Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 43

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


regarding neutrality of links for "electronic laboratory notebook".

Stale: --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like a second opinion on the entry "electronic laboratory notebook". Disclaimer; I am affiliated with a company that sells commercial electronic laboratory notebook software. It could be argued that it is in the commercial interest of my company to mention its name on this page. However that is not what I am asking for. I just want someone else to take a look at the obvious piece of blogspam posted in the links section and take an objective look at the discussion surrounding it and the frequent self-promotion of the web site belonging to the user at The top "external link" that this user frequently posts is not useful, informative, independent or neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invasifspecies (talkcontribs) 20:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard C. Fuisz


Could you help with Richard Carl Fuisz? The page is being voraciously edited by the cousin of a Susan Lindauer who implicated Dr. Fuisz as a CIA control agent during her spy case (sounds ridiculous I know) Richard Arthur Norton. The page needs help of course, but I think it should be done by someone with a NPOVChitownhustler (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What point of view is Norton establishing, aside from adding references, and removing unreferenced material from a BLP? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It does not appear from a quick look over that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) is editing the article in such a way as to advance any position. Removal of unreferenced potentially controversial material from a BLP is policy whatever relation the editor may have to the subject. The article seems to be much improved over its state a few days ago, with the addition of much additional referencing. The editor does not seem to be denying being distantly related to the subject and is experienced enough to aware of the COI guidelines. Which edits are you specifically concerned about? Mfield (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I have no personal knowledge about Lindauer or Fuisz, beyond what is available online. The Lindauer article doesn't mention Fuisz, and the Fuisz article doesn't mention Lindauer. However, Chitownhustler is a single purpose account created just to edit the Fuisz article. That account has been adding personal, unsourced information, for which I have been adding sources where I can find it, and adding fact tags where it is still unsourced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Richard- please don't tell me the Lindauer article doesn't mention Richard Fuisz-you referenced it, and your geneology site [1] lists Susan as your cousin.Chitownhustler (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Also a note to say that the recent editing of the article including deletions of sourced content by Fuiszt (talk · contribs) raises more COI concerns than Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs), I am kind of surprised that has not been brought up first Mfield (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree the Fuiszt deletions are also suspect.Chitownhustler (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Be specific and show specific edits that you have concern over. The Fuisz article makes no mention of Lindauer and the Lindauer article makes no mention of Fuisz. There is one New York Times article used as a reference in common in both articles. Please note that I am related to every editor of Wikipedia, including you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, it may take more than a quick look to see what is removed and what has been inserted. Removal of mention of the endowed chair of medicine at Georgetown, removal of references to Baxter's guilty plea following Fuisz's volunteering of memos pertaining to the arab blacklist, changing the name of the page to Richard Carl Fuisz (he never uses his middle name in business etc.). Richard Arthur Norton has also done a fair amount of editing for Susan Lindauer's page on wikipedia, again without any comment about his relation to her (a relationship easy to find on a google search since Mr Norton is apparently a geneology fan). Looking back, the Fuiszt add/edits were explored on his or her talk page, but the are dwarfed by the quantity of edits done by Mr Norton.Chitownhustler (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

My first edit was to this version which had no inline citations and seven external links. If you want to write a personal essay, or an unreferenced biography, its best to start a blog. This is an encyclopedia, and only referenced material is allowed. What is with the Susan Lindauer red herring? What are you implying? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually while there were a lot of Fuiszt (talk · contribs) edits in 2007, there have been 2, deleting referenced content, within the last 36 hours days[2][3], in fact just before you started editing the article. Mfield (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

45 or so edits since end of January by my count for Richard Norton. My concern about his objectivity was piqued by this interchange on Susan Lindauer's talk page " I will act as your intermediate to help you with the process of fixing any errors. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Richard, I think your revision is excellent, much better and much more NPOV than some of the earlier versions with excellent references. I added a couple of minor tweaks for clarity.

