss changing policy or procedures, the appropriate forum would be WT:AFD (as has already been pointed out to you). I don't know if you'd win support there (I suspect many consider AfDs to be purely for decisions that potentially require Admin action to implement and/or reverse, and that opening them up to purely non-Admin action decisions would result in a loss of focus, and be too difficult to enforce), but they'd at least listen to you because that is the right forum for discussing it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, do you have an answer to my question about Bizz buzz? Just curious -- I'm trying to understand your position. JamesMLane t c 09:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

JamesMLane: I WP:TLDNR it. Having now read it, the answer is yes, any editor could have redirected it instead of taking it to an AfD. But then, any editor could have reverted it. This being so, it is only a WP:CONSENSUS that can enforce a redirect, irrespective of whether this consensus comes from article talk or AfD. So in principle it is better not to clutter up WP:AFD with it (a principle that AfD regulars are willing to speedy-keep to enforce) -- particularly as it would be article regulars not AfD regulars who would have to enforce it. This is however all I have to say on this matter here as this is not the forum for it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Elaine Kim Tags

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Kim

I am writing to request assistance in removing tags on this entry. Substantial changes were made to the article nearly six months ago which resulted in agreement by editors to keep the article. In the meantime, several others including myself have added additional references as they became known. A Wikipedia editor swept the article to Wikify it some months ago. I think the tags may now be irrelevant given the changes and addition of new content. Seireeni (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A more basic question - is the article supposed to be about the individual or her company? The body of the article is about the individual yet it has a company infobox with the name of her company and company details. – ukexpat (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the focus of the article is definitely wrong, it is supposed to be a BLP per the AfD discussion but it concentrates on stores and products which are the domain of an article on the company. This article needs to be cleaned up to focus on the subject and if a second article on the company is appropriate then that information should be split out. In the mean time I have changed the infobox for the appropriate one. Mfield (talk) 06:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles on Aidan Kelly and the NROOGD

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I've added comments and new text for the following two articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aidan_Kelly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Reformed_Orthodox_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn

I cannot cope with formatting, and I will leave it to someone else's editorial judgment about how to deal with the added text and the issues I've raised, but both of these now need cleaning up whenever someone can get around to it. Thanks.

Aidan A. Kelly, Ph.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AidanAKellyPhD (talk • contribs) 15:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have undone your edit to Aidan Kelly - as you appear to be the subject of this article you have a conflict of interest and should discuss on the article's talk page any changes that you think ought to be made. I looked at the edit history of New Reformed Orthodox Order of the Golden Dawn and do not see any edits by you to that article. Please note however, Wikipedia is concerned with what is verifiable by reliable sources which may not be the "truth". – ukexpat (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I now see your edit on Talk:New Reformed Orthodox Order of the Golden Dawn which is the appropriate place to discuss it. – ukexpat (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Quarrelsome behavior on astrology articles

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There are some individuals on the signs' articles that insist on going against Wikipedia consensus and I have a difficult time dealing with. The decision on the reliable sources noticeboard has been that just random internet sites do not constitute reliable sources ([1]), but these individuals insist on undoing my removal of these sources (especially Elore.com). Their "frontline" seems to be on Scorpio (astrology) and Aquarius (astrology).

Am I right to remove these sources? I don't want to be seen as edit-warring. These guys have already attacked me in every venue possible here, and keep threatning editors in their edit summaries. Thanks for having a look, Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Someone963852 is now misusing warning templates on my talk page as a response to my reverting of his unsourced material in the signs' articles. Please help. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Nathanael: you should name the other editors and invite them to join this discussion. The thread you linked to at WP:RS/N doesn't sound terribly conclusive. There might be ways that you could get a discussion started with other people who care about astrology. If all else fails, and there are still only two people disagreeing, you could try WP:Third opinion. In a dispute with more than two people, you could open a WP:Request for comment. If you can show that www.elore.com is spam, there is always WT:WPSPAM for reporting it, but I'm not convinced yet. EdJohnston (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue is mainly that if editors start adding traits to these articles sourced to every which site, these articles will quickly become one big mess. Every other day someone comes up with a new "trait" for the signs from some source. Opinions about the signs are a dime a dozen. This kind of mess can at least be avoided if sources are kept to the more authoritative sources, beside this clearly being more inline with WP:ASF and WP:RELIABLE.

Besides User:Someone963852, User:SotosfromGreece has also been assuming bad faith on my part despite all my efforts to explain my points and reasons, and has been disparaging my name on Talk:Scorpio (astrology) and making completely unfounded allegations. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nathanael, I still don't see you notifying those two editors and inviting them to participate in this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have now invited them. Hopefully it can stay civil this time. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi everyone.

Mr. Nathanael, stop trying to sound all innocent. Also, quit trying to act like you're the judge on all the astro. articles. How do you know if those are so-called "spam" sites are not reliable ones?

Recently, it looks like you've shown alot of biasness towards the signs. There might be some traits added by other users saying that Aquarius are stunning and Scorpios are sexy (with sources of course) and you (Nathanael) with remove them stating that it's against the neutral point of view.

Really? If that is so, then why don't you remove all the non-sense from Taurus saying that they're the most beautiful astro sign and extremely graceful in their movements. (There are many more at the article and I can't list them all.) Wait, you can't because you are a Taurus and you favor that.

Hmm, doesn't that go more against the Neutral POV? "Oh oh, but it's from a reliable source!" you might say? Oh really, it sounds like you got it off from someone saying that it is [2]. So you're telling me to read the Neutral Point of View when you're the one that should.

Well, yeah, I guess those are some of that reason why people might disagree with Nathanael and that he is trying so hard to be innocent. Thanks for reading and I hope that you could be my side! --kashimjamed (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC) - Someone963852

P.S.

...."on my part despite all my efforts to explain my points and reasons...." -Nathanael

Are you serious? You NEVER TRIED to reason "with all your efforts", instead, you give warnings..

I don't give a damn what it says, I just care that it is attributed to somebody who's opinion matters, and not some website you find on Google. Jeanne has attributed her claims to published astrologers I have actually heard of before. Frankly, I personally don't believe at all that the signs have attributable physical characteristics. If it was really up to me, these entire sections could go, but I respect Wikipedia's guidelines. As for the warnings I gave you, that is because you keep inserting unsourced material, and that is widely discouraged on Wikipedia. I have explained my reverting on your talk page and on the talk page of the articles in question. I don't see how I could have made it any clearer. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Physical Appearance comes from your parents' genes, not what your astro. sign is. kashimjamed (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You see, now we think alike. That still doesn't give anybody the right to remove that material just because one doesn't agree with it. These are just the opinions of some well-known astrologers.

That said, there is still an issue of sources, and it is a critical one for these articles. I don't see elore.com as spam, just that it is very irrelevant in the wider field of astrology. I believe that the articles should contain more material from these guys: Category:20th century astrologers, Category:21st century astrologers. Their opinions should be "notable" if their status in the astrological community has been demonstrated in their Wikipedia articles. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I get what you mean. But your opinion, my opinion, the astrologer's opinion, it doesn't matter. It's suppose to be a fact. kashimjamed (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Kellyplummer44 (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)My article got the following response and I don't know what it means. Can you help me: Or, where do I get help??

It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: WP:N

I am not sure exactly which page you are referring to, your userpage was deleted for blatant advertising ("Pages that exclusively promote some entity and that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.")

If you had created another page that was deleted for WP:N, that is notability, in short the subject of the article was not deemed notable enough, as confirmed by Reliable sources to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. Mfield (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please help with edit war

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I would really appreciate some further input on Talk:Children of alcoholics#List of people. There are two editors (quite possibly one and a WP:SOCK) who insist on deleting parts of an article without any policy justification. I am open to discussion of the material and would like to build a consensus, but they repeatedly redo their edits, saying "we don't need a policy reason." I don't know where to turn, please help! --Elplatt (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Consensus looks to be against your addition, with yourself being the only editor to support your position. I appreciate that you think consensus hasn't been reached, but experienced Wikipedians tend to describe this sort of situation as "one editor going against consensus".
• Don't accuse other editors of being sockpuppets, unless you are sure enough of your case that you're ready to post at our sock-puppet investigation page. In content disputes of this kind, it's generally best to avoid any accusation that other editors are acting in bad faith without solid evidence.
• Policy states that Biographies of Living Persons must not contain any information about living people that's unsourced. Adding contentious information, or information that could be seen as defamatory, to any article or page is particularly likely to result in your edits being reverted, and possibly more serious sanctions. This applies to all articles and other pages at wikipedia. Of course, saying someone is a child of alcoholics potentially harms not only the named person but also their parents.
• Edit warring is disruptive, so don't do it, even if you're right.

I hope this information is helpful. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Translating articles from other language versions of Wikipedia

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Friends, My question concerns the applicable formula of giving credit to the original creator of the Wikipedia entry in a language different than my target language. How is it done? Yours, Paweł Jędrzejko Pawel Jedrzejko (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The {{Translated page}} template can be added to the article's talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you :-) Pawel Jedrzejko (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

energy economics

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Here's the situation.

I've been working in the field of energy economics for some 20 years now. I've a PhD in economics. I've been a professor of economics since 2000. I've been an editor of Energy Economics, one of the three journals in the field, since 2003. I'm a member of the International Association of Energy Economists. And so on.

