Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:07, 16 May 2009

Archives

• v
• t
• e

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

Pre-consensus reverts regarding capitalizing term "Holy Spirit"

Holy Spirit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article "Holy Spirit" discusses at least three forms of 'holy spirit': the third person of the Trinity, a godly mindset, and an impersonal numen. For some time, the mindset and numen instances of "holy spirit" had capitalizations/uncapitalizations that were mixed (inconsistent). The inconsistencies only for instances of the impersonal forms were replaced by the uncapitalized form. Suddently, certain editors reverted and insisted upon universal capitalization of the term "Holy Spirit", with no uncapitalized forms permitted.

All concede that "Holy Spirit" is appropriately capitalized when it refers to a person, such as the third constituent of the Trinity.

The issue is whether "holy spirit" can ever be uncapitalized.

A Talk topic was begun and then another regarding whether the term "Holy Spirit" must be capitalized without exception. Certain editors reject completely the idea that "holy spirit" can be spelled without capitals, even if the term relates to something other than a person. Certain editors have explicitly noted that they are uninterested in how other reference works choose to capitalize or uncapitalize the term. Certain editors seem unwilling to wait for a thoughtful consensus to emerge at Talk. One would hate to think that dogmatic theology is influencing their actions.

Experienced editors less influenced by theology are invited to assist in resolving this matter. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

AuthorityTam edited Holy Spirit to remove the capitalization from the subject in the article section describing the Jehovah's Witness beliefs. His grounds for this was that the Jehovah's Witnesses do not capitalize the term. It was pointed out to him that Misplaced Pages does not follow practices of specific religious groups when writing, even in articles relating to those subjects - e.g. we don't write Mohammed (pbuh) even in articles about Islam - and that the change of capitalization looks unprofessional. Two other editors agreed with this stance, leaving AuthorityTam as the only editor advocating the JW-specific non-capitalization. Unable to persuade other editors of his case he has come here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be fair to AuthorityTam, the right step to take is to escalate the dispute through the appropriate dispute resolution channels. And this page is one of them. That said, I really don't know how to approach this issue. Have you made any attempts to ask for help at related WikiProjects' talk pages (e.g., WikiProject Christianity)? Honestly, AuthorityTam, while you may want editors less influenced by theology, you likely won't find editors interested or experienced in theological topics, especially one like this which (on the surface) appears rather nitpicky. I don't mean to call this a case of nitpicking- I understand how serious this issue can be from a standpoint of religious beliefs. I just think that you'll have better luck trying at related WikiProjects and if necessary starting up a content request for comments. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 23:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies if my writing was unclear: I have no objection whatsoever to AuthorityTam requesting additional assistance through these channels. In fact I specifically requested other editors to contribute their opinions on Talk:Holy Spirit. I am completely convinced that a greater number of people taking part in the debate will give a clearer result. I hope it is accepted. DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"We don't write Mohammed (pbuh)"? Are you sure? Delicious carbuncle (talk)

Well, we aren't supposed to do so except in cases such as quotes and book or film titles, or if the article is actually discussing the use of such honorifics. See MOS:ISLAM#Muhammad. I think a similar approach is appropriate for other topics... provided that is the issue here. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 12:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You might like this edit which capitalises very nearly every word in the paragraph except "pbuh". SpinningSpark 13:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

multiple issues-issue

The Political Simpleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear editor assistance/request,

This is in response to "The Political Simpleton". We have received multiple "issues" and feel it is un-warrented. This submission is completely legitamate and coplies with Wiki guidlines and surpasses many other entries listed within Wikipidia. We have made appropriate changes to comply and hope that this is not a campaign to oust a competitor (competing news aggregators). We are a "news aggregator" and fit the criteria as listed for Wikipidia.

As always, we would like to continue our relationship, and if you would, contact us if we need to further apease any future requirements of Wikipidia.

Thank you in advance,

Ray Wilkinson www.politicalsimpleton.com <e-mail addresses redacted>—Preceding unsigned comment added by Newportbreakers (talk • contribs) 07:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

First, I would suggest updating "your" site. I checked it out, and on first glance it looked good. But it seems that all the articles are outdated. There was nothing on the swine flu. Second, get "your" site noted in a reliable source, or better yet alot of reliable sources. Reliable sources are defined here. Third, when you post here you need to say exactly what your problem is. Don't make us dig for it, because next time your liable to get someone who will simply post back; "?". That wouldn't solve much, would it?Drew Smith What I've done 11:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The Political Simpleton has been speedy deleted by Someguy1221 (talk · contribs) (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion). SpinningSpark 12:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you wish for them to be permanently removed from the page history, email this address. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 13:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Trying to prevent an edit war.

