Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:34, 14 December 2009

Thanks for looking at my talk page - feel free to comment and i'll reply on this page, I am so busy editing that I probably won't be able to reply immedietly!

Dispute Help Please

I am in an ongoing dispute with another editor regarding the Plantation of Ulster wikipedia page and more specifically the "Plantation in Operation" section. I'm new to wikipedia so am not sure how everything works but I do have substantial knowledge of the history. I have kept updates on the discussion page explaining what I have been doing.

I rewrote the section on the "Plantation in Operation" providing detailed and extensive references including book page numbers. These references were directly related to claims made in the section.

Another user "Domer" has been changing the references. Firstly during the course of adding some information he moved at least one reference to a sentence to which it was not related. I fixed this change. He then condensed the various references to one link at the end of each sentence, without explaining on the discussion page what had been done. I (new to wiki) thought that the references had been deleted and posted such on the discussion page and reverted the page back to the previous uncondensed references.

"Domer" then reverted it back to the condensed references and still did not explain what he had done, saying only that the references had not been deleted. On closer examination I found out that the references had been condensed but also found that again numerous references had been moved to the end of a sentence to which they bore no relation. I posted the details of this on the discussion page under "references".

"Domer" then suggested I might be synthesising sources and provided me with a link to wikipedia guidelines regarding synthesising of sources which states, "Summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. Best practice is to write Misplaced Pages articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim." This is what I have done throughout the section. I have provided a detailed explanation of this on the discussion page under "References". Uncondensed sources make this clear and therefore better relate to wikipedia guidelines than condensed sources.

The condensed sources leave the section and references open to misrepresentaion. My original uncondensed sources directly related to specific claims made in sentences that sometimes include two or three claims. In no case have I ever, "put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." Each conclusion I have reached has been directly attributable to a source, or more usually more than one source.

I would appreciate help in this matter. I would like to see the section returned to my version with uncondensed references.

Thank-you.--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi there. I have commented on your RfA page. While edit count is not an absolute requisite, you have at present very few edits to your credit. Over the last three years no editor has achieved adminship with less than 2,000 edits to their credit, and most have more. To avoid upset, I most respectfully suggest that you should, for the moment, withdraw your application until you have more experience. --Anthony.bradbury 21:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have now withdrawn my RFA - Thank-you for your kind advice. Wikipedian2 (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Your rollback request

Hi! I regret that I must inform you that your request for the rollback permission has been denied. You can discover why by checking the archives at Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions/Denied/December 2008#Wikipedian2. SoxBot X (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Lupin

Assistance with a dispute

Are you able to help with a dispute? Someone is repeatedly deleting two reliable sources (clavius.org and badastronomy.com) from the article on Ralph Rene. I have asked them to stop, but it has happened 3 times now.

As a bit of background, Rene was a major proponent of the Apollo moon landing hoax theory. The article mentions some of his claims, but doesn’t mention that these claims have been debunked by scientists and engineers. This is why I am trying to add those sources to the article.

I’m not sure what to do next to resolve it, your advice is welcome. Thanks. Logicman1966 (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Canada's Hundred Days > Hundred Days Offensive merger_Hundred_Days_Offensive_merger-2009-01-21T18:58:00.000Z">

I would like an outside opinion on the proposed merger of Canada's Hundred Days into Hundred Days Offensive. It is my feeling that all for requirements for merger are very cleary met in this case, but there is opposition.

The Canada's Hundred Days article places focus on Canada's participation in the Hundred Days Offensive of World War I. The page is largely uncited, strong on POV and contains largely duplicated material already contained in Hundred Days Offensive and Military history of Canada during World War I. The importance of the battle is already emphasised in Military history of Canada during World War I and any unique battle information could easily be adopted into Hundred Days Offensive. Can you offer some thoughts or just make the final call on this one. Labattblueboy (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)_Hundred_Days_Offensive_merger"> _Hundred_Days_Offensive_merger">

RE: Mireille Guiliano

Hi there,

I have received a few notes from Misplaced Pages about this page, including:

This article is written like an advertisement. Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view. For blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic, use {{db-spam}} to mark for speedy deletion. (October 2008)

This article may need to be wikified to meet Misplaced Pages's quality standards. Please help by adding relevant internal links, or by improving the article's layout. (October 2008)

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. (October 2008)

I really feel as though I have made the necessary corrections, using citations, making sure the writing is neutral, etc. Can you please help me make sure this page is up to Misplaced Pages's standards? Thank you!