I think I can claim that I know the field of energy economics. It is an eclectic field, in which a variety of people from a range of disciplinary backgrounds use all sort of methods -- but all aimed at improving the understanding of energy prices, market, use, and production.

There are scholars who believe that one can model the economy as a thermodynamic system. This approach is commonly known as thermoeconomics, and the Wikipedia page is fine. Thermoeconomics is clearly identified as a heterodox school of economics. Energy economists are by and large orthodox economists, but most would be rather pragmatic when dealing with the fine print of economic dogma.

Over the last two weeks, a user by the name of Skipsievert has been inserting material that belongs to thermoeconomics into the page of energy economics. I've shifted the material to where it belongs (in my view), but he keeps putting it back.

Thanks for your help. Sorry if this request came a number of times; my internet connection is doing strange things.

Richard Tol Richard Tol 21:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtol (talk • contribs)

This is a content dispute and so you should attempt to reach consensus with the other editors on the article's talk page. Having some reliable sources at hand wouldn't hurt either. – ukexpat (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I was asked by User:Skipsievert to look at the situation and I noticed this. Assuming good faith, Rtol is running into a common problem with experts, who are accustomed to writing about their own field based on their own knowledge. But Wikipedia has editorial standards for reliable sourcing, etc., and an expert in the field of an article may not be familiar with these, or may assert rights as an expert over other editors. I'll be looking at the history and seeing if I can advise the involved editors as to how to avoid conflict and edit warring, while at the same time preserving what could be valuable comment from an expert. --Abd (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Submarine

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi I have been trying to add aditional inforamtion on the early history of submarines. The information is consistantly removed but is valid. In fact a later paragraph allueds to the origianl creator "Holland" I just dont understand. Is the inforamtion decided upon on writing style or something im not getting?If this is meant to be a place for information then please!! have the editors do the research before deleting valid inforamation for a topic. There is no point in me posting something to have it deleted within a minute. These editors cannot have checked the information by then. This is my first experience of wiki posting and i must say I am stratiing to douby much of the information here, maybe its time to return to the good old encylopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.114.141 (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, there's a couple of pages you should read up on. WP:V and WP:RS. The information you are adding needs to be sourced correctly to adhere to Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. WP:CITE will tell you more about how to cite the information, you can use a tool like this one to generate the relevant cite code. Also, to avoid instant reversions by the vandal patrol you need to remember to use edit summaries with every edit so people can see what you were doing with your edit. You can also start a discussion on the article talk page to let people know if your edits could be considered controversial in any way. Mfield (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

External links on Dust collector

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the editor for this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_collector is unfarely disallowing my link to a helpful maitenance checklist

baghouse.com/Periodic-Dust-Collector-Inspection-Recommendations.php Dust Collector Maintenance Checklist

while he is allowing2 of my competitors to list no perticural artical just their websites [1] USAirfiltration.com has a large resource area for terminology, links to helpful sites, and detailed drawings and information about baghouse / dust collector issues. Cyclone Dust Collector Research Do it yourself Dust Collection for the home to small scale shop written by a lung-damaged engineer.

please help

<e-mail address redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.206.174 (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the USAirfiltration.com link as spam, so I think that should do it. – ukexpat (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Help is needed to establish a dialog

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I encounter a problem with the WP user who does not accept logical arguments and behaves as an article's owner. The most recent example is here. I would like to avoid an edit war. What should I do first to resolve a problem?
Best regards
--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the other editor has engaged in debate and is arguing from the sources, although you were not specific on what exactly you have taken exception to. You have been asked several times during the discussion to provide sources backing up your case. Concentrate on doing that, rather than the tone of other editors, and see if there is still a problem after you have done that. SpinningSpark 12:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so. I always provide sources (mostly, from scholarly journals (jstor.org)). I always try to present my rationale on the talk page, and try to achieve a consensus. In contrast, the other editor prefer to do direct changes of the article. Sometimes, I am able to convince him to accept my POV, or to consider it seriously, but it demands enormous efforts. I never had such problems with other editros before.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Just ran across this. A few reality notes you can pick up with even a cursory examination of the Talk Page:

(1) Spinningspark is correct -- I've stuck to the sources entirely. In fact, as an aside, I've probably added well over 60% of the sources in this article now (which used to have massive completely unsourced sections). I could be off, but I haven't checked.
(2) In addition to that, I've probably myself made 20+ edits based on this editor's (Paul Siebert) complaints on the Talk Page alone (including hunting down sources to try to support individual points), many of which I didn't even want, just to attempt to prevent some mass disruption of the article.
(3) This editor also wants to take a large section of the historical page out chronological order based on a notion not only not supported by a majority of historians, but as far as I can tell, is supported by zero historians. His own fringe theory. I won't bore you with it, but you can read the discussion for yourself on the talk page.
(4) There's an obvious reason he's doing it (reading numerous comments on various Talk Pages) that I won't bore you with. He himself said above "Sometimes, I am able to convince him to accept my POV," which is not exactly the attitude one should have on Wikipedia.
(5) I received zero courtesy notices on my Talk Page about this section being started about me. In fact, I was actually spending a considerable amount of time going through and discussing his various theories with him, while even adding sources where a fact was thrown out, as this was on this board.
(6) He just attempted to take a section out of Chron order, delete several facts in it, and then won't allow any edits of it, claiming "let's discuss this first" -- on his changed section. I wish I weren't kidding, but just have a look at the history page.
(7) I'm pretty close to going to ANI with this editor. I've bent over backwards to work with him. Repeatedly. Mosedschurte (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Orthogons & Design Article

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It's very possible that the article was deleted by editors who believe they are familiar with the content but may in fact be coming from an entirely different perspective. The concern was raised that only one source was available for use of the term Orthogon in the context of the article (art). The main problem with the source is that it is in German and the text technical and cumbersome to translate. Other sources are available but not via the internet at this time. Instructions and information on how to apply these 12 dynamic (harmonic) rectangles, termed "orthogons", to art is currently being taught at the university level in the US as well as Europe. Their use in art is the point of the article. So far, no one has disputed the reference nor have they disputed use of the term in this context or the use of these structures by artists and designers (which is completely abundant on the internet). Editors who are artists/architects/designers should make the decision to delete or keep the article, rather than mathematicians/scientists/researchers. I would make pages from the book available in the article but the book was printed in 1956 and copyright issues are still a concern. Artists do not make a practice of publishing their most valuable information--they'll teach it at the university level but not generally in published form. To quote Kimberly Elam in her book, Geometry of Design, pp. 101: "In many schools of art and design the study of geometric organization begins and ends with a discussion of the golden section relationship to the Parthenon and an art history course. This is due in part to the separation of information that is a part of education. Biology, geometry, and art are taught as separate subjects. The content area of each that is congruent to the other is often neglected and the student is left to make the connections on their own. in addition, art and design are commonly viewed as intuitive endeavors and expressions of personal inspiration. Unfortunately, few educators will bring biology or geometry into the studio or art and design into the science or math classroom." I agree with Ms. Elam that the congruencies should be given air time--I don't like having to "make the connections" on my own and believe others deserve the same enlightenment. Unless someone can verify that this set of 12 "dynamic rectangles" have not been called "orthogons" for a very long time and the term not used in relation to art, the article should be kept. The entries were not unanimous that the article be deleted. Your assistance in what is of vital importance to artists and designers is much appreciated. Valriejensen1 (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The deletion debate for the article is here. During the course of the deletion debate the article Dynamic rectangle was created with what those participating believed to be the verifiable information from the german source cited in the deleted Orthogons and design. The point I think you are missing is that on Wikipedia the criterion for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Things you know personally, but are not published, are not suitable for inclusion. The concept also has to be notable, meaning it is discussed in reliable independant published works. Have you looked at the dynamic rectangle article and does that satisfy your complaint? If not, one of your options is to start a deletion review. Another option is to ask the deleting admin (who was User:Lankiveil) to userfy the article so that you can improve it before reposting it to mainspace. There is no rule (in general) against creating an article that has previously been deleted. However, before doing so you would be expected to address the issues of concern raised in the original deletion debate. I would strongly recommend that you create any new article in your userspace and then ask other editors to review it before moving it to mainspace. Merely recreating exactly the same material not acceptable behaviour and will attract admin action. SpinningSpark 11:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your clarifications and direction. The information in Dynamic rectangle is great and works well from the standpoint of math. However, this articles does not explain how anyone interested in design can actually use the orthogons to create a work of art, architecture, calligraphy, etc. It's not clear from the article how the orthogons relate to each other, which is vital to the discussion from the viewpoint of design. The technicality (and lack of practical application) of books on this subject (Jay Hambidge included), turns artists away. Orthogons need to be presented as a unit that can be applied (and understood) by artists, architects, etc. Even though it's written in German, Wersin's book has very informative images that an artist/architect can follow. I'm hesitant to post images from his book but will do so if that is advisable. Designers would use the Dynamic rectangle article for verification but would not wade through all the math. The Dynamic rectangle article could be a great reference for an article about how to practically apply the orthogons. Kimberly Elam explains, "[Artists] that have been involved in education such as Le Corbusier, Josef Muller-Brockmann and Max Bill considered geometric organization and planning essential and fundamental to the design process." Just wish more published information on HOW this is done was available in English!Valriejensen1 (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You probably cannot use images from Wersin's book on Wikipedia, it will still be in copyright and very unlikey that the images are available under a free licence. Using the book as a reference is ok though, we have plenty of German speakers here to check the refs. If the images in question are just diagrams (rather than works of art) we can create our own here on Wikipedia, drop a note on my talk page if you want help with something like that. As for the application of the mathematical figures to art, I thought use of the golden ratio, at least, was well known and references should not be hard to find. Take a look at this Google book search, it comes up with lots of relevant books, many of them with parts viewable online. Using refs like that in an article makes it much less likely to be deleted. SpinningSpark 15:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance on using Wersin's images, your help in making these available would be very much appreciated. The books you reference are great examples of how the golden section has been applied. The rectangle is super-imposed over the work of art and that's basically it. "Extensions" in these books refers to math rather than instructions on how to begin and follow through creating a design using the relative measurements of the golden section. The work of Giorgio Morandi is a perfect example of how the measurements from an orthogon can be applied in any direction. The additional orthogons are useful because the golden section is somewhat unwieldy (long) and difficult to manage in a design. Books are available that detail in depth how artworks fit orthogons but finding material (outside of a university classroom) explaining how it's done is the trick. The orthogon and design article does that. I'll get the Wersin material to you pronto. Many thanks Valriejensen1 (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Another concern with the [Dynamic rectangle] article, several of the terms for individual orthogons have been translated into English. Much like standard music notations are in Italian, keeping the terms in one language (with translations in quotes) keeps them more recognizable to researchers. Valriejensen1 (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Karen Weldin Stewart