  • And what does one have to do with the other? Are you a conspiracy theorist? An IP address claiming to be Susan Lindauer was deleting my changes to the Susan Lindauer article. A reference in the New York Times mentions Fuiszt, so I started editing there. Where is the sinister conspiracy, and what secret point of view am I pushing? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No mention of family relationship. There is one though, as well as a connection between Susan Lindauer and Richard C. Fuisz. Encyclopedias are generally not written by family members or those with an axe to grindChitownhustler (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

From my looking at this Chitownhustler it looks very much like you are overthinking the situation. There is no evidence of COI or POV editing on the part of Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). There is a fairly distant relationship and there has been no sign of actively attempting to conceal that fact. The exchange with Susan Lindauer is not inappropriate if she had a real COI and he was genuinely offering to help correct errors. Nothing was being concealed as evidenced by their conversation on a talk page rather than by an off wiki means. I suggest at this point that you return to article talk where if you have anything to dispute content wise you bring it up there as that is the correct place and other editors can voice their opinions too. There does not appear that this EAR has shed any light on untoward going on. I suggest AGF in the absence of evidence to the contrary and working to make sure that the article is the most factually correct and well referenced it can be. Mfield (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

So why is Richard Norton continuing to remove ref's and facts from the page? The ref I added today attributes the baxter guilty plea at least partially to documents provided by Fuisz, but it disagrees with Richard Norton's previous edits so he deletes it (5 minutes after its added). I'm trying to believe he wants to make it a better page, why I'm not sure, but it's getting hard to do.Chitownhustler (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  • User:Chitownhustler is a single use account created to edit the article. The editor appears to have personal knowledge of the subject of the article and appears to be writing a personal essay with out sourcing. I added fact tags to information that I have not found a source for yet. Chitownhustler is now adding references to the article, but the reference I removed at least twice, doesn't mention the subject in the article. It would be better if Chitownhustler started with a reliable source and then edited the article, instead of starting with a personal essay, and then shopping for references. That way the exact wording with match. Every source, but the single one on a patent was added by Chitownhustler, has been added by me. All properly formatted, all containing the exact quote in context, using the quote function in the cite template. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please help me understand then that when the direct quote from the source is "As a result of Fuisz's documentation and testimony, Baxter pled guilty in March 1993 to violation of U.S. anti-boycott laws and was fined $6.5 million" from this source [4], Richard Norton removes this from the page "Baxter was the first US company to every plead guilty to compliance with the Arab Boycott -- a first attributable to the source material supplied by Fuisz. " Is there something I'm missing? Or is Richard Norton removing facts without reading the source completely?Chitownhustler (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You tried to sneak in the text to ride on one of my references. But my reference on the case made no mention of Fuisz at all. You readded it back, then the third time you added the above reference. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Difficulties resolving NPOVD in article Energy Accounting

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Me and some other editors have a NPOVD going on with the article Energy Accounting. It has been going on for two weeks now (see talkpage as from here) and starts to be really tiresome and infected by now. The main points:

  • I believe the article is not complying with NPOV since the article is mainly describing the concept energy accounting in the view of Technocracy Incorporated (TechInc), and not in a NPOV.
  • The editor who has made the most edits of the article, Skipsievert, disagrees about this. Curiously enough, he has provided me links outside WP to the concept of energy accounting, which actually confirms my view, that energy accounting is a general concept and not a concept alone belonging to TechInc. Also a google search on the concept reveals most hits to pages not talking about the energy accounting as a concept of TechInc, but rather as a general concept.
  • Further, I see reasons to suspect that there is a high risk of POV violations, since the three main editors of the article (they have made almost 300 edits out of approx totally 370) are all in one way or another advocates of the ideas of TechInc (see here, here and here). Although this may be to go too far for me, if my view that the article in question is violating NPOV, it may be a reason to look over the other articles in the Category:Technocracy movement.
  • I have tried to argue that the there is actually a dispute going on over the article, and I and an other editor have POV-tagged the article several times, but Skipsievert has removed the tag almost as soon as it has been put up. This must be an obvious breaking of WP:NPOVD.
  • I may go too far now, but it seems that Skipsievert is trying to protect the article in question by being very hard to cooperate with, and trying to tire us others out. He accuses me and an other editor for just complaining, not understanding the subject in the article, and so forth. He reported one very experienced editor (Johnfos) on the WP:WQA which maybe was juridically correct, but not a way to improve the atmosphere between us editors; on the contrary it may scare other editors who have a different opinion from contribute to the discussion and to the improvement of the article (that user has just now become semi-retired, maybe it was caused by feeling the WQA-report against him was disproportionate and not fair and therefore getting tired of the whole WP project?). It feels like he tries to look clean by accusing and discredit others, a really dubious method I think.
  • The WQA issue mentioned above, was then closed as resolved by Skipsievert himself. Is that really allowed? I think the issue wasn't resolved at all. One of the editors in that discussion who didn't agree with Skipsievert, was just (on dubious grounds I think) dismissed by Skipsievert as being biased.
  • Skipsievert accuses me for axgrinding. I can assure you I have no interests at all in putting up a certain POV, and I have nothing personally against Skipsievert. I'm just eager to have a neutral WP. On the contrary, the links and other information Skipsievert has provided to me seems very interesting, also the TechInc stuff. But it has to be presented in a clear and neutral way, that's my opinion and WP's.