I edit and keep track of all the WNBA related pages here on wikipedia. I do a good job and I spend lots of time doing it. If you would, please look at pages like Connecticut Sun, Detroit Shock, Los Angeles Sparks, Phoenix Mercury, etc. Look on the "season-by-season records" section. They all have a cluttered and unprofessional-looking table. I recently changed all the WNBA team pages to have tables similar to NBA tables. I know consistency is important on wiki. Recently, I changed the Utah Starzz season records table over to this new version. A certain member changed it back saying he "liked it better the other way." Another veteran wiki member came in and explained that consistency is important and that the tables should all be the same on similar pages. This prevents confusion. The difficult member changed it back saying something to the effect of "I can do what I want, and I like it my way." I wrote on this user's talk page saying that consistency is important and that on wiki, it really does not matter what an individual member prefers. He wrote back on mine saying not to tell him what to do.

This may seem like a trivial problem, but as I said, consistency in an encyclopedia like wiki is very important and I was hoping I could have your help in this issue. If you cannot help me, can you direct me to someone who can? Thank you. The difficult user's name is Infonerd2216 (talk · contribs)

Look at my contribs. PAGES AND PAGES of WNBA edits. I care about this league. I care about wiki. Together, I make the WNBA archive on wiki amazingly better than it was before.

Thanks, Nickv1025 (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You are doing the right thing in seeking a third party, but you may be looking in the wrong direction as all we can do is what has already been done. Explain things to the difficult user. It seems that this user is past the point of "talking down" from is position and administrative action may be needed. Perhaps ask for a topic ban for the person? No need to get a full ban if it's isolated to a single topic. Just check AN1 and see what they say. If they can't help come back here and I'll try to reason with him.Drew Smith What I've done 01:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That's WP:ANI - Administrators' incident noticeboard. – ukexpat (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that one.Drew Smith What I've done 05:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ice Hockey World Championships

Ice Hockey World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Will anyone be interested in giving an Editor assistance in Ice Hockey World Championships article. Thank you Andreyx109 (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume this is with regards to Talk:Ice Hockey World Championships#Neutrality complaint, which appears to be quite complicated. Would you be able to provide a neutral summary of the dispute for those of us with the time and inclination to step in on such a case? —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

AKM

AKM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article http://en.wikipedia.org/AKM

I corrected mistake about accuracy and post reference to source (Official field manuals).

User Koalorka reverted my edit. He claim that field manuals does not contain such information.

I made page on my blog and post there pages from field manuals to proof my information. I posted link to my blog in article. My blog is in russian. But AKM is russian weapon and all official field manuals are in russian.

User Koalorka still revert my edit.

What i suppose to do? 69.141.140.192 (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Koalorka has apparently reported this IP for revert warring to an administrator who had previously blocked it. To be fair, it looks like Koalorka is at 3 reverts himself, and I'm not sure if the IP has broken 3RR.

As to the content dispute here, yes, non-English sources are acceptable per WP:RSUE. That said, as it's a primary source, any primary sources of comparable or better quality or any secondary sources which disagree with the non-English source means we prefer the English-language source. While this may imply a bias that could culminate in errors, this is a necessary measure to ensure that our readers have a reasonable chance of verifying the contents of our articles. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Jayron32 has blocked the IP for edit warring and abuse. When you come back, 69..., please try to discuss your edits if they are reverted once. Simply reverting back and forth along with rude edit summaries will just get you blocked for longer and longer periods. Thanks! --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Policy disputes stunting article on Vorarephilia

Vorarephilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article on vorarephilia is a stub, and has remained that way for some time. The topic is difficult due to the paucity of reliable sources. However, facts appearing to have broad consensus are consistently removed by a small group of editors, as are all attempts to provide links to useful resources outside the article that match WP:EL criteria.

The group do not dispute the facts asserted by article contributors. Instead, having failed to remove the article itself, they delete all uncited information, regardless of evident truth, ease of non-expert verification, or consensus among those attempting to provide it. I could understand an insistence on references if the facts were in doubt, especially if the editors were subject experts, but this does not appear to be the case.

At least one user has attempted to "pull rank", threatening other users with the charge of "disruption". They claim a more thorough understanding of policy, while mixing up the concepts of "references" and "external links" by claiming that all external links must be to reliable sources. There is a sense among contributing editors that nothing will please this group. Prior comments suggest they feel the topic is "cruft", and oppose any expansion on those grounds.

I would like to find a way to moves the article beyond a dictionary definition which fails to cover significant portions of the topic. Ideally, substantive information could be be provided on the article itself. Failing that, we could at least give readers an idea of where to get it. I'm no expert, but I've heard of most of the sites floated on the talk page; they seem legitimate, if fan-oriented, and have been around for a while now. GreenReaper (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a tough situation. I will say that links to external wikis are usually not permitted per WP:ELNO #12, and links to fansites or collections thereof seem to fail WP:ELNO #11. If you want to make the case for an exception, I'd suggest taking it up at WT:EL.

I will say however that I consider it questionable that the other party involved in this dispute is an administrator and appears to have semi-protected the article while a dispute was ongoing. While I'm willing to assume good faith that said administrator's actions are for good reason, it's usually a better idea to seek an uninvolved admin to do such things.