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I was Karen Weldin Stewart's campaign manager. What is posted on your site about her is dishonest in the extreme in that it cherry picks what it wants your readers to believe defines Ms. Stewart and even some of the information listed is inaccurate. Two items come to mind. First, she is no longer the Commissioner-Elect, she is the Commissioner. Second, in connection with her credit card issues, she had an American Express card, charged and paid in full and on time close to two hundred thousand dollars over two years while using the card for her business expenses. There was a ten thousand dollar dispute that was eventually settled. The earlier postings on her were so slanderous and libelous that they were radically changed owing to an attorney I had never met or talked to until he contacted me. I, Ms. Stewart and our staffs do not have the time to read every day to see if someone has tried to edit what is already there with the kind of lies, attacks etc. that were their at the beginning. As Mark Twain said, "A lie goes around the world before truth puts its boot on." Wikipedia mentions that they are interested in verification not truth. But once a slanderous posting is made, how many readers see it before it is corrected. The early posts had no verification. Having said all of this, I would like to have her name and all information about her erased from Wikipedia. How do I go about doing so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yorttoille (talk • contribs) 13:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the Commissioner-Elect to Commissioner as that is clearly stale information. Clearly the article has simply been allowed to get out of date. I'm having a bit of a problem seeing how you can describe that as dishonest in the extreme in that it cherry picks what it wants your readers to believe. The credit card issue was raised during the election campaign and is reasonable to have in the article if done in a balanced way. However, it is referenced to The Delaware Talk Radio blog site. As a blog, that cannot be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes and I have therefore removed it from the article. There is no guarantee that the issue will not be re-inserted if reliable sources are found for the story. Wikipedia is entitled to have an article on any notable person, you cannot insist that we do not; unless of course, you want to make an argument that Karen Stewart is not notable. SpinningSpark 16:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar editing all model sites

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Editor Assistant,

My problems concerns 2 articles: Christie Brinkley and Errol Sawyer.
There is an editor that calls himself "Barnstar" who says that he guards all the model sites (as a sheriff with a star on his breast). He has been rejecting numerous times the contribution to Brinkley's article that says that the African-American photographer Errol Sawyer discovered Christie in Paris in 1973 although it stems from a book of Michael Gross, "Models: The ugly business of beautiful women book", William and Morrow and Company, Inc, New York, 1995. pp 17-19, because he only has read the New York Magazine, September 2008, in which Brinkley does not mention Sawyer. "Barnstar" says that every reference should be retracable by Internet. As I studied Art History and Architecture/Building Engineering I think this is absurd and I told him that a lot of archives are not digitized yet.

Finally "Barnstar" leaves in Brinkley's article that Errol Saywer discovered, but now he takes away all the time African- American or African in front of American. I explain him that Obama also describes himself as black or African-American but it does not help. This is a sensitive subject as Brinkley said the following in the Michael Gross book: : ”I lived in a chambre de bonne with no telephone or bathrooms. It was so charming. The toilet was two flights down; the telephone was about a block and a half away. I had a little dog, and he had distemper. So I went to the phone to call the vet, and this guy, Errol Sawyer, this kind of loud, crazy black American photographer, said: “Oh, there you are! I spotted you one day at the telephone office, and I was hoping I would see you again because I’ve got a job, and the clients are looking for a girl just like you. Would you be interested? This is my address. I don’t have a telephone but you can just drop by" — And I went by, and he said: "Can you run home and put on something nice?” So photographer Errol Sawyer made Christie’s very first model pictures and introduced her later on with his pictures to John Casablancas of Elite Model Management in Paris.

Since "Barnstar" finally left Sawyer in as the one who discovered Christie, he also suddenly introduces photographer Patrick Demarchelier who has according to "Barnstar" introduced her to Eileen Ford. Now this is maybe said by Brinkley in New York Magazine, September 2008, but not in the book of Michael Gross of 1995. There one page further in the same book "Models" Christie says: "In the meantime Mike Reinhardt went back to New York and told Eileen Ford about me."
In the late seventies Christie went actually with her husband Jean-Francois Aillaux, after he got out of the army, back to New York and joined Eileen Ford Model Agency. Sawyer and everyone who was in Paris at at hat time knows that.

So there are two notes that contradict each other: one from the book of Michael Gross and one from a gossip magazine, New York Magazine.
According to "Barnstar" the latest prevails because it is the most recent or maybe because he knows it all and is actually a "star" himself. You see how easy it is to rewrite history ...

But worse is still to come. Since one week there is an internal link from Brinkley to Sawyer's article and "Barnstar" does anything to destroy it and he writes that Sawyer should not even be there etc. Of course he continues taking African away in front of American and he put 4 tags which I ask him to explain exactly but he refuses to do so. I need help because I find it very unfair that someone like Brinkley can actualy buy herself into Wiki with a interview set up by her P.R. office and a genuine artist like Errol Sawyer should not be able to get into Wiki because he does not have the means for buying an interview. On top of that a "Barnstar" is provoking an unresolved matter and therefore disqualification of Errol Sawyer.

I did not make the article of Sawyer but Yes, I edited Sawyer's article while I am besides his wife and agent also an academic and guest professor at the Technical University Delft in Holland and I know his archive very well and otherwise a lot of information would not be there at all. But I only used published and public references. To my amazement Roy Decarava, another very good African-American photographer is not in the Wikipedia either.

I would gladly hear your advise because Errol Sawyer deserves a good article. I understand there still has to be editing done and I would appreciate exact directions,

Mathilde Fischer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathilde Fischer (talk • contribs) 15:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I am struggling to establish where all this discussion is supposed to have taken place, you have not provided any links. I suspect that there has not been any other than through edit summaries. So my first suggestion is to go back and discuss the issues properly either on the article talk pages or the user talk pages as appropriate. You may be pleasantly surprised at how collaborative people become if you approach them with a collaborative attitude. On the question of offline sources, you are right, offline sources are acceptable. Printed sources are often more reliable, and online sources can be frequently changed or disappear altogether. Many editors prefer online sources because it makes it easier for other editors to verify. However, the rule is that the source must be verifiable by others, not necessarily verifiable online or verifiable easily, and this includes visiting a library to read it. SpinningSpark 15:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There are no links provided because no links would support Fischer's slander of me. That I refer to myself as "Barnstar" or that I claim to "guard" model articles is laughable. As for the articles she mentions, I've linked-to and thoroughly explained the relevant Wiki policies behind my edits numerous times on my talk page and Brinkley's article talk page. It's up to her to read them and understand them, but unfortunately she would rather slander me instead.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for page creation.

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I am requesting administrative help creating a page for the ironic shock-rock/goregrind band Abörted Hitler Cöck, the name of which of course contains blacklisted keywords which is why I am asking for admin to create the page. Thank you for your time.

I apologise if I am posting in the wrong place but I thought that I directed here from another user on that page.