What I ask for:

  1. Help us to find the right place to solve this conflict. It's really a mess here on WP with all the different places you can go for mediation and the like. It took me an hour to write this section; I don't wanna do that over and over again.
  2. Help us resolve the dispute, and tell us from the above-mentioned what behaviour is correct.
  3. To put av POV-tag on the article and explain for Skipsievert that he cannot take it away until the dispute is over.
  4. Have a look at the article and give us an experienced view whether the article is presented in a NPOV or not.
  5. Provide suggestions of how to improve the article to make it NPOV (if you agree it's not NPOV).

Mårten Berglund (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hanswar References

Resolved: per requester. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I am having difficulty with a new editor User:Nafees 1979 who is repeatedly adding people as references to the Hanswar article. See article history. Repeated attempts to get his attention including big bold text asking the editor to read the note on his talk page, User talk:Nafees 1979 have failed to elicit any response. Another editor has warned him for vandalism, but I believe the editor is new and acting in good faith and simply doesn't understand. I'm looking for assistance to get through to this editor as my own attemtps have failed, and WP:AIV doesn't see appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes a short block after the usual warnings is the only way to get the attention of an uncommunicative editor. So if a report to WP:AIV is the next step, then so be it. – ukexpat (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I guess you`re right. I'm trying to be mindful of WP:BITE but at a certain point, sterner measures are needed. Thanks for the advice. Please consider this request resolved. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

University page being vandalized

Stale: --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone keeps adding a section entitled "Oppressive Regulations" stating several opinions with no verification. I know many of them to be false or heavily POV. Every time I remove it, someone adds it back. The university's president is listed as a puppet and was previously had his name hyperlinked to a porn site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quixar (talkcontribs)

I've reverted, and watchlisted the page. If it continues, I'll semiprotect it for a while. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Need help updating company information

Stale: --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like some help with the article AVADirect. Our company has decided to expand the information about our company. We would like to expand with as much information as possible, but do not want to be deleted due to marketing. We want to expand on our history, add our reviews we add, and also our product lines. Anything else we should post, please let me know. Avadirect (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Avadirect Avadirect (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This C.O.I. s.p.a. role account has been blocked as a spamusername. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Senator Bill Heffernan

Template:Stael An editor seems to be persistently deleting information about the Australian politician Bill Heffernan. In 2002 the politician accused a High Court Justice of using a government car to pick up boy prostitutes. This was later found to be a fabrication. He also suggested that the openly gay man should be charged for homosexual acts committed before 1984 (when it was made legal). I believe it is inappropriate for this information to be deleted from the page as it was a major controversy. What can I do if the editor continues to delete it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki12345 (talkcontribs)

First discuss on the article's talk page. If that proves fruitless, dispute resolution is next. – ukexpat (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

false vandalism claim

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm having some trouble with a specific editor, Chaldor, on the oral rehydration therapy page. If you look at the history, he's basically taken over the page, and deletes any contributions that are not his own. This is especially problematic since the history section is quite limited in scope, and lacks any context. When I try to add historical context, he deletes it, presumably because he did not himself write it. When I added it back, he had me reported for vandalism.

Based on the wiki vandalism info, it seems like our disagreement would fall under stubbornness...


Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such. See also Tendentious editing

If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors.

I think the fundamental problem is that Chaldor thinks he owns the oral rehydration therapy page. Obviously, I hope this type of thing is frowned upon. It's detrimental to page's quality to have a single person controlling it, and deleting anything that he does not write. I'm sad to say, but Chaldor's dictatorial attitude is stifling improvement of the page, and a detriment to wikipedia.

Could you please help? What is the recourse against a false vandalism report?

Thanks, (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As is stated above you can get help at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If you read that page and then perhaps ask for help from Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal Jezhotwells (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Another pair of eyes?