Eringobragh81 (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Dispute help

There are three editors involved right now on the Phi Kappa Phi page. Two editors keep deleting the content I write. I have a Ph.D. and I've actually published entries in a paper encyclopedia (with co-authors, mind you), so although I'm pretty new to Misplaced Pages, I'm not a total dolt when it comes to writing multiple-author encyclopedia entries. I have pushed them on their reasons why they keep deleting the offending passage. Then, when I try to again rewrite it to appease them, it gets deleted again. I continue to try to again rewrite the prose so as not to delete content but address both sides' concerns about the content, but they continue to delete what I write, stating instead that if its disputed it shouldn't be on the page. My take is, if its disputed, put it out there in the prose in the page and craft it into the narrative. Like a total newbie I tried reverting their deletions several times, but they just did the same back. That didn't help (duh). Of course, no matter how much I prod, they aren't trying to rewrite the passage to accommodate both sides' concerns, which is why I'm getting so frustrated. They just sit back and hit the delete button. The last addition I made was to rewrite the offending phrase in such a way that it was irrefutable and documented from primary sources. Still, it gets deleted, and now I am being given conditions on which they will stop deleting it, like, in not the exact words, "you can insert the cited statement 'some universities have stated Phi Kappa Phi is one of the most respected honor societies' so long as you put in a sentence saying they copied Phi Beta Kappa and that Phi Beta Kappa is the most prestigious honor society." To me, that's irrelevant to the page and to the claim being made. And, it should come as no surprise, one of the editor's only concerns is about inserting comments about Phi Beta Kappa (a different organization) on the page and nothing else, and he's made ad hominem attacks against the university websites I've cited as a justification for deletion. Maybe I'm overreacting, but as admittedly dickish as I have been in my most frustrated times during this dispute, I'm beginning to think their constant deletions are politically motivated. If you could just look it over and tell me I'm not crazy (or maybe I am), it would be appreciated. I'll gladly make a small donation to Misplaced Pages as a token of my appreciation. Muchas, muchas gracías. Lhakthong (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Help with Spanish Misplaced Pages article dispute

Hello there,

I have recently joined Misplaced Pages because I noticed some questionable behavior on three sports articles. I read each article thoroughly and corrected any vandalism and biased comments. After doing this, I checked the Spanish versions, suspecting the same sort of behavior, and I found it was more prevalent. After correcting two of the articles, the user Usuario:Weezeroso deleted my corrections. I looked at the discussion tabs in each article and his own article, and he has a history of doing this.

The two articles that I edited are on two Mexican soccer teams; the third is about their rivalry. The two teams are big rivals, which makes for a lot of arguments and a lot of vandalism on Misplaced Pages articles. I looked at Weezeroso's userboxes and I noticed that he is a Chivas de Guadalajara fan-- one of the two teams involved. Now I realized why he had been editing the articles in favor of Chivas.

The problem arose when I looked at the article, Club América in English, and noticed a February, 2009 poll by Consulta Mitofsky-- a firm that does many types of polls and research. This poll had Club América as the most popular team in Mexico and Chivas de Guadalajara as the second most popular team. Apparently Weezeroso didn't like this fact so he decided to erase my edition (which included this poll and his outdated polls in another section). Other users had already tried to include the most recent poll, but Weezeroso's claim was that Mitofsky's poll was not valid and he erased their editions as well. Although Consulta Mitofsky specializes in polls, Weezeroso insisted in including outdated polls which were done by a Mexican newspaper (Diario Reforma).