In regards to notability, The band has a significant underground following, and has been featured in specialist publications (which I am not involved in) focussing on the genre. I am a music journalist and have compiled an biography, for which I can provide the various sources.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Antmartain (talk • contribs) 20:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC) 

Before I do any such thing, how are you intending to establish notability of this band, there does not seem to be a lot out there. Before replying, please read WP:Notability (bands). SpinningSpark 22:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And note that the correct place to request the creation of an article is WP:AFC. – ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Tampering with a site

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone named Jameson L. Tai has been changing the Wikipedia site of Thom Hatch, including adding personal material that Mr. hatch does not want made public for security reasons. This Tai has no reason to be editing this site with his poor grammer and sentence structure and ruining a perfectly legitimate site, all of which can be cited if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.21.131 (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think what needs to be understood is that the article Thom Hatch is not the Wikipedia site of Thom Hatch, rather it is a community consensus edited encyclopedia article about the subject, Thom Hatch. There is no tampering going on, anyone and everyone can edit wikipedia, that is one of the guiding principles of the project. What the subject would like to see in a biographical article about themselves is irrelevant and POV, providing the facts in question are notable, verifiable and do not infringe the subject's privacy. Are you Thom Hatch? If so this is something that you should be declaring, and you should be careful when editing the article due to conflict of interest guidelines. What specifically is the personal information that you feel should not be made public? (bearing in mind that this information all has to be verifiable by sources and consequently is readily available anyway).

What is concerning right now is that the article is completely unreferenced and has no in text citations at all. It is also not written as a biographical article but more of a literary review of his works. I am going to flag it with some maintenance tags to make sure this gets addressed.

Be also aware that reverting constructive edits without engaging in discussion is considered vandalism and that editing from different IP addresses so as to obfuscate is called sockpuppetry and both are blockable offences. If you are serious about improving the article constructively then I suggest registering for a login name and learning to discuss with other editors to work towards consensus and how to use edit summaries to explain your edits. Mfield (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the 5th time in 24 hours that an IP from Broomfield, Colorado has reverted Thom Hatch to an extremely spammy version. No edit summaries were given and no explaination was left in the talk section. Messages left at first IPs talk page were ignored (they continued to revert from that IP even after messages were left). The subject of the article is from Colorado, so likely to be this IP. No idea who Jameson L. Tai is, or what info "Mr. hatch does not want made public" (information was removed from the spammy version, not added). NJGW (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Noting that the version I was viewing and talking about is actually the version that the IP was attempting to revert to. The stable version is referenced and follows guidelines. The version that the IP prefers is a liable candidate for speedy deletion by contrast. I do not see what issues there can be with the article in its stable state, the article is a BLP, not a literary review and all the information is easily available or a matter of public record. Mfield (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Mfield, thank you for notifying me regarding this discussion. I simply reverted an anon IP edit whom was earlier reverted as well by NJGW. I understand a genuine frustration if the editor was new to Wikipedia, but it does not seem so. In light of the situation, I will assume good faith and say this may not be Thom Hatch, but reviewing this made me think otherwise. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 21:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Still at it, now with a named account. I opened a report at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Thom_Hatch. NJGW (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

meme editing specifically deletion of mememetrics

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I submitted a report of an empirical quantitative approch to research on memes which was posted on the meme site for approximately three months. My contribution describes a new science of mememetrics that differs from psychometrics. A drastic editing of the site omitted my contribution and included material that I believe has less relevance. How do I appeal to restore my contribution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.138.24 (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Which page are you concerned about? I couldn't find it, I'm afraid. --AndrewHowse (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and if the material you added was original research, then it would be proper to remove it. Content here needs to be verifiable by reference to reliable sources. --AndrewHowse (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

One-on-one advice needed when creating articles

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I created an article, Affiliate Window, and it was deleted due to G11. I have since reviewed the article and included a number of references to make the article "notable" as the admin who was overseeing it said it needed in order to be published. However, it was deleted again. I adhered to the admin's guidance, however, they have failed to provide me with one-on-one guidance.

I now have two articles hosted on my User page located here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GeorgeGaz/Affiliate_Window
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GeorgeGaz/Digital_Window_Ltd

I do not want to publish Affiliate Window without it being approved because the admin said it would be protected from being created again.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Hopefully we can work through this and get the page published.

Regards GeorgeGaz (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's deletable as it stands, but it still reads like advertising. I think it might get fairly well pruned. I also suggest you make them into one article about the holding company. You could then create redirects from the other subsidiaries. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really look notable to me. Britain's 18th fastest growing technology company? Do the 17 ahead of it have their own pages? My bet is no. And if you do have a conflict of interest here (some relationship with the company) then you really shouldn't be starting pages on it. Let someone else do it. And if no one else does... well that goes back to notability. LSD (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed Articles

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

My question is what is the criteria to dispute an article. I've noticed people just give an opinion and do not offer anything constructive. It seems to me that NPOV standards are being followed so I can't understand what the dispute is all about. My specific article was in the crime fiction area entitled "Hard Boiled". I felt that the critcism was simply for critcisms sake so there wasn't anything I could think of in order to resolve the dispute.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattCamm (talk • contribs) 16:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There are ascending levels of dispute resolution set out at WP:DR - did you try that?. – ukexpat (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The first level of dispute resolution is to discuss the issues on the article talk page. I see no discussion there whatsoever - it's hard to give you a view on a dispute that is not being vocalised. This page should be your second port of call after first making a genuine attempt to collaborate with the other editors. SpinningSpark 14:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to understand why my contribution has been rejected

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm new to wikipedia and willing to contribute the best I can. The first contributions I made are related to a topic I know quite well: IP softphones. Yesterday, I spent time adding an entry in the table at the link below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_VoIP_software I did my best to follow the wiki syntax I didn't know before and to follow the wikipedia guidelines (no external link, etc.) After publishing, I was happy and proud to see that it worked, and that my entry (details about the softphone of eyeP Media) was included in the page !

This morning (French time), I checked the page again: what a disappointment! My entry had been deleted overnight by MrOllie who didn't explain me why he did that and I don't know how to reach him. Some people may argue that I added a description of a software developed by the company I'm working for but I truly believe that my entry is very valuable for anybody consulting this comparison page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_VoIP_software, which is full of proprietary software developed by companies much bigger than us. Please help me to understand...

cheers,

jfhoup —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfhoup (talk • contribs) 17:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It was probably deleted as linkspam - with a conflict of interest you should not be adding links to your business/company/employer etc. Please discuss on the article's talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur with UKexpat. I was also going to say it was likely also as the package did not meet the notability guideline, however the comparison article seems to be completely unreferenced and includes other software packages that are not notable enough to merit their own WP article (something that needs addressing anyway). Bring the matter up for discussion on article talk to avoid the COI issue as it doesn't seem, from a cursory look, that the package your company makes is any less notable than some of the others, although impartial editors more conversant with the area should be the ones to decide that. Mfield (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Supernatural episode guide

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a dispute ongoing as to the format of the episode guide for supernatural the tv show. As evidenced by List of Supernatural episodes It is now getting to the point where reverts are continuing semi regularly and yet the main editor doing this reverting refuses to discuss the issue and just continues to force the format he prefers. Instead of revert waring which achieves nothing and only disrupts the wiki, I would appreciate some outside oppinions so as to draw this matter to a close. Personally I am in favour of the more in depth page as it provides all the info one needs on one page without the need for redundancy (such as the now extra 4 pages which were created that were at one point served by the one main page). Also the original style followed many formatting conventions such as seen in the episode guids of grey's anatomy, prviate practice, reaper and my name is earl. In short the original formatting was much more user friendly IMHO. However I do concede that the new format is more sparse and less word heavy being a simple list of episode titles, however I think it sacrfices too much utility in favour of minimality. -- 82.41.44.188 (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Russell29 is clearly an experienced and skilled editor so it is quite baffling that he refuses to enter into debate. I can only conclude that this is deliberate rather than a newbie oversight and is really not the collaborative attitude that is expected here. On the question of who is right, that is not very clearcut. A look at the guideline WP:Television episodes#Examples of good pages shows examples of both styles so there appears to be no Wikipedia preference. You might consider starting a debate with the purpose of tightening up the guidelines in these cases. Possible venues are the Wikipedia Talk:Television episodes or Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Television. However, those sort of pages are not highly frequented and it is often better to start debates at WP:VPP and move to the relevant page later. SpinningSpark 15:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the response Spark. It is much appreciated. I personally think both formats work, dependant upon which show its describing. Things such as lost which has an episode synopisis for each episode is more suited for the simple episode list, where as less popular shows like supernatural which don't have individual pages for each episode seem more fitting for the semi synopsis approach it takes. I will however continue to try and engage the editor in discourse about this issue so that we can draw it to a close amicably, however thus far he has ignored my attempts, so hopefully he will take heed at some point as multiple users continue to revert his edits. -- 139.153.13.48 (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if he is trying to single-handedly swim against the tide then one of two things will happen. He will either get the message and start discussing, or he will end up on the administrators notice board for edit warring. Looking at his edit history, he does not seem to be very big on talk pages. This is a shame, because he is clearly a prolific editor. He does engage in some discussion though, so there is still hope. SpinningSpark 17:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What to do if the topic for a concept in common use is "appropriated" by an academic discipline?

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the following is quite long. I have been thinking about what to do for several days and really need some guidance.

At the top of every Talk page it says that: "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject". Where can I discuss whether it is OK to disambiguate a topic? And is it a "fork" if you set up a new topic for the "common usage" concept of a word, leaving the existing material (which covers a concept of the same word, as developed by an academic field) on the existing topic?

I need an article dealing with ordinary concept of Culture, to be linked to by another article I work on.