At any rate, it would seem that few if any reliable sources exist regarding vore, and it's unlikely that any will emerge for the time being. All I can suggest is that if you're involved in some sort of vore community, the best thing you can do if your primary goal is to get a substantial Misplaced Pages article, is to encourage the community to come together and publish some sort of zine, which may eventually be considered reliable. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 21:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The underlying issue seems to be that Misplaced Pages's goal is verifiability, not truth or usefulness. I'm gonna recommend that they just take their ball and go make their own wiki and see how that goes. Worked for us! But it's a shame. GreenReaper (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You've hit on a touchy issue, of course. Part of it is that some sources are reliable for some things, and not others. So, a website that publishes original vore artwork would be reliable for discussing the artist's thoughts while creating the artwork, but it would not be reliable for discussing the prevalence of vore in culture or for discussing the critical acclaim of that artwork. Similarly, blogs may be reliable for discussing the author's actions, date of birth and other non-controversial facts, but they are almost never acceptable for referencing opinions or anything beyond the blog author's personal life. If you look at the bigger picture, lowering Misplaced Pages's verifiability standards would in fact make it practically useless as an encyclopedia. While the side effect of this is a poor level of coverage for certain niche topics, which is unfortunate as it is these niche topics which so badly need expansion, without compromising coverage of everything else, we can't do anything.

That's not to say there's no room for small-scale exceptions; after all, we are broadly permitted to ignore all rules should they impinge our ability to write good encyclopedic content. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 16:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Chief James Vann

James Vann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently I added biographical and genealogical substantial informaton about an important Cherokee Indian, James Vann (1768-1808). My new text has twice been removed by someone, but my additional reference sources have survived. My information is well-documented and adds more accurate information than the previous Wikipeda entry. I have spent several decades in researching Cherokee history, working with the Trail of Tears Association as well as both the North Carolina and Oklahoma Cherokee tribes. My experience as an archivist with the National Archives and a registered citizen of the Cherokee Nation should be considered.

In addition, I have new information about Chief James Vann's son Joseph "Rich Joe" Vann and the latter's steamboat "Lucy Walker". I have compiled a documented account of the explosion, fire, and sinking of the "Lucy Walker" on the Ohio River in 1844, which was one of the most deadly maritime disasters in U.S. history.

What must I do to get my contributions accepted by Misplaced Pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.188.72 (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The editor who reverted your edits, contributions, didn't use any edit summaries when doing the revert... which makes it extremely difficult to figure out what his particular objection was. My suggestion is, as it doesn't appear it's been attempted, try to kick off a discussion at Talk:James Vann about the content. I'll leave a message at User talk:Natty4bumpo asking him to drop in and try to discuss things there as well. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 21:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to post on a living person page

Eleanor Mariano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am unable to add new entry on: Dr Connie Mariano I would like to add that her name was submitted for nomination by Sen Espero of Hawaii for the position of Surgeon General to President Obama. I have an online Press release from Hawaii Senate as a source. I tried twice to post & it does n't get posted. I have limited internet skills thxs for help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tandangsora (talk • contribs) 20:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that Tandangsora apparently added links to a website that's blacklisted by contributions, though it might just be that the links got reverted because it's a Tripod.com-hosted website. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 21:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The text added about Mariano's nomination shouldn't be such a problem, provided that a source is cited too. I'm sure the news was reported in a reliable source somewhere. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I seem to have missed that; just saw that XLinkBot clobbered the edits. This is a sourcing matter indeed. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 21:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I found a RS and added the information and a reference section.Jezhotwells (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles on Kirkland & Ellis and Latham & Watkns

Kirkland & Ellis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Latham & Watkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

When you type the name of these two law firms into google, old archived Misplaced Pages pages on the firms comes up. When you click on the google page, it takes you to an old version of these pages. The most recent, properly edited version only comes up for them when you search once in Misplaced Pages. Can someone who knows how please correct this?

Here is the improper Kirkland Misplaced Pages page that google takes you to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Kirkland_&_Ellis It should be: http://en.wikipedia.org/Kirkland_%26_Ellis

Here is the improper Latham Misplaced Pages page that google takes you to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Latham_&_Watkins It should be: http://en.wikipedia.org/Latham_%26_Watkins

Thanks,

207.237.23.183 (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Jason

I'm not sure this is the right place for this request. I know, I for one don't know how to fix it.Drew Smith What I've done 11:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for posting here. I'm afraid I'm not entirely clear on your question. Is it perhaps that Google's cached version of the page is not the current version? That's usually the case, for any page one finds through Google, because Google takes a "snapshot" of the page when they check on it, and then they don't replace that until their next pass, which might be a week or two later. I just Googled Kirkland, and the cached page says "Snapshot as of May 7" right on top.

The easiest solution is to click on the blue header in the Google results; that takes you to the current version.