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Could I get another pair of eyes to look at a pattern of edits by User:Chcoc? I'm not enough of a content expert to judge, but there seems to be a consistent POV and languange bias with this new editor's work. There's a lot of changing 'Syraic' to 'Assyrian' across a wide range of articles. Thanks, Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 03:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  • If you feel that this is a POV-pusher then you should leave them a message on their talk page. Feel free to remove POV edits and if it persists you may want to go here LetsdrinkTea 02:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Aish Hatorah

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Individuals are repeatedly posting content which is unsourced and from websites which are biased against the organziations. If its so accurate and such a major deal why cant they find any media on it ? I dispute the authenticity and would appreciate assistance.

  • Please mention this at the talk page of the article. You may also nominate the page for deletion if you feel there is no hope for it. LetsdrinkTea 02:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Dejan Antonić

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

User:HKfans852 is kept undoing my edit on the article Dejan Antonić. I have already written a meassge on his talk page for asking for the reason, but not reply after I have waited more than 10 days. I nearly do no change in the content, but he kept reverting the edit, including deleting the link to other language of the article, that already added by the bot twice. I think the problem cannot be resloved by leaving a message on his talk page. So, what action should be taken? Thanks. --Antonytse (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: User:HKfans852 apparently does not exist; I assume you mean User talk:Hkfans852. (I'm including this information so someone can use it to help.) -- Why Not A Duck 23:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Utah Boys Ranch Page

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am requesting assistance with the Utah Boys Ranch / West Ridge Academy page. A user by the name of R.Fiend is vandalizing the article and removing cited material.

--Utahboysranchnetwork (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you check out Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and /or seek the help of WP:Mediation cabal Jezhotwells (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • You can also warn the user with the uw-delete tags and report them at WP:AIV LetsdrinkTea 02:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The original poster's user name is clearly in breach of the user name policy and has been reported as such. – ukexpat (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
And now blocked. – ukexpat (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Yet another one who Plaxicoed himself. 03:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

~~Please Create Page About "Alex Gilbert"~~

Resolved: not just yet, thanks. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

He has enough music releases to be on Wikipedia

He has 6 albums selling on the iTunes Music Store and he has many sites about him

heres him on Discogs:

Please Create a Decient Article About this Artist

and please Admins please lock the article incase vadalism happens

thanks Filming NZ

Retrieved from ""

His website is here:

Please Help Thanks FilmingNZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmingnz (talkcontribs) 04:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he's a 16-year-old who's got a bunch of self-released albums, and doesn't appear to have had much of any outside references. You need to show that he meets these guidelines for an article to stick around here. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Thought that looked familiar... it's been deleted previously. And repeatedly. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to request some assistance on the Seasteading page. I have a fairly clear bias against the subject, in that I am responding to a knee-jerk emotional reaction against what I see as rampant promotion by people pushing a libertarian agenda, creating a myriad of poorly-sourced pages (another page I recently gutted was Free State Project, many of these pages are sourced almost exclusively from self-published websites of the organizations themselves). I nominated it for deletion, but was convinced by other users that the page was notable enough for inclusion. I recently removed material from a self-published source that I saw no evidence for reliability. I'm worried about getting into an WP:Edit War, however...which is why I'm posting here for assistance. I am requesting two things: (1) some help/backup for maintaining high standards of quality sources, (2) a sense of perspective so that I am kept from being over-zealous in my quest to clean up these pages. I'm starting to get frustrated/annoyed with users which is never a good thing for me being unbiased. Cazort (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have formatted sources, removed dupes and citations as the article is properly referenced and is definitely about a notable movement. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

chariots of fire

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The article on the film Chariots of Fire, characterizes the story this way: "The story compares the similar athletic experiences of Abrahams and Liddell while portraying their vastly different characters and reactions to adversity, one who refuses to compromise his principles and one who is more than willing to bend the rules."

The basis for this slur, was that Abrahams used a professional coach, which the article alleges violated the rules. The fact is the coach in question, according to the Wikipedia article on Sam Mussabini coached a great many Olympic athletes in prior Olympics and in the 1924 event itself. I have been unable to find any source which supports the existence of such a rule. Indeed, quite the contrary.

In an article written for Perseus at Tufts University, the following quote appears about the ancient Olympics.

"Many athletes employed professional trainers to coach them, and they adhered to training and dietary routines much like athletes today."