Two weeks ago checking the content of a linked topic Culture, I found what seemed to me a very mixed up and unclear article. That was OK - not unusual. What surprised me though was thatTalk:Culture was headed up with three giant Wikiproject notices saying the article was rated Good, plus two other banners to the same effect. So I initiated a reassessment of the quality of Culture. Within a couple of days at least two others had agreed the article was disorganised and unsatisfactory, then suddenly, and without discussion, another editor stripped out half the article and placed a large amount of new material dealing mainly with the history of meanings of the word in American anthropology (all in the one edit), so the article became a different "animal", and explained that he had revamped the article on the Talk page. I expressed doubts about his action, and suggested he might like to revert it, which did not happen. I then kept quiet till the review process was completed after a week (I delisted the article, and explained why).

I have not editesd the article since the review (aside from the re-rating edits) but have watched with mounting fear as more and more edits have been made by that editor, as it were hijacking the article away from dealing with the concept as in ordinary usage. Instead, the article now gives a lengthy history over the past century of how the meaning of culture (being the field of study of American anthropology) has changed, littered with the many names of people in the field who have modified the idea of culture in one way or another.

Apparently, using the American anthropology concept, the word Culture "refers to all non-genetic human phenomena" (part way through the intro. section). A wide definition indeed!

I have searched Google books etc, and the ordinary usage concept of Culture is alive and well in many fields.

So should I try to discuss the matter on the talk page (inspite of what it says at the top). Is it a "fork" to disambiguate this topic in this situation? Is it wrong to just disambiguate it without further discussion - given that I made the general point of need for wider coverage when doing the review? --AlotToLearn (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you are absolutely right to discuss this issue on the talk page, that is exactly what it is for - discussion on improving the article. The injunction against discussing the topic is meant to prevent, for instance, a debate at a Star Trek article over whether phasors or light sabres are a more powerful weapon, it does nothing to improve the article. Disambiguation in Wikipedia terms usually means disambiguating between articles with similar names but different subjects or aspects of the same subject. There are two main ways of doing this; dab pages and hat notes. You can find an explanation of these and when you should them at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. SpinningSpark 14:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been editing the article for Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, I was removing the POV statements since this is a living persons biography, the person has come back and reverted all my edits to some that are clearly POV and the username seems to indicate someone from the same family. I'm not sure how to proceed at this point, he has made legal threats in the talk page for that article which is really not conductive to a civil discourse. I don't have any stake in this article as I was just editing it because of the POV flag on it. I don't know if someone could review the article to see if I'm being to stringent in enforcing the sourcing of the article. Gordie (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree, material like that is utterly inappropriate, I have reverted it. The article is also totally devoid of meaningful references. If it were not for the fact that he is a former Attorney General, and hence automatically notable for that, I would have nominated the article for deletion. WP:BLP requires the strictest referencing of articles on living persons. Any unreferenced statements should be immediately deleted. Can you give me a diff to the legal threat, I could not find it. SpinningSpark 17:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Digital Library Federation article COI and citations comment

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

To Whom It May Concern:

I'm still getting my feet wet, and recently wrote the Digital Library Federation article. Overnight I received a COI message, and took it to be a good faith perspective, and responded with what I thought was a sound argument. The editor that posted the COI wrote back with a very uninformative response, and now I'm wondering if they're just trying to be difficult. It almost appears to be some sort of misanthropic behavior or Wikipedia spam. See the thread that's begun at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Digital_Library_Federation.

I'm not sure how to handle this situation. Also, there is a posting that I haven't cited any resource for my article. Besides the fact that I posted an under construction banner as a way to let people know I'm still working on the citations, there are in fact one external link citation and several internal link in-text citations.

Both of these issues are discouraging to me. I'd like to continue my participation in Wikipedia, but am not having a very encouraging start. Diglib (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI - if you are connected to the subject matter you are strongly discouraged from writing about it. Also, your user name is of concern because in the context of your edits, it contravenes the user name policy. – ukexpat (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Huwala

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

For the article Huwala, I have been bold and gone through the article and removed most of what I thought was not relevant to the subject matter, in particular, discussion of the Sunni Arabs and long lists of tribal names. Subsequently, my edits were reverted. I reverted again, asking for sources to the information (though admittedly, there are no decent sources online for this topic) but it was reverted once more.

As I am relatively new, do you have any recommendations?

Bladeofgrass (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for asking rather than embarking on an edit war. This is a content dispute so the next step is to discuss the changes on the article's talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Saeed Kamali Dehghan's entry

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Friend, I'm new in Wikipedia and I have just contributed : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeed_Kamali_Dehghan It has some warnings, while I have provided the article with full details, could you please check if the article is ok or not? Best, Jean Lapomme —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanlapomme (talk • contribs) 09:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly a huge improvement. I think you can remove the cleanup templates at the top of the article now. If anyone still has issues they can tag the individual problem statements, having the whole article tagged is no longer appropriate. SpinningSpark 18:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have done little more clean up, removed the tags and added project templates to the talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Jewish exodus from Arab lands

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, someone called Mose of Kabul keeps editing Jewish exodus from Arab lands and refuses to enter into a discussion. His English is poor and his editing makes the article unreadable and is prone not to address the issues. His changes are controversial and as such do require discussion first. Telaviv1 (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I cannot agree with your characterisation of Mose as having poor English. The English in his last edit strikes me as being very good. I agree though, that the page formatting is often broken by his edits. This in itself is not really a good reason for reverting an editor, page formatting can always be fixed. Reverting for this reason should not be done unless it would really require an unacceptable amount of work to fix. I also have to dispute your characterisation of him as refusing to enter into discussion. He references his edits (although I have not checked their quality) and leaves edit summaries. Your reversion of his last edit on the other hand, reverted without explanation a very large amount of material without explanation. This is really only acceptable for common vandalism, and even then a short "rv v" comment is normal. It is not acceptable at all to treat a good faith editor in this way. So where has he refused to enter into discussion? I do not see your name on the article talk page or his user talk page inviting him to discuss. So before coming here with requests for others to get involved, try opening a debate on the talk page rather than just reverting, which is edit warring and frowned on at Wikipedia. I do have a couple of concerns with Mose though, one of which is that all his edits are marked as minor; I will take this up with him on his talk page. A more serious concern is that there are ref numbers embedded in his text which are not wiki markup and lead me to believe that the text is copy-and-pasted from somewhere else. That is a copyvio concern but I could not get a match with anything online so we should assume good faith for now. SpinningSpark 13:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Requests for review of actions of User:Waterjuice.

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Waterjuice has made the claim that my edit by addition of dubious tag to the Vietnamese American article openning sentence was racism vandalism, and threatened to block further additions to Wikipedia. I have made a good faith effort to discuss the tag which I added, which was removed without reaching a consensus, and thus I added it back. How is this dubious flag vandalism? --207.114.206.48 (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

What is it that you are claiming is dubious? You have tagged the definition of Vietnamese American as a resident of the United States who is of Vietnamese heritage. That seems perfectly reasonable to me, I cannot understand what you are disputing. SpinningSpark 13:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't read the discussion on the talk page. Well, as you were advised there, if you want to change the definition, find a source. The U.S. Census Bureau in this document says The foreign-born population refers to people who were not U.S. citizens at birth. It does not say they have to be U.S. citizens now to be counted. That might be so, but it doesn't say that. You need to find a reference that says that. SpinningSpark 14:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You can also find a Q&A page at the Census Bureau site where I am sure they can answer this question. SpinningSpark 14:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you I will endeavor to find such a reference to be cited in the discussion. However, my edit was being flagged as vandalism by Waterjuice, because he has a POV that my edits were racists, which was not my intention. Can I be assured that it is not flagged in such a manor?--207.114.206.48 (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not until you remain anonymous. Gregorik (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

plagiarism?

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely admire the wiki resource, which I sincerely admire, often use, and to which I contribute financially. And I with trepidation raise an issue as to, to be generous, unfair use.

Forgive me if I am being sort of old technology, but do you think - as do I - that the entry on Charles B. J. Snyder unfairly reproduces full passages and paragraphs from my own article in the Times of 1999? [Architect Who Taught a Lesson in School Design: Charles B.J. Snyder By CHRISTOPHER GRAY. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Nov 21, 1999. p. 604]

Here is the wiki version, added by Eurodog in April 2008:

Wiki: In late 1896, Robert Maclay sent Snyder on a study trip to London[41] and Paris.[42] The New York Tribune reported that Snyder was particularly impressed with the late Gothic-style Hotel de Cluny in Paris, a few blocks south of Notre Dame. The wide courtyard facing the street gave Snyder an idea: pull back from the corners to the quiet, less expensive inside lots and build around a courtyard to insure light and air. He expanded that idea to the through-block H-plan, which became his signature design: The first such school, PS 165, was completed September 1898,[43] a little more than a month after the death of Maclay, July 28, 1898.[44]

Here is my 1999 article:

Gray: In late 1896, Maclay sent Snyder on a study trip to London and Paris, and The New York Tribune reported that the architect was particularly impressed with the late Gothic-style Hotel de Cluny in Paris, a few blocks south of Notre Dame. The wide courtyard facing the street gave Snyder an idea -- pull back from the corners to the quiet, less expensive inside lots and build around a courtyard to insure light and air. He expanded that idea to the through-block H-plan, which became his signature design: The first such school, P.S. 165, on West 108th Street near Broadway, was completed in September 1898.