If I've misread your question then please do come back and post again; I or one of the other assistants will be glad to try again! --AndrewHowse (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

PS Don't worry about the "&" vs the "%26"; that's just two different ways of encoding / representing the same character. --AndrewHowse (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Article expansion help

Mimi Lesseos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, an article I had created on Mimi Lesseos has got nominated for deletion. I used this source to expand the article as much as I can, but I'd appreciate it if anyone could help me with the expansion process and hopefully remove the deletion tag too !. Thanks. --Roaring Siren (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the article rescue squadron got there already; you need sources, independent reliable 3rd party sources! --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Page deleted as a copyvio. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Entry with proper references still showing to lack them!

Abbas Abad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see entry on Abbas Abad, which is a neighborhood in Tehran, Iran. The entry is one of the most researched and documented in its category and has a list of 10 linked references, many from published books, articles, and professional journals, using the same format (i.e. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).) throughout the entry. But there is still a note on top of the page stating that this entry does NOT cite any sources! ("This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed").

Could you please look into this, especially given the possibility of an unintended/automatic deletion? If the sources cited are up to Misplaced Pages's standards (and most probably they are!), how could the note above be removed? Thank you for your time. Cavenotes (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You have to manualy remove the tag. I'll take a look, and if it is well sourced, I will remove the tag.Drew Smith What I've done 23:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the no sources tag, as it is sourced. However I have added inline tags where sources seem to be lacking. Try to find more sources on the subject, or use exisiting sources that cover the part in question. Particularly you need sources that verify every street name. If you have a source that covers most of the streets, just add the ref at the last street covered by the source. Good luck.Drew Smith What I've done 23:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I am already working on adding more references! Cavenotes (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Washington Huskies football

Washington Huskies football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I came across the Washington Huskies football a few weeks back and noticed inconsistencies in the article. The intro claimed 3 National Championships (NCs), the infobox claimed 4 NCs, while the NCAA (the governing body of college football) says Washington has earned one championship and the College Football Data Warehouse also only recognizes one national championship for the Washington Huskies. I believe this is the mainstream view and so I added a sentence in the intro, sourced with the two links above that mention this. I also tagged the article with {{refimprove}} since the article that long should have more than just 5 references centered around one or two sections (which I explained in my edit). However, a user came and reverted both edits (along with several other edits) without any explaination. So, assuming good faith, I opened a dialogue with him in the talk page and noted on his user talk page that I was asking him a question. However, he did not respond and after a week of no response, I re-added my previous edits. He just recently reverted my edits again with no explaination and no response to my opened dialogue on the talk page. I don't want to get into an edit war, but I believe the article suffers from NPOV without at least that one statement for a mainstream viewpoint on the subject. I feel like he is trying to supress information and keep it as a fan page. I am unsure of how to proceed at this point, especially since the user refuses (or doesn't know about) to discuss the issue. In a semi-related note, how is that article rated a B-class? Thanks for any help you all can offer. Cluskillz (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I made a minor tweak to the intro and suggested on the Talk page that further revisions be undertaken. Perhaps that will stimulate some discussion. JohnInDC (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well... it seems the editor in question is not respecting WP:BRD... and you've not only attempted to start a discussion at Talk:Washington Huskies football, but have gone the extra step of informing said user at his/her user talk page. I think you've done all you can to request discussion. I'm going to leave a message on same user talk page strongly recommending that he/she engage in discussion. Another thing you might want to try is dropping a request for interested parties at the College Football WikiProject's talk page (WT:CFB), which can help get you some more specialized assistance.

As to the article ratings system... things like "start" and "C" class are very loosely defined, and "B" class not much better defined. There isn't much regulation involved in article ratings below the Good article level. It looks like WP:CFB has a special means for requesting reassessment. You need to add |reassess=yes to the {{WikiProject College football}} template on the talk page. WP:CFB/A#Requesting an assessment explains it in better detail. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages article on Kathleen Q. Abernathy

Kathleen Q. Abernathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I noticed a box today at the top of this article which I have been editing on an ongoing basis. The box states that there are "multiple issues" with the article and history shows that it was recently tweaked by a Misplaced Pages editor, David Levy.

I have attempted to address these concerns by adding links to independent, third party websites and sources that verify and confirm the statements made in the article. Also, as suggested, I uploaded a current photo of the subject of this article.

I would greatly appreciate some feedback as to whether I have adequately addressed these concerns, as well as what edits, if any, I should consider making at this point to meet Misplaced Pages's editorial standards for articles of this type.

Thank you very much.