Here is the citation.

It should also be noted, according to the Chariot article itself, it was Liddell who introduced Abraham to Mussabini, hardly what would be the expected behavior of someone of principle, if using a professional coach was prohibited. Moreover - and I mean to take nothing away from Liddell - the same article points out that contrary to the movie fabrication that he only learned of the Sunday conflict, between his religious beliefs and running, just before he left for Paris, he learned of it months before. Therefore there was no moral choice facing Liddell or refusal to compromise on his part.

What we have then is a fabricated story to besmirch Abrahams, a fabricated story to honor Liddell and I note finally, earlier in the article, Abrahams is identified as Jewish and Liddell, Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a content issue and should be discussed on the article's talk page: Talk:Chariots of Fire. – ukexpat (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Administrator has been misusing his status to launch a personal vendetta

Resolved: content dispute; no use or abuse of admin tools. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Andrewa (Andrew Alder) has been misusing his status as an admin to launch a personal vendetta against user Viktor van Niekerk. This initially started as a disagreement over a musicological definition, which Andrewa has evidently taken personally. A well-established musicological convention exists that if an instrument has at least one PAIR of strings, this is termed a "course" and not for practical purposes considered two individual strings. (The two strings are tuned to the same note and played as if a single string.) The guitar of the baroque period had 5 pairs of strings and is correctly termed a "baroque guitar" or "five-course guitar" by musicologists. Andrewa took it personally when Viktor van Niekerk repeatedly deleted his attempts to call the five-course baroque guitar a "10-string guitar". As a consequence Andrewa has launched a campaign against Viktor van Niekerk, misusing his status as an administrator to take over the re-writing of the article on "ten-string guitar". (This is a subject that Andrewa has absolutely no experience of, while Viktor van Niekerk is recognized as a world authority on this topic. As a consequence of this manipulation of wikipedia, Viktor van Niekerk has had to create a new website to promote correct, scholarly information about this instrument, as the wikipedia entry has become a joke at the hands of a despot editor who speaks with no authority about the subject - and gets away with it because he is a wikipedia administrator. I beg of someone to look into this, some objective administrators to step in and recognize what is going on. Here is Viktor van Niekerk's website on the topic: [5]

After repeatedly confronting Andrewa (in forums outside wikipedia) about continuing to link from wikipedia to pages that contain PROVEN misinformation, Andrewa has continued to deny that there is anything wrong with the pages he has been linking to. This one, for instance [6] in which the author claims falsely that "there are FOUR missing sympathetic resonances on the six string guitar. If you play a C, Bb, Ab, and Gb on the first string E, there will be less sustain from these notes than the others because there are no sympathetic resonant strings." Andrewa has elsewhere on the internet repeatedly denied that there is anything false about these statements, even though we have PROVEN that Narciso Yepes (the inventor of the instrument) always verifiably stated EIGHT (not four) missing resonances on the 6-string guitar, and that (aside from C, Bb, Ab, and Gb) also G, F, Eb and Db have no resonance. The above statement that Andrewa defends as correct, CLEARLY logically and mathematically claims that the resonances of G, F, Eb and Db, along with D, E, A and B must be present. (There are 12 notes in western music. If four are claimed to be missing, then eight are logically present.) Andrewa knows this, can count, and is an English-speaker. I can only conclude that he is misusing his status as an administrator to get his way in what is nothing more than a personal grudge. Clearly we cannot have administrators on wikipedia upholding proven misinformation over historical and scientific facts.