And, if I may ask ... where'd he get that photograph of Snyder? Which I believe is also copied and pasted from my Times article.

Very sincerely,

Christopher Gray "Streetscapes" Columnist, Sunday Real Estate Section, The New York Times 246 West 80th Street New York City 10024 voice: 212... fax: 212-799-0542 Hope I have the tilde thing right 69.86.226.55 (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course you are right, that is not acceptable. I have deleted the copyvio paragraph and replaced it with a brief sentence. As for the photograph, is claimed to be from here but that is now a dead site. Its licence information says that it is in the public domain because it was first published prior to 1st Jan 1923. This seems perfectly possible, do you have any information to the contrary? SpinningSpark 20:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe my editor is reasonable

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

My web site was listed under "External links" on 3 pages previously: "First moment of area" (http://mywebsite.bigpond.com/npajkic/solid_mechanics/first_moment_of_area/index.html), "Second moment of area" (http://mywebsite.bigpond.com/npajkic/solid_mechanics/second_moment_of_area/index.html) and "Vibrations" (http://mywebsite.bigpond.com/npajkic/vibration/undamped_free/index.html & http://mywebsite.bigpond.com/npajkic/vibration/viscously_damped_free/index.html). I must point out that I NEVER POSTED MY WEB SITE ON WIKIPEDIA, I guess someone else must have. In any case, I bought a new domain name (http://www.engineeringaerospace.com) a couple of days ago and decided simply to update the links from the old addresses to the new ones. Nothing more nothing less. However the editor (Vsmith) decided the content was spam and removed the links altogether.

If you have a look on the pages in questions, they are EQUAL if not even BETTER than the content provided on Wikipedia. I stand by this because I am a professional aerospace engineer who knows what he's talking about. Therefore there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for anyone to remove the links which were posted on Wikipedia (by SOMEONE ELSE!) just because I, the publisher of the site, decided to update the links from non-working versions to the working ones.

Please consider this request for inclusion seriously. I have received praise in past for my web site and I believe that it is in public's best interest that they remain on the web sites they were ALREADY LISTED ON.

Regards, Nebojsa Pajkic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebojsapajkic (talk • contribs) 06:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice site, I agree that it is unfair to characterise it as spam, there is no hint of advertising in it. However, it is self-published and so has a reliability issue. Read our external links guideline especially the What should be linked section. The question to be answered here is what is your site adding that could not be directly written into the Wikipedia article? If you think there is a case, take it up on the talk page of the article. SpinningSpark 14:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Spark, thank you for your reply and taking time to see my web site. I thought about what my web site has to offer that is not already on the Wikipedia page and I have come up with a number of things: "Irregular Boundaries" section, "Composite Shapes" section, problems and worked solutions which anyone can follow (and this is really important because most students learn by following examples) and a lot more detailed graphics. However, above all stands the fact that my material was written by a knowledgeable scholar who holds legitimacy of his credentials rather than an anonymous contributor of Wikipedia.

Furthermore I would like to point out that I learned yesterday that another person attempted to post a link to the same web site (who is not affiliated with me, but subscribed to my newsletter where I raised this issue), and her contribution was also rejected and deleted. I have not heard from here what was the reason she received. So how is this justified by vsmith?

Thank you, Nebojsa 08:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebojsapajkic (talk • contribs)

How to deal with editor insists on inserting unsourced material

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I am having difficulties dealing with an editor who insists on including unsourced material in an article, has repeatedly removed citation needed tags and is behaving uncivilly.

The recent revision history of life expectancy shows the problem. They inserted some unsourced material [3]. I removed portions that were of doubtful verifiability, made some other edits to clarify wording, and added a fact tag, indicating the need for citations to clarify/back up the statistics.[4]

They reverted the deletion, with the summary "do some research first."[5] I consider the summary to be a) rude, b) inappropriate, since as I understand it, it is the responsibility of the person proposing additions to provide documentation to provide sources for material that is questioned, and c) does not explain why they deleted the tag or the other changes.

I undid the reversion (because they hadn't offered explanation) moving the challenged material to the article's talk page. Talk:life expectancy#Gender differences (per WP:BRD), noting the move of the material in my edit summary [6].

They subsequently restored the material and again removed the fact tag, and undid several other changes I made to the paragraph, with no explanation.[7]

I did contact the user on their talk page, regarding some of these problems.User talk:Ryoung122#Insertion of challenged unsourced material and removing fact tags

However they have continued to behave rudely, claiming that, while it was okay for them to "mass-reverted the article because the changes you made could not be undone individually." They said of my more focused change of deleting specific sentences and editing others "you should give this time to amalgamate before blanket-undo's." And calling a suggested rephrasing "ridiculous."[8]

Suggestions of how to deal with this would be appreciated. Or would this question more appropriate for witiquette alerts?

Also a side question, in edit summaries I have been using the term "dubious" (borrowed from {{dubious}} to indicate material that is of doubtful verifiability. Is there a preferred shorthand?

Thank you. unsigned edit by user:Zodon

You are quite right to tag facts which you think are dubious. All facts on Wikipedia should be referenced. Some common sense needs to be applied here and not over-reference an article, but if a fact is challenged then the onus is on the inserting editor to find a reference, not on the deleting editor to "do some research first" as you were rather uncivily told to do. What to do: you should continue to attempt civil discussion with the other party even if they are uncivil themselves. If they continue to remove tags then warn the user this is not acceptable practice, as you have already done on their talk page. I would counsel against using the templates, templating regular users is thought bad etiquette by many and can be annoying. A personal message is more appropriate in these cases. If you get nowhere with that, you can take the issue to WP:ANI after first warning the user that you are going to do so if the behaviour continues. It is unlikely that the administrators there will get involved in arbitrating what the content of the article should be, but they will take action on breaches of policy, the relevant ones here being WP:V and WP:CIVIL. SpinningSpark 23:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for assistance with translation

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place for a request like this. If not, please point me to the right one. I tried to translate a section of an article from dewiki. It is currently in my sandbox. Since I'm not a native-speaker I would like to ask, if someone could be so kind and review my translation. I'm sure I made a lot of mistakes. Feel free to edit it. Thanks in advance, brgds, --R.Schuster (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure I will take a look for you and will leave a message on your talk page when I have finished. I do have one initial concern though: presumably your intention is to add this as a criticism section to JACDEC? If so, I think there may be an undue weight issue - the criticism section will have more content than the rest of the article. – ukexpat (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ukexpat, thanks for the fast reply! It is true that the criticism section is quite excessive. I'll translate more of the content from de:JACDEC. Brgds, --R.Schuster (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of state terrorism by Russia

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

An apparent defender of the Russian state repeatedly wants to categorize the article Allegations of state terrorism by Russia under Category:Conspiracy theories. The editor states that "The allegations themselves are conspiracy theories" No evidence of anyone engaging in a conspiracy against Russia by placing material in this article in presented, which would in any case be a very doubtful reason for adding it to the Category:Conspiracy theories. What to do? Hmains (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing this on the article's talk page or with the other editor on their talk page? – ukexpat (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Content Management System article - External Links

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I had a site up on the external links for the Content Management System article. It pointed people to a huge list of CMS systems and a number of CMS reviews and articles on how to select. Every single visitor that came from Wikipedia commented on how glad they were to find the page in question. 3 times now, Bonadea has removed the link without warning. I've been told to post on the talk page for content management systems, which I did.. and nobody has replied for several months.

Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.161.192.40 (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the History of the article, I see that the link removed by User:Bonadea is to a commercial site, Lexel. Bonadea's note cites (rm inappropriate link per WP:EL) If you follow that link you will see that it suggests that Links to be avoided include:

Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising.

which would explain the removal. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Further to the above, I don't see your comment on the article talk page but I do see lots of comments about why commercial links are removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

My link request is right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Content_management_system#CMS_Listings_and_ReviewsCmscritic (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC).

Technical issue

Resolved

 – User referred to WP:VPT.ukexpat (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I experience a technical problem with the Holodomor talk page. My computer (Red Hat Enterprise) restarts immediatelly after I try to open a talk page. This never happens when I do that using Windows computers, and never happens when I enter other WP pages from Linux computers. I use different Linux computers with the same result (immediate reboot). Can anybody advise me to whom should I contact to resolve the issue.
Thank you in advance,
Best regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You might try WP:VPT. Good luck! --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll try.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Huwala

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello All,

I recently made some significant changes to the article Huwala. The article was unreferenced, and contained information not relevant to the subject matter. I deleted it, and atttempted to clean up the article. However, my changes were reverted. I've asked for references in the edit summary and its talk pages, but I'm getting nowhere. Apart from reverting again, what should I do? Bladeofgrass (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That was a pretty substantial edit. Now that it has been reverted you should reach out to the other editor (User:H. Totti) on their talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've tried contacting the other editor through his/her talk page. How long should I wait for a response? Bladeofgrass (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If you look at their edit history that will give you an idea of when they are online and how often they edit, take it from there.