Louis Abramovitz (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Louis Abramovitz

I have cleaned up the article a little, formatting the references correctly and a few other manual of style issues. But is does still read like a CV that you would send with a job application, so it's really a matter of tone. I also removed the image and nominated it for deletion as it is clearly a copyright image and does not meet Misplaced Pages's non-free content guidelines. – ukexpat (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I took a whack at it, cutting out 2-3 paragraphs of material that read pretty much like puffery. Generally the principle to bear in mind is whether the language is more suited to an encyclopedia (as Misplaced Pages is) or a biographical blurb to be provided in connection with an appearance at a conference or seminar. Is the information something that the average reader is likely to want to know about this notable person, or is it more in the nature of PR? JohnInDC (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I note now that the author of this posting has reverted the changes that ukexpat and I made to the page, so that it now reads as badly as it did before. The non-free image has been restored as well. Other editors may wish to view the page and weigh in with their own edits, or here. JohnInDC (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible COI noted at user's Talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted back to your last version and left a note for the user. – ukexpat (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth referring this editor to contributions, who appears to be an associate of the same law firm which employs contributions, but has significantly more experience and might be able to help provide some advice. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 21:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've now left a message at User talk:Mdswbkq giving him a friendly heads-up about this thread. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 21:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll check the article and talk to Louis. Thanks for the heads-up. Michael D. Sullivan (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem- thanks for dropping in! I should note that I asked you to stop over not as a complaint against Louis- he hasn't done anything that one can't assume was done in good faith- but since you know each other I figure you'd be able to communicate things in a more expedient manner than we could. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 23:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

AN/PVS-22

AN/PVS-22 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I AN ASKING THAT THIS POST BE REVIEWED AND WE HAVE PROOF THE LISTED NSN FOR THE pvs-22 IS KAC'S. Being that no proof other than what is listed under the PVS-22 does not support OSTI being the manufacturer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rummermail (talk • contribs) 19:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Erm, this appears to be a complaint aimed at this edit which removed a sentence saying that a similar device is made by another company.

However, looking at the article, I suspect the topic fails WP:PRODUCT. This is definitely a candidate for redirection most likely, if not outright deletion. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Found an additional ref that says OSTI manufactures the AN/PVS-22: . However, as there seems to be no article on OSTI itself... I wonder what should be done here. Yes, two substantial news mentions are typically considered sufficient for notability, but really the news mentions are more relevant to the company than the product. Which suggests there should be an article on the company... though there is not. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

More interesting- seems there's a bigger dispute at hand. Knights Armament Co. apparently sued Optical Systems Technology Inc. in the past year or two... not sure what it's regarding. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference to my museum

Computer museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear Sir / Madam,

I will admit straight away to being somewhat of a 'noob' regarding Misplaced Pages workings, though like most people I am well familiar with Misplaced Pages. I put a reference entitled 'Ireland's first online computer museum' on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Computer_museum

A day or two later, it was gone! I just want to let you know that I am the owner of the museum, and I put the reference there because it is Ireland's first ( and actually, only ) online computer museum. I have no idea who deleted it or why.

Much as I would love to plug my museum, I respect the fact that Misplaced Pages is facts - based. It was on those grounds that I put the reference there. It may well have come accross as spam, so I just wanted to confirm that it isn't.

Many thanks for your time.

Yours sincerely,

Anthony Halpin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadpc (talk • contribs) 02:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here. I took a look at the page, and there's no reference to your museum in the article. I don't think there's any reason to add the external link. Further, our guideline on conflict of interest strongly discourages you from editing topics in which you have a personal stake. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

He's probably referring to this edit. And he's somewhat right- it's not proper for him to just be plugging his museum's web link. WP:EL is Misplaced Pages's external links guideline, which discusses some recommendations for external links to use and not use. I can say right now that computer museum is not the appropriate place to include that link. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 09:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

How do I add content to Theisitic Satanism or Satanism without constant letters from people claiming to ban me

My name is Grand Magister Blackwood as a pioneer in Theistic Satanism, I would like to add my site and information on myself to WIKI, I am as famous as Anton Long and Anton La Vey I would like to know how I can add informative information about me. I have been involved in the cause of Satanism since 1988 and am a accomplished Occultist with a book pending and a popular web site along with a LEGAL 501 3 C Church. Please Help! Thanks Blackwood666 WIKI NIC Grand Magister Blackwood <email redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackwood666 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here. Our conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages you from writing about yourself, because it's difficult to maintain a neutral point of view in that situation. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed- you need to provide some form of reliable source in any case to support claims that you insert into articles. You very well may be as famous as person x or person y, but that's entirely meaningless for Misplaced Pages's purposes as the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 09:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Requesting Editorial Assistance

Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am an editor who has legitimate concerns about a biography of a living person, and Jimbo Wales' comments about such cases would appear to apply. I am happy to discuss any of my edits with other editors and to pursue dispute resolution if required.

This relates to :

This has been the subject of an ongoing debate for several months. Consensus was reached and the article was independently rewritten by another editor.

Immediately after I raised concerns about proposed new edits on the discussion page an editor has, in direct response to my concerns, reposted content that was originally removed by the above consensus.

The text needs to be removed on the same grounds as it was removed last time.