I contacted him and tried to resolve the problem, but instead he kept erasing my revisions. I mentioned that if we are going to include a popularity poll in the introduction, it must be the most recent one. I also told him that polls done by a newspaper aren't necessarily accurate. Lastly I said that if he did not want to include it in the introduction, we could move it all to the appropriate section (Aficion). Weezeroso then contacted two system operators (Misplaced Pages Spanish) and they contacted me telling me to support my revisions with references. I had already included the correct references and had not deleted the previous references; I moved the old references to the appropriate section. After a brief conversation with these two system operators (Usuario:Cobalttempest and Usuario:Humberto), and a quick look at their conversations, it felt like even they were being biased as well. I was surprised to see that they had let Weezeroso get away with controlling the articles entirely. I wrote two messages in the two articles' discussion tabs, and made the problem public (even though the same problem with Weezeroso had been brought up numerous times before in these sections).

After not getting a response from anyone, I revised the article once again, but Weezeroso quickly deleted it. After dealing with all this for a couple days, I gave up and decided to not redo my revisions even though I had noticed that Weezeroso had already erased them. About twenty minutes before I started writing this long comment, I signed into my account and I found out that I had been blocked by one of the two operators-- Usuario:Humberto. They wrote to me saying that I should discuss the problem in the articles' discussion section, although I already had and now, since I was blocked, I was not able to.

This is just speculation, but I feel like they did the same thing to other users before me. Weezeroso's edition has stayed up after numerous people have pointed out that it is incorrect. Mysteriously all the people who were arguing for the same cause as mine, have stopped. I now feel like I have followed the same path as these people. After so much time and effort trying to correct the articles, I can't even discuss the subject with anyone in Misplaced Pages(Spanish) anymore.

I am sorry for writing such a long comment on your board, and I don't know if you can even help me, but I feel like I have been cheated and the readers of Misplaced Pages have been robbed of the truth. I would greatly appreciate if you could give me advice or direct me to someone who could. I hope I explained myself well enough, and I hope this will all be resolved.

Thanks, Bajopresion (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(you might have to switch the n in en.wikipedia.org of the url to an s in order to see the users' profile)

Help with Yasser Latif Hamdani article

• Dear editor, the BLP Entry on my life Yasser Latif Hamdani is subject to a very vicious edit war by a number of sockpuppets including one who goes by YLHamdani and is an impostor. The users/IP Vandals are insistent that I am an Ahmadi by faith because my late father was an Ahmadi by faith. To this end they've produced an article in which it says that my father was an Ahmadi which is true. However, I am not an Ahmadi and I have made it quite clear on several occasions and it is not because of any other reason but because I genuinely don't concur with a number of Ahmadi religious beliefs. The reason why the said person is misusing Misplaced Pages to slander me is because in recent years the Ahmaddiya community has become subject of terrible violence and very often endangered for having a different set of beliefs. The said person is trying to provoke mob violence against me because of my political opinions about a secular and liberal Pakistan. It is not difficult to forsee that this might end up with potentially very severe consequences for my livelihood and life itself. Kindly take note and please help me out.Yasser Latif Hamdani (talk) 05:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Help with CSS Reference Manual article

• Dear editor, this morning, I found a new article (CSS Reference Manual) initiated by another author (that I am not acquainted to). However, while the article was at that point (and this moment as well) clearly still 'work in progress', another editor/commenter Reisio had put an 'AfD' on it. Because I feel a strong need for this new article to exist, I defended it strongly with valid arguments, even stating that I wanted to contribute to it myself. However, at the point where on-topic discussions based on argumentation seized to exist, the editor/commenter Reisio started to attack me personally, by openly questioning my personal credibility.

At his talk-page, an earlier ban (half way of the page) is present based on personal attacks (although I am not fully sure that he was the one given the ban or that he was the one that gave the ban to someone else).

Nevertheless: because of this AfD, the article gets flamed now by other users that don't take a closer look at it, for no valid reason, just because it's currently labeled as 'AfD'...