I would also advise you that just because material is unreferenced does not mean that it has to be immediately deleted (unless it is a biography of a living person). This might be the right thing to do, for instance copyvio material or probable hoax, but is not always best. A better plan would be to replace unreferenced material with some referenced material - of course this involves more work than just deleting but is not so shocking to other editors watching the page. You can also do this piecemeal, one section each week as you find the material, and again, other editors are less likely to find this problematic as they can absorb the changes in bite sized chunks. SpinningSpark 23:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, On the page Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe we are having some trouble deciding whether or not the attacks in London were perpetrated by Al-Qaeda or not. In this version I provided sources from the BBC, Fox and the Council on Foreign Relations stating that they were, but another editor continuously reverts the edit, claiming the sources are not "tenable". So, I think it would be helpful if we could get an opinion from a neutral editor, thanks! Joshua Darkins (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

My opinion: If the BBC and CFR are not reliable, then I don't know what is. Remember, we are concerned with what is verifiable by reliable sources, which may not be the "truth". – ukexpat (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It depends what should be included in the article; obviously with something such as Al-Qaeda the facts are often uncertain and disputed, with different groups claiming responsibility, and possibly inconsistent information in official reports. Some of the references used in the article about the attacks dispute the involvement of Al-Qaeda, so I don't think it can be claimed as a fact in the article about Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe, however I think it could still be mentioned, particularly if Al-Qaeda or a related organisation has claimed responsibility (which appears to have happened with the London bombings). It also depends on how "Al-Qaeda" is defined (see Al-Qaeda#Organization structure). —Snigbrook 22:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In this version, I changed it to say that they claimed responsibility (and providing 9 different sources showing this) but the reliability of this claim is questionable; but the other editor continues to revert, claiming I am "edit warring", any further advice or intervention would be helpful. Thanks. Joshua Darkins (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am the editor in dispute with Joshua Darkins . If you refer to the main article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings#Claims_of_responsibility the sources show the British Government has concluded that Al-Qaeda were not responsible for the London 7-7 bombings. It is enough to include tenuous claims of responsibly, which were never proven, in the main article. But it is not tenable to include this event in a list of Al-Qaeda attacks when the British Government themselves have said it had no involvement. Please remember that one news source can be superceded by another if more evidence comes to light. As is clearly the case here Vexorg (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the scope of the article. According to Al-Qaeda article, "Activities ascribed to it may involve members of the movement, who have taken a pledge of loyalty to Osama bin Laden, or the much more numerous "al-Qaeda-linked" individuals who have undergone training in one of its camps in Afghanistan or Sudan but not taken any pledge." The content left in Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe article refers to Istanbul (where people involved had self-identified themselves as Al-Qaeda), Madrid (with evidence less reliable than that connecting 7/7 to Al-Qaeda), and Bosnia. I think it depends what is mentioned in reliable sources. Some link 7/7 to Al-Qaeda[9][10], but others say there is no connection. What can be mentioned is that people involved were at least influenced by Al-Qaeda. —Snigbrook 21:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree with Vexorg that it shouldn't be in Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks. —Snigbrook 21:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly my point. The main article about the London 7-7 bombings includes references to alleged claims of Al-Qaeda involvement and I haven't a problem with that. But the article Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe states by it's title that it is about Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe, i.e events that involved Al-Qaeda. It would be misleading to the reader to include events that had, at one time, some vague media reportage of involvement which was later found to be false. It devalues Wikipedia to have articles implying that a group were involved when they were not. You are right to say "What can be mentioned is that people involved were at least influenced by Al-Qaeda." but this is something the main article.Vexorg (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

btw - Madrid shouldn't be in this article either, and it's questionable whether Istanbul should be either. but I need to do some more research before finalising a case for those two. There's too many articles in Wikipedia based upon vague or outdated news sources attributing events to Al-Qaeda when it really isn't the case. Wikipedia shouldn't be a mirror image of the mainstream media. If it is what's the point of it? Editors in the past have been too trigger happy and I'm just trying, in good faith, to remedy that Vexorg (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If the article is only for incidents that Al-Qaeda is confirmed to be responsible for, it would only have one section, and probably wouldn't be needed – you could nominate it for deletion. Alternatively, the article could be about the Al-Qaeda's influence in Europe, not just about confirmed attacks by Al-Qaeda. —Snigbrook 01:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think deletion is where we are heading with this article. The Bosnia link is kinda questionable also. Events influenced by Al-Qaeda could not be properly/sensibly verified. Where do you stop? And what's the point? It would be highly misleading at best. Wikipedia is not jounralism and needs to be immune from the media spin that speculates almost every terrorist attack being possibly influenced by al-Qaeda. Journalistic Media stories can get away with big headlines saying "Al-qaeda Claims Repsonsibility!" and then the content says "Al-Qaeda didn't directly claim responsibility". This isn't the remit of Wikipedia. It's not a speculative encyclopedia. The source has to be reputable but the source also has to actually say what is being claimed in the wiki article. Thanks for commenting Snigbrook - Vexorg (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Callback Verification Article

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like some assistance / advice for dealing with an edit war concerning an article on "callback verification". This is a spam fighting technique that is commonly used in spam filtering. There is however a sort of "cult" that hates callback verification and has created a blocklist [11] to try to punish anyone using it. The user Wrs1864 keeps removing sections I add on how to implement callback verification support.

So - I'm not a Wikipedia expert and I think we are both somewhat entrenched on this so I want to play nice but don't want this guy vandalizing my work. So I'm asking for some assistance in dealing with this from people who are better at Wikipedia than I am. I've started a discussion on the page that outlines the dispute. Marcperkel (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"How to" sections don't usually belong here - see WP:NOTHOWTO - so a section about implementing a particular approach should, in all likelihood be removed. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Marc, that's a dead link up there. Why do these people hate it? What are their arguments? Why is opposition to the technology not in the article already? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Re-grouped here from further down the page --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC) I request editor's assistance for topic callback verification. The discussion page outlines the dispute. The problem is that someone who hates this technology keeps changing the page to insert factually wrong information while at the same time deleting information as to how to implement the technology. AndrewHowse has already attempted to resolve this but Wrs1864 keeps putting it back in. I'm not a very patient person so I'm asking people with better temperament than me to look into this. Marcperkel (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Both editors blocked 12 hours for 3rr. Since I've edited the page already, I should stay out of it. I have suggested to Marc that claims of personal expertise don't carry much weight here; much better to show sources. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal Information

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I am a high school administrator and there is incorrect, potentially incendiary personal information (that is incorrect) posted about me on our high school's web page. How can I have the information removed and ensure that there are no further libelous comments posted? How should I proceed?

Thank You, LEW <redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by LEW237 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's posted on your high school's web page, you should talk to the person who administers your school's web page. If, on the other hand, you are talking about the Wikipedia article about your school, you can remove the vandalism yourself, or tell us what school we are talking about and we can take a look at it. In either case, I've removed your e-mail address so that it can't be harvested by bad guys. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Living Person Biographical Information re Ken McCarthy

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Current dispute over inclusion of material on biography of living person, Ken McCarthy. Thanks! Jettparmer (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have commented on the talk page of the article, but can you be a little more specific on what you are requesting? SpinningSpark 01:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I am concerned about escalation to an edit war, particularly lately. It seems like some edits are purposely attempting to exclude relevant material about BLP. I appreciate your thoughts.Jettparmer (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I too would like the perspective of editors coming to this without a personal viewpoint - I recently made a request on the BLP noticeboard. I might as well declare my interest at this point, since the matter is bound to arise at some point. My only contact with Mr McCarthy is as an attendee at several of his 'System Seminar' events over the past few years and a fairly regular listener to his podcasts of interviews with entrepreneurs and internet strategists. The impression I formed of him is of someone who is intelligent, thoughtful, level-headed and possessing a high level of personal integrity. It is easily verified that he is widely known and respected for his activities as a business educator, and somewhat well-known for his social activism and commentary. There is no perceptible public conversation characterising him as a 'conspiracy theorist', and the attempt to pin such a label on him seems to me clearly defamatory. I came across this article by accident while browsing wikipedia to see what it says about individuals that I happen to know, and started editing here in an effort to correct what seemed to me to be several clear violations of wikipedia policy directed at undermining the subject's reputation. DaveApter (talk) 08:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

James Arbuthnot

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Please would somebody review this in the light of WP:UNDUE and BLP. Kittybrewster ☎ 07:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the problem? I've looked at the article, fixed a broken link, can't see any issues other than the fact that the Infobox would give a casual viewer the impression that he was still Chief Whip. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a member of Kittybrewster's family, and I think he considers it unflattering. Unfortunately the references clearly support his being a member of the Conservative Party, so there isn't much we can do about the fact that the article identifies him as such. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes nowt much to be done! Jezhotwells (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

David Downie entry

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• David Downie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, I am not a frequent user of your site, in part because I am legally blind. Yesterday after much to-do, I managed to create an account specifically to correct errors in the entry about me, David D. Downie. I did not write the entry, I had no desire for the entry to be on your site, but I was told by colleagues that it existed, and had errors, and was out of date, all of which was true. I made the needed corrections and brought the entry up to date. I now see that it is flagged as an autobiography, something I purportedly wrote about myself, and this looks very unappetizing indeed, and casts me in a poor light. Please let me know how this can be resolved. Thank you. David Downie

The second part of that tag says: "...or has been extensively edited by the subject..." which is indeed the case. The tag alerts readers to the fact that the article may not maintain a neutral point of view because someone who has edited it, in this case you, has a conflict of interest. Also, with all due respect, we have no way of knowing that you are indeed David Downie. If you have concerns about the article, please discuss them on the article's talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the tags as I don't think they are needed, the article doesn't appear to have been extensively edited by the subject (other than a few minor changes, only two short paragraphs of updated information were added), there are no obvious NPOV problems and no problems have been mentioned on the talk page. —Snigbrook 18:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"Extensively" does not really apply to a single edit, I would say. Especially when he's correcting errors. Let's try not to be complete assholes, eh? Guy (Help!) 22:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Advice sought on serious WP:CIVIL violations

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.