I could legitimately remove the text under the Biography of Living Persons policy; but as I believe the other editor would simply reinstate it I am not, as this could be construed as edit warring. An oversight request will be submitted but not until Monday due to holidays. Action needs to be taken in the interim.

I am also being barracked and threatened by editor quoting policy.

My legitimate concerns are being ignored.

Assistance appreciated.

Thank you Amicaveritas (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This is already being discussed on the article talk page, where such discussion should be. Further, there seems to be an active conversation between you and User:Gwen Gale on your talk page. None of that prevents other interested editors from joining the discussion, but I'm confident that a good solution will eventually develop. It might take a little longer than you would like, but that's OK; there's no deadline! --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It is being discussed - agreed and also agree that this where the discussions should be. It has however taken over 8 hours to get a revert on a non-consensual edit of a BLP. This should not occur. My concerns (despite having been upheld in the past) have been ignored for most of the day until (thankfully) an independent third party pointed out I was being treated harshly and my concerns were being ignored. Once again this has not been a pleasant experience as new editor to wikipedia. I would suggest that the BLP policy is to remove contentious material pending discussion and consensus and this should be applied as primary action by editors and admins.Amicaveritas (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You could try WP:BLPN I suppose, but that might be construed as forum-shopping. Patience might be your best ally here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks have tried that before. Happy to be patient now the offending edit has been removed pending discussion. When it's taken a month of discussion and it 's clearly stated on the discussion page that there should be no further edits before discussion and consensus over an edit that has already been the subject of dispute resolution and mediation - I confess to being somewhat less than patient when it's blatantly reverted without any recourse or discourse - not unreasonable surely?

::I also wish however to make a personal attack / harassment complaint against . Is sufficient to post this here or do I need to something else? Thanks. Amicaveritas (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That sort of thing could be raised at WP:WQA. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. This is now under level headed discussion and while concensus is still some way form being established, I retract my earlier complaint. Amicaveritas (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Simpsons Pages

For some reason, there is one "editor" (not naming any names just go to any page related to the American television show The Simpsons and you will know who I mean) who continually deletes any submissions by anyone but, himself. I'm new to contributing but, I've been on Wiki since its inception and I always thought this was a place to share ideas to make the pages better. How are new people (who are encouraged to contribute) supposed to feel when certain others out there feel as though they are the "Lord of the page"? ChevonH (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)ChevonH

Have you tried to discuss your concerns on the articles' or the editor's talk pages? – ukexpat (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be a lot better if you just told us who the editor was. While I'm sure you didn't say who it was in order to avoid looking like you were complaining about a particular editor, it makes things a whole lot easier for us if you just say who it is. Looking at your contribution history, I'm going to presume you mean contributions. Looking at his user talk page, you tried to talk a particular revert over but never got a response. If you'd confirm this is the editor about whom you have concerns, I'd be glad to drop a message at his user talk requesting that he address your concerns. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 13:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Dean Cochran

Dean Cochran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is Dean Cochran and I'm horrible with computers. I don't think anyone cares what year I was born but it's weird seeing my age as 40 (didn't matter when there was a 3). I was born in 72 but imdb one time posted 69 because I graduated from high school early. Anyway I sent them my driver's license and birth certificate but they didn't change it. I gave up. I'd love to send whatever info you need so at least it's accurate here. I asked for some help from the guys who seem to monitor it here. Someone I work with had tried to change it back in the past but he just told me he's no longer going to be my internet baby sitter ;o) Anyway, any help would be terrific I don't know what it means to sign Saintdean (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC) but I'll try dxxx @xxx.com

Saintdean (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You should not really edit pages about yourself as it is considered a conflict of interest, you can try and discuss the problem at the related talk page Talk:Dean Cochran but failing any response you may want to read Misplaced Pages:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). MilborneOne (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is perfectly acceptable to edit ones own page as long as they keep a level head and follow all the other rules and policies of wikipedia. As for your question, any newspaper, reliable website, magazine article, or any other source that falls under WP:RS would be acceptable. Technically speaking, your drivers license could be used as wikipedia doesnt strictly ban the use of primary sources, but I would stay away from that as the logitics of getting it universally accepted by wikipedians astounds me. Not to mention the fact that drivers licenses are easiy faked. which may be why IMDB didn't change it... IDK, I would stay away from primary sources, just because they are nearly impossible for the average wikipedian to verify.Drew Smith What I've done 23:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Best way to confirm a birth year is to find a newspaper article that says something like "Dean Cochran, 37" (or whatever your age was that year). At the very least it can be used as a source to not support the other birth year. And if there are no reliable sources to establish your birth date/year (and FYI, IMDB is not considered reliable for Misplaced Pages's purposes), we can just remove the birth date/year, which has been done in the past where the birthdate was very unclear. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 13:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually... I did just that and corrected the birthdate. Well, technically I've just sourced the year but I'm keeping the month/day on there for the time being. I'm going to try finding a source that gives the actual month/day... but we'll see. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 13:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing useful found in LexisNexis, though I can be pretty horrible with that tool. Man I wish there were a better way of sourcing birthdates. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 14:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, anyway, if this is still a problem for Dean or anyone else, the noticeboard for issues regarding biographies of living people would be a good next step. The people there are a lot more experienced in resolving this sort of issue. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 17:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Actually... I'm removing the birthdate and year entirely pending better reliable sources. The one I have actually suggests Cochran was born between July 21, 1970 and July 20, 1971. WP:BLP and all that. This article needs referenced pretty badly, by the way. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 22:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ashford Police Training Centre request for sanity check