My question is therefore: could you help me out to let this article be enhanced properly to Misplaced Pages standards? Because I strongly feel that there is a need for it, it deserves a decent chance, because I would not liketo see very hard work thrown down the drain because of "a bully" that was banned before for personal attacks, and because the article's initial author (again: not me) has done a good job in starting it. Clfavreaux (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Clfavreaux

Help rebuilding a page that has been changed

{{La|Richard Thieme}

I need advice on how to respond to wiki changes. I have spoken for fifteen years for numerous conferences and have published a great deal of fiction and non-fiction. The coordinator of a conference I keynoted told me a few years ago he had created a wikipedia page about my work. I had nothing to do with it. I thought, OK, that's nice. It was mostly accurate but limited, the focus only on the work he knew. It left out many things, but I left it alone. It did not seem important to make it more full and perfectly accurate.

I discovered while googling that someone in 2006 questioned the entry because when HE looked for "Thieme" he wanted a German medical person and he thought my page was written by me as PR. I infer that no one is notified when someone makes that accusation.

Also, someone added a spoofed entry on my page saying the author Neal Stephenson based a character on me. I had a friend remove that when I found out about it.

When I saw that googled comment I went to the page and most of the original was gone. The little that is left is not accurate. It omits almost everything relevant to my work and what it does say is not precise or accurate.

I assume one does not correct one's own entry. If one does, is that PR? Do you have to have someone else do it so it is "objective?" I would want either a full and accurate account or nothing. What is the procedure for making it real, accurate, and genuinely informative? And protect it from changes based on incorrect assumptions?

Thiemeworks (Misplaced Pages sig) article title: Richard Thieme —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thiemeworks (talk • contribs) 20:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-04/Republic of China

Hello, I have provided more detailed information on the case page and listed the involved parties. Please let me know if you need some more info. Thanks, Laurent (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-04/Republic of China

Hello, I have put futher information in the discussion page. However, I think you can't accomplish it by yourself. It is a complex problem. You should refer to some laws and commands. Also, you should be familiar with the history of ROC. Even in the Taiwan island, history teachers and officals cannot explain the issue adequately. You should do it with some friends with a good Chinese.Thanks for your help.Huang Sir (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Advice about a Dispute

I'm afraid I'm having a dispute with 3 or 4 editors who are being totally unreasonable as they deny the obvious reality that French has the a as in cat sound simply because "experts" do not use the IPA symbol for it. They do not even know French and I am a native speaker. I put in the rules about the sounds of the French vowel "a" but they deleted it.

What I want to know is if it goes to the last step, which I think is mediation, would the author of the article or another editor be able to delete it? So, in other words, is he obliged to go along with the decision and is it worth it to go thru the whole process or even just the 1st step?--Bpell (talk) 03:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I recommend taking the formal mediation route if you wish to take the steps in a binding decision which is useful if they continue to delete your edits and refuse to negotiate to a consensus, please note that if you otherwise decide to take the informal mediation route; decisions are NOT binding.

Wikipedian2 (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Miss Universe 2010 Potential Bids

Hi! Would like to request for your input on this article. it seems that the main editor is a newcomer; although i already told the editor that it will be better if the wikipedia guidelines are read first before carrying out article writing, it seems that no progress has been made. thanks. Joey80 (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, if you decide that the article does not cite sources, is inaccurate, infers opinions, or promotes opinions, etc.... - then you should put a template for a proposed deletion of the article - which appears is what you have done. If this does not work, I recommend informal mediation to try and meet a consensus which you both agree on, and to attempt to work together to improve the article.

Wikipedian2 (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Miss Universe 2009 edit war

Hi! Just would like to ask for your advice on how to deal with an edit war concerning the Miss Universe 2009 article. Editor Jackoreo has constantly been adding unverified, biased statements, while some other editors have constantly been undoing these. I have already left Jackoreo a note but it appears that this has been ignored. I'm just wondering if protecting/locking the article from edit (since the event will take place this August, hence, more editing wars are bound to take place) will be effective. Thanks. Joey80 (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Editor Assitance on Involuntary euthanasia

Involuntary euthanasia

I made an edition on involuntary euthanasia. But Ratel deletes it again and again. We discussed Ratel's questions, but now he is not giving arguments but acussations. He says the gramar must be improved but doesn't help but deletes. Therefore here I'm asking for an editor assitance.