PLEASE, I beg of you, would some objective administrators please look at and at and the archives of the wikipedia article on "ten-string guitar". What is happening here is not just. I call for Andrewa's admin rights to be revoked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Context: (talk · contribs) has previously edited User:Viktor van Niekerk and is almost certainly a sock of the latter.
This issue previously been raised at length at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive56#Ten-string guitar article and (WP:TLDR warning) Talk:Ten-string guitar.
External help would be welcome, but for a different reason. As far as I see it, Andrewa performed much-needed cleanup on an article with a bad case of WP:OWN by a tendentious editor, with a strong conflict of interest, determined to make the article reflect the bias of one particular guitar player. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm forgetting some particular incident, but I don't think I have used, yet alone misused, my admin powers with respect to this bitter and long-running dispute. Yes, our first disagreement was over article scope and naming, but there were many other issues with the articles concerned.
I would welcome others becoming involved, and am grateful for the support I have already received.
I am also happy to respond to the details above, but perhaps that's enough for me to say for the moment.
Oops, no, I should also point out that User:10String guitar also appears to be the same person as User:Viktor van Niekerk and User: Andrewa (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
You title this "abuse of admin power". First of all, this is not exactly the right venue to raise abuse of admin power. Secondly, the admin action I can see against Viktor van Niekerk is a block by Gwen Gale, not Andrewa. Andrewa appears to have left it to another admin to take action on a dispute he is actively involved in himself. This is absolutely the right thing for an admin to do in such circumstances. I can see no potential abuse of admin power there. The civility issue is already being dealt with at Wikiquette alerts and you should not forum shop. You have not actually stated what action of Andrewa constitutes an abuse of power. Disagreeing with him over the article is not itself an abuse, disagreements can occur with any editor. I think you really need to accept that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. All editors should be treated with civility, and any issues discussed on the talk pages, treating other editor's as equals. Many of Viktor's comments show that he does not accept the right of others to edit the article, which, of course, is going against a core Wikipedia principle. SpinningSpark 08:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
So, if you could concentrate here on just the issues with the article content. You say that your views on the number of missing resonances are verifiable. If that is so you should be able to link to them here (or give author/title/isbn if an offline book). Please not that self published sources are not counted as reliable sources, and I have in mind here the website that Viktor has created to counter the Wikipedia article. Andrewa seems like a reasonable person to me, although I have had no dealings with him. I am sure that this can be worked out with him if reliable sources are presented and everyone remains civil. SpinningSpark 09:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Viktor's essay on resonances, above, has been repeated many times both inside and outside of Wikipedia, and is the basis of his equally repetitive claims that Janet Marlow is dishonest, and more recently that I am dishonest too. In my opinion he is just playing with words, see Talk:Ten-string extended-range classical guitar#Wikispam for a bit more detail on this.
My only association with Viktor is that I have refactored and expanded the article on ten-string guitars against his wishes. For about a year prior to that it was a personal essay promoting his preferred tuning, which he defended with personal attacks. In that time by my count these resulted in five newbies leaving Wikipedia. See this old version for the pre-refactor article.
The current dispute appears to me not to be about article content at all, but simply that Viktor wants Wikipedia to link to his websites and not to Janet Marlow's. Again, see Talk:Ten-string extended-range classical guitar#Wikispam. Andrewa (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I think this issue would get more admin input if posted at WP:ANI, especially if allegations of sockpuppetry are being made, or failing that, escalating it up the dispute resolution process. – ukexpat (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that the issue is disruption on the part of Viktor, designed to protect the external links to his personal site and to discourage linking to others that do not support his views.
Any assistance in dealing with this appreciated. I don't want to waste any more time on it than I need to, but obviously WP:DR escallation is one option. Andrewa (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Viktor has succeeded in putting me in a difficult position, which I think was his intent. But we need to move on, see Talk:Ten-string extended-range classical guitar#Time to act.

I think we have consensus here that his charges against me above are false.

Is it too harsh to also label them malicious? Andrewa (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, if you aren'y accused of admin abuse at least once a week, then you aren't doing your job right. Seriously, in 100% of the cases, the phrase "admin abuse" can be translated to "blocking me" and nothing else. And you didn't even block him. Its even better to be accused of abuse for something you didn't even do. That takes skeelz... 19:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Point taken. I guess someone will close this eventually according to the procedures for this page, and archive it so that if this behaviour persists, we can deal with that in due course. Andrewa (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Marking as resolved. Archiving will occur automatically, once the thread is inactive for a period. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

POV/NPOV Dispute, Not Sure How to Proceed

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There has been some disagreement concerning whether a certain statement on the Hamas article is POV or not. The dispute existed before I became active there. I thought that it had been resolved and the article itself returned to NPOV after having been tagged for POV. However, I recently found the statement returned along with the POV tag; and the argument has begun again. I really do not know what to do at this point. PinkWorld (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Pink
I may have jumped the gun here: it could be that a simple revert edit might have switched back to a statement ("best known for suicide attacks") that I had tagged as pov-statement and later dropped. It is hard for me to tell, though, because I am really inexperienced at editing actual articles. The earlier debate on whether or not to include that statement was [here]. PinkWorld (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