Ashford Police Training Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like a sanity check over a potential edit war concerning Ashford Police Training Centre. I believe that user 217.40.222.106 and possibly user Jonathan.barber have a conflict of interest and are using the page to advertise a project that they are involved with. I have tried to enter into discussion but they will not respond and just roll me back. I would appreciate a heads up on whether I am overreacting on this and advice on how to proceed. --Gaspode the Wonder Dog (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This doesnt appear to be an edit war yet. The first thing to do is to stop reverting the edits. If they continue to change the article without gaining consensus ask an admin to protect the page, so as to force them into discussion.Drew Smith What I've done 11:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. --Gaspode the Wonder Dog (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Jonathan.barber created another page, Ashford police training, containing his version of the article, which I have redirected to Ashford Police Training Centre. JohnInDC (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

My first instinct would have been a speedy, but a redirect seems to be a much better solution.Drew Smith What I've done 12:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It has the additional virtue of me not having to fish up the proper category - JohnInDC (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears to mixing to many ideas, the Police Training Centre article should deal with just the Training Centre and if it is notable Grosvenor House/Bockhanger Hall may be worth an article on its history with most of the Police training bit removed. The speculation could be added to the Grosvenor House/Bockhanger Hall article if it can be reliably sourced! MilborneOne (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sloppy & uncommunicative editor - suggestions?

Wow Scotland ! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Wow Scotland ! has been pretty busy since s/he established an account a few days ago. See here. While some editors are prolific and skilled, this one is not. A good third of his or her edits are, for one reason or another, unsound. (The bulk are not "wrong" as such but on the whole do not seem to improve Misplaced Pages so much as just rejigger the content. About one edit in six makes actual good sense.) I've been following this editor around trying to keep things clean and have posted occasional, and I confess, increasingly terse suggestions to his/her Talk page, User_talk:Wow_Scotland_!. (That page also gives a few good flavor of the problematic editing.) The editor is entirely uncommunicative and has continued to edit with no real indication of slowing down. It's not "vandalism"; no edit wars have been spawned either - but the user is not improving the encyclopedia, is a bother to police, and is unresponsive. Suggestions for how to deal with this? JohnInDC (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The user seems to be unwilling to discuss anything. There really are a lot of messages on the talk page. Usually I dont get involved unless both parties have at least spoken to the other. That being said, they really do seem to be sloppy mistakes, and I'd like to assume good faith. I would advise you to keep attempting to establish contact, and if the user still refuses to communicate, seek higher action, maybe at WP:ANI.Drew Smith What I've done 13:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Drew. You've done a great job trying to guide him/her in the right direction, but s/he doesn't seem receptive or communicative at all. Also, I don't think your "increasingly terse suggestions" were inappropriate (or terse, for that matter) at all. As Drew said, give a bit more time, and if the editor doesn't improve, take it to an Admin. Thanks! Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess my internal editor is better at filtering out the annoyance that I realize! I sure *feel* exasperated. But okay. Thanks for the suggestions. I'm happy to keep this up for a bit and escalate to WP:ANI if necessary. Sometimes a new editor just needs a bit of a jolt to learn that they can't just edit to suit their own tastes, and this might be one of those cases. JohnInDC (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Update. We have gotten past "uncommunicative" and are working on substance. Another editor of far greater skill has taken this one under his wing and is making some very good suggestions. This particular entry can be marked "resolved" for now. Thanks all for the help. JohnInDC (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

External Link / Reliable Source Question

Patrolling for blog links, and removing them where there is not an apparent exception to WP:RS or WP:EL, I removed links to this blog - usually linked to either this or this blog posting. This morning I was greeted by this objection on my talk page. I am responding to the User's talk page, but they have already reinserted the link once. Judging by the user page, the editor appears to be the author of the blog in question. I try not to revert other editor's good faith edits, and so am asking for a little input here. Is this a reliable source? The info appears to all be ref'ed to other sources in addition to the blog, so it seems redundant and self-published to me. (I would appreciate if you would please remove the re-inserted link if you agree with my assessment, so that this reversion is by a disinterested editor). Thanks for your time. I have notified the editor in question about this conversation. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Posted to my user talk.