See the discussion here: Talk:Involuntary_euthanasia#Murder

This is my edition and the quote box I added to the article:

Also in the modern world, any euthanasia, thus also involuntary euthanasia refers to some special legal situations, precisely some specific legal exceptions. For example in the Netherlands, euthanasia has not be decriminalized nor legalized by any means but it is illegal and defined in the Criminal Code as murder, although under certain conditions, the physician is not punishable when he or she terminates the life of a person (Groningen Protocol is an example).

"...The Committee is well aware that the new Act does not as such decriminalize euthanasia and assisted suicide...The new Act contains, however, a number of conditions under which the physician is not punishable when he or she terminates the life of a person"

190.25.99.55 (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Dispute help please - seal hunting

I am involved in an ongoing dispute with a non-registered user involving the article Seal Hunting. The first disagreement we had was over weather a section of text about the EU ban on seal products belonged in the introduction. The issue has since been settled. Since then we have been going at it over a atatement which I think should include the opinion of both the Canadian PM and an author, both of which should be cited in detail given the disputed nature of this issue in order to avoid appearing non-newtral. The user in wuestion has been threatening me with 3RR reports, he has reported me once and was rejected, the page was protected and he continues to threaten me with such action saying that I need his permission to make edits to the article. In adition, he deleted my posts on his talk page and I responded in kind. I am reaching the end of my rope with this. I need someone newtral to tell me I'm wrong or right so that I can move on to articles I still care about. Thanks for your time. --U5K0 (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Advice please

I've got a problem. Huge one, unfortunately. I entered into a lenthy discussion with user Laz17 over one map . Discussion pretty much escalated and we are unable to find a common language. But that is not the worst of our problems.
Recently we were both blocked by administrator Toddst1 for particapating in an edit war about demographic history in BiH . It was not a 3rr, but a discussion about color of one map. User Toddst1 blocked us both, but I also got 1RR of all the topics regarding balkan areas. Before of this I was blocked 2 times over the period 2006 till now (user Laz once). After that user Laz started following my edits, and reverting my changes (it seems that the guy is trying to start another edit war) on the subjects he never participated before.
I tried to get some help from the Toddst1 (as he is the administrator which was involved into all of this) (under Laz17 section) but he does not consider himself a mediator and has suggested to as that we sort it out between ourselves.
I tried on ANI, but to no avail. Currently discussion is civil, but the guy still stalks me or anywhere else I make an edit, reverting my changes. To me it looks like the guy is trying to provoke an edit war (I've got 1rr balkan rule, and he doesn't). I didn't noticed him about this message, because I'd like to know firstly what can I do to change the situation. Again admin toddst1 is not able to check the situation, and in some cases discussion with Laz is inposible. I'd just like that the guy stops following me and reverting my changes. Thanks in advance, --Čeha (razgovor) 16:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Dispute help please: angela craciun, présidente e l'association mondiale de minéralogie

hi. the article i wrote, about one month and a half ago, has been deleted. i contacted "enigma' the person who deleted it, and received no answer. I do not understad why this article has been deleted,as Mrs Craciun is quite a public person, ans has accomplished a lot.

may be i wrote the article in a way that did not seem appropriate? what i find strange is that i received absolutely no answer. plus when i google for it, what shows up is " article deleted", which does not look very good...

here a few links about angela craciun. I also have a collection of printed article about her and what she accomplished, that i can provide

http://www.oceano.org/mc/expositions/page8exp.htm http://romania-on-line.net/whoswho/CraciunAngela.htm http://www.apgiens.com/asso/bulle22.htm http://lulop.com/frontend/posts/show/1457 http://omm-online.org/

thanks for your help and avice stephanie91.168.151.23 (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Almanach de gotha page

Hi im having problems with an editer called Yopie, who has insinuated that i am a certain individual, called karl which i am not this is a lie and he has been bullying me and is not answering questions to his so called blocking tactics, please can you help, thanks henry mcdowall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.17.34 (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Need Some Help

If you got some time i could use a third party to look a over the article for University of Atlanta it's really bad and I can get no on together to come up with some ideas. I think the two schools need to be separated and two pages made, let me know what you think!--Supercopone (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)