---

Banned user has been advised how to appeal. Further evasion of the block will not be tolerated. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

---

I would like to report two editors for serious violations of WP:Civil, namely WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon. Their comments can be seen on the POVcivilPushing page here [12] Please note that they have made a lot of statements about me which are simply not true, which is evident from the fact that neither of them have provided diffs despite them constantly tag teaming against me for 12 months e.g. here[13] and here[14] and having ready access to them. Here is one diff that they didn't show [15]. WhatamIdoing refers to tactics such as "attitude readjustment tools" which are linked to information e.g. here[16] about starting edit wars to troll newbies out of Wikipedia with the assistance of other editors outside of the normal honest and open discussion methods, and which is in itself a serious violation of the principles of Wikipedia that I could discuss later. However Gordonofcartoon refers to Guido den Broeder, the founder of the Netherlands CFS society, as Bilbo von Booger, which is a serious violation of WP:CIVIL. Then Gordonofcartoon refers to our previous discussions where I have won every evidence based argument, and tries to give the impression that I am in the wrong by describing my successful defences against their long list of false accusation, with Gordonofcartoon ending his tirade with the words "and so on and on and on and f***ing f***ing on)".

Note that if a politician used that type of language he would be escorted out of parliament and banned from politics by his party, and his constituents, and if a radio or television announcer used those words they would be taken off air immediately and sacked. Gordonofcartoon would try to annoy me by arguing that I was only guessing the missing letters, or that the fact that those obvious letters are missing is an excuse for claiming that they were not uncivil, and would try to find a policy clause a of paragraph b of some policy that meant it wasn't spelt out therefore it wasn't a violation, but I know that they were trying to provoke me into being uncivil and that they would have used it as solid grounds for immediately banning me.

I do not think it is appropriate for other editors to stand back and do nothing here, as if condoning that sort of conduct. Tag teaming, flame wars, unsupported personal attacks, the offensive misuse of code ID's, and foul language should not be tolerated, and the fact that those two editors have collectively provided 20000 edits means that they are fully aware of the inappropriate nature of their incivility, and cannot be used as an excuse. They should both be immediately and permanently banned from wikipedia in order to set an example for new editors on "how not to edit", and in order to reassure readers and the general public that Wikipedia is a respectable, honest, open and trustworthy source of information compiled by editors who have integrity. I would then recommend that you lift the ban on me, as it resulted from an RFC that was closed by Wizardman[17] in violation of policy while still active[18] [19], and an arbitration page that was closed by an admin named Moreschi on a Thursday here[20] before the "regular" arbitrators could see my defense on Sunday which I mentioned her[21]

This would be banned user Posturewriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) here. If you want your ban overturned, e-mail the ArbCom. I doubt using an IP to evade the ban will be received positively. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Tony Fox: Are you saying that you represent all of the other editors in Wikipedia and condone the conduct of the few editors who ignore the standard editing principles, and act as a gang of trolls by using "attitude readjustment tools" to control content to selectively ban newbies. If so why should anyone take the unblock process seriously when it requires AGF. From my understanding of wikipedia policy a person does not have to continue showing AGF where there is evidence that it is not justified, so why don't you try and convince me by banning WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon for violating WP:CIVIIL, instead of changing the subject?????

You're banned, PW. If you want to complain, please do it through proper channels as Tony indicated above. IP socking to complain (especially as obtusely as you did above) isn't going to help. Dayewalker (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Tony Fox and Dayewalker; this page is called Editor assistance/Requests, which is why I have asked the editors here to assist me in getting WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon banned for violating WP:civil etc

Please also note that I am using my own computer, on my own phone line and have not made any attempt to hide my Wikipedia ID from the honest and respectable editors on this page who are willing to act as policy police and referees. I have however, not signed my comments for the sole purpose of giving honest editors the opportunity to see the information before my policy violating critics get time to delete it, or add their spin to every word I write.

You will therefore appreciate that SmokeyJoes attempt at accusing me of using my own computer and my own phone line as a way of hiding my ID or of using it as a sockpuppet is ridiculous spin. Since I am using my own computer I hope honest editors will appreciate my sense of humor when I say that you wouldn't call SmokeyJoe Sherlock Wiki Holmes

You. Are. Banned. You are evading a block as we speak. I see that the original block has been adjusted so that you can edit User talk:Posturewriter with your main account directly so that you can lodge an appeal; as that is the case, I'll be blocking this IP for said evasion. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

dispute on an article's content

Resolved

Hello! I have been in a dispute with Scorpion0422 over the "Cultural references" section in Marge vs. the Monorail. The discussion is taking place on the talk page, Talk:Marge vs. the Monorail. I've tried to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, which brought me to this page.

I'm just wondering whether I've been handling the dispute resolution process correctly. In addition, are my statements regarding the content of the "Cultural references" section reasonable? --Edp318 (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The dispute has been resolved. Please ignore this message.--Edp318 (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Abuse by "Alansohn"

Resolved

 – Mfield (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Madam/Sir,

I am writing to you as something very unpleasant happened due to a person whose nickname in Wikipedia is "Alansohn".

I had added my website about Apartments in Fortaleza to the "External links" section of the "Fortaleza" page.

Someone called "Alansohn" deleted the link to my website. I asked why he did that in the discussion sections but he didn't reply.

If the link to my website was deleted as it has commercial contents that's fine with me. However, in that same section, as I pointed out to this person in the discussion section, there are other 5-6 websites with commercial contents, and therefore these should be deleted as well for fairness sake.

Please let me know your opinion on this.

I also believe this person named "Alansohn" should not be allowed editing Wikipedia articles as he is 1. unfair, 2. unpolite as he didn't reply to my comment.

Thanks and kind regards,

Angelo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelorossini (talk • contribs) 18:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, please read the following guidelines and policies that are pertinent to your situation: External Links, Spamming and Conflict of interest.

In particular what is important is that the inclusion of other links has no bearing on the appropriateness of yours. That is to say that those links may not be appropriate either but the fact that they have not yet been removed does not mean that we want any further links added. These things are often easier noticed when the links are added and the others will be caught by a routine cleanup of the article at some point. Secondly, adding links to a website you are involved in is contra to policy for a couple of reasons. Firstly you have a conflict of interest as you are related to the site in question and secondly, you would appear to be adding it for purely promotional reasons. The later is what we refer to as spamming. Please note that external links on wikipedia carry an embedded NOFOLLOW tag and will not be crawled by search engines.

Being a commercial link, your EL would only be appropriate to the article if it was notable enough to be mentioned and directly revelant to the article subject. Wikipedia is not a directory of links nor does it exist to promote businesses or indeed anything contained in an article.

If your link was in any way non promotional and of value to the article subject then the only way you should proceed to avoid conflict of interest issues would be to bring the link up for discussion on article talk, as it is, your link seems to be purely promotional and Alansohn was quite correct in removing it per WP:EL.

I hope this helps clarify the situation. Mfield (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mfield, Thanks for your very thorough answer. I fully understand now that my link was unappropriate having a commercial interest. However, what seems unfair to me is that links much less relevant for Fortaleza and with much more commercial content are allowed in that page, as I had pointed out to Alansohn.

If you have a look at this link which was left you will understand what I mean: http://www.freedombrazil.com/

When I entered my link I thought that it could be useful for people wanting to travel to Fortaleza to know about apartments to rent there, but now I understand that that was not correct.

But it is much less appropriate for this link to be there as it has nothing to do with Fortaleza and it is just about advertising properties for sale in Brazil. And most of the other links have commercial contents too.

I think that is very unfair.

Thanks again for your help.

Angelo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelorossini (talk • contribs) 18:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the subsection. None of those links meet our guidelines for ELs. None are directly affiliated with the subject, they were all privately run/commerical/non english language and none were referenced in the article text or providing any information that could not be directly integrated into the article itself. Mfield (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much again Mfield! I hope my comments on this were helpful. Kind regards, Angelo--Angelorossini (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, also please note that Alansohn was not being discourteous in not immediately replying as reverting spam and vandalism around here is a Sysiphean endeavour and routine reversion simply does not allow time for individual explanation of policy. Mfield (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What makes this situation all the more bizarre is that I did not delete any external links, I restored them. Furthermore, I can't see any effort made to contact me directly, either from the IP address whose edit I reverted or from the Angelorossini ID used to file the report. It appears that an issue was raised at Talk:Fortaleza, which did not address me directly, but was a page I would have been unlikely to detect. I appreciate the effort that Mfield has taken to address the issue and I'm soory that I had not known that there was a problem. Alansohn (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)