I am responding here, to get insight from other editors about the policy question. That is, is your blog a reliable source, exempt from the general principle about self-published sources? I apologize if my comment about the link being "tagged on" was offensive - that was certainly not my intent. However, the comment in my edit summary was based on the observation that the link was at the end of a citation to a print reference ecerytime it appeared. The print source is, by itself, an adequate reference. Not all references need to be online. There are a significant sources in the ADHD article, which leads me to believe that there are plenty of reliable sources out there - they just may not happen to be online.

To further the issue, according to your user page, the blog in question is written by you. That causes me to think there is a little bit of self-promotion involved. I have a hard time believing that yours is the only research being done on this topic, and if so - that your research hasn't been published in book or article form somewhere. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 16:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so deeply sincere for finaly realizing your compleatly false accusations and the lie it was built upon, maybe we should belive it was an unintentional lie, well... be more careful next time with your false accusations

My self intetrest in the thing was to make the history of ADHD more well knownd, do you find a better and more well written history part with al the references and it all, use it! As simple as that.

Maybe its the history is not so good or whatever, it took me months to write and please don give me that crappy lies that it was just for the poor links sake. Just find a better one, and if you would like to comment it please be shure you know what you are talking about. you erased more than one link and did not bring in anything better.

I can right now give you 1 book relying on unverifiable "truths" and sweet lies. http://books.google.com/books?id=q9Rje9qX9W0C&pg=PA30&dq=adhd+history+hippocrates&ei=TccNSqnWMZTMyQS3wdCoCw&hl=sv

Next time please be more careful with you unintentional lies and false accusations. If you find any person in europe who has written more about the adhd history than me please gimme a call. Yes its on a blog that true, and the reason for that is very simple because we are writing more history and updating it regulary. Isen't that ok with wikipedia fine erase it al, and whynot al the history that is written by me. My intrerest in the thing is to write verifiable history on the subject not to be chatting with involountary liars. IIIIIIIIIIP-OIIIIIIIIII (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:EL doesn't apply to sources. From what I know about WP:EL is that were this link would not be appropriate. Since its being used as a reference it has to pass WP:RS instead, which is iffy in the case of blogs, especially in foreign languages. You might want to crosspost this at WP:RSN for further input if nobody here can answer it. My gut is that this isn't reliable unless the blog's author is an authority on the subject matter. ThemFromSpace 17:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, themfromspace. I really was thinking of WP:RS, more specifically WP:SPS, rather than WP:EL. To avoid cross-posting, I'll leave this here for a while and see if anyone else weighs in. I don't see any indication of the expertise of the blog author, but I could be wrong. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 21:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

IIIIIIIIIIP-OIIIIIIIIII, what you have written is not, by wikipedia standards, verifiable history - please see the wikipedia policy on verifiability. In the meantime, please calm down and refrain from personal attacks. I did not lie, I merely described the position of the link within the references. I did not make a any sort of statement about you. And yes, I did remove multiple instances of your link - because it does not appear to be a reliable source. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 21:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

someone apparently tagged their blog onto a bunch of existing refs We both know its a lie, so please dont make any more lies and personal attacks. If it was unintentional then it was an involuntary lie. but it's still a lie and you know it. IIIIIIIIIIP-OIIIIIIIIII (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

For anyone else who's having trouble figuring out what the problem is, Here is the diff that P-O is concentrating on. It does indeed seem that the reference that P-O added is a blog and was placed after another reference in one case, though not in others. The two diffs prior to that are removals by Athanasius of similar references which were (for want of a better phrase) tacked onto existing references. On that basis, it's safe to say that while Athanasius may not have been strctly accurate with the edit comment for that third removal, they should certainly not be called a liar. Assuming good faith - which is required - this was not an intentional deception. The important part of the comment - and the reason for removal of the reference - was that the source does not meet our standards for reliable sources. P-O, please don't make any more personal attacks against Athanasius, please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, and please do not insert references to self-published material unless the author is recognised as an expert in a relevant field. Thank you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

ppl from the blog wrote the whole section, as anyone easily can see. It is not in any way "tagged onto a bunch of existing references" we added the complete history and wrote most part of the adhd history from 1798 and the article about Crichton and so on. And it's easy to see, whynot just look in the history of the article? it is not to hard.

But yes its a blog and we have never pretended its not, its for shure reliable and verifiable, even with photos from the original sources dating back in 1798. If you can find a better and more reliable source i will be happy to know where.

IIIIIIIIIIP-OIIIIIIIIII (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Noahs Ark

I need some help at the Noahs ark talk page. Apparently the general consesnus is that the literal belief in the ark is a "fringe" view, and has labeled it "mythology". I think I could have gotten the Pov pushing taken out, however I let my personal beliefs get in the way. That was my mistake, and I have rephrased my posts to merely asking that the POV words be removed, however the editors always return to my previous posts and continue to "dwell on the past". Not to invent any Cabals that weren't already there, but it appears that a group of self proclaimed atheists are controlling the article. I may be reading to much into this, and perhaps my judgement is still clouded by personal beliefs. However I do not believe this to be the case.Drew Smith What I've done

• Misplaced Pages help forums