I see that no one has respondedand I see that there is a lot of history attached to this. If you cannot resolve it on the article talk page you could take it to WP:Mediation cabal, perhaps. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Basal Metabolic Rate

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have been contributing to the article Basal Metabolic Rate, but a user named "WhatamIdoing" has been erasing my postings and my attemtpts to answer Wikipedia suggestions for improvement to make the article better. The thrust of the dispute seems to be the relevance of monitoring heart rate using gas analysis versus going to a gym and working out with weights to maintain a higher BMR through increased skeletal muscle accumulation. This is based on two references and the provider of that suggestion does not state his point of view (i.e. does he work at a health club.) I have been consistently answering questions with references and have stated my point of view. So I am curious why the current editors are blocking my contributions. I have tried communicating but they have erased my most recent contributions without explaining why I was censored. I was wondering what the process of mediation entails? I have looked up the two references that are used in the first paragraph by "Arcadian" in the talk page for the feedback and supported by "whatIamdoing", and the references do not establish the kind of precedent that is implied by this new addition. There are hundreds of articles that posit the opposite point of view, namely that aerobic exercise monitored by accurate technology corresponds to gas analysis. Weight training is helpful in some ways, but BMR is an aggregate measurement that measures organ efficiency, not muscle efficiency. So the addition of the quote in the lead paragraph denying the importance of aerobic measurement and training for BMR understanding is inconsistent with the principles of Exercise Physiology. In the classic text by McArdle, BMR is clearly explained as being predominatly influenced by the liver not the muscle tissue. As we age sarcopenia reduces muscle tissue mass and fat tissue mass (adipocytes) take/s on a more significant or greater role in determining BMR. This gives women an advantage in the aging process as I explain in the talk section. Thus women live 7 years longer than men across the lifespan in every culture predominantly because of the hormone differences that do not predispose them to muscle mass advantages. The two Journals that are quoted in the first paragraph fail to explain that phenomenon, and indeed most of the articles reviewed by American Clinical Journal of Nutrition and the Applied Physiology Journal speak of the importance of walking as a way to manage BMR and this is advocated by the Surgeon General, the American College of Sports Medicine, the CDC, Kaiser Permanente, American College of Cardiologists, the American Physical Therapy Association, the American Diabetes Association and several more. Weight training has a role, but it is not predeterminate for BMR management as is currently implied by the recent edit which failed to explain the purpose of the additon to the main paragraph and it seems to deny the principle thesis that BMR is a measurement of oxygen utilization which can be approximated by heart rate monitoring.

Muscle tissue emphasis actually raises blood pressure and recent research that I would be willing to post, posits that endocrinal imbalances frustrate type two tissue training for diabetic persons who wish to manage their glucose utilization more efficiently.

The reference for Exercise Physiology was listed previously in the Biochemistry section of the article but it seems that "Arcadian" and "whatamidoing" injected their sources from Clin Nut and Joural of Applied Physiology in the section that lists the order of importance of organs for BMR (pg 134 in McArdle's text on Exercise Physiology.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BRileyPTA (talkcontribs) 09:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration and if I can be assisted with the matter of why "WhatIamdoing" is erasing and blocking my ideas and references for support I will continue to contribute.


<e-mail address redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by BRileyPTA (talkcontribs) 08:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You should try and resolved this on the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Kripalu Center

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hoping that someone could give 5 minutes to address some concerns we have at Kripalu Center, particularly whether or not the entire economics section is encyclopedic. This is also discussed at the talk page. The entire article could some degree of attention. Thanks! --ThujaSol 17:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that article could do with attention. The whole economics section should be removed. I am not very sure that this meets notability guidelines. There is only one reliable source that I see. There must be hundreds of yoga centres and other cult places in the US. I don't think that they are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Xghostfacexx insists on adding obscene language and superflous text to the page claiming he is the original writer. Keeps reverting cleanup edits calling them vandalism, even after User:Alansohn reviewed and declared the edits to be otherwise. Links provided in article do not match up to the information they are linked to. User has been warned twice, he removed vandalism warnings from his talk page. Request third party opinion. I've kept the page as it is after his latest revert, my version was this Anish7 (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have taken this to Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_41#Gharjamai and have been advised to go to WP:AIV with any further incidents. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User SamJohnson posting false accusations of sockpuppetry

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:SamJohnston has accused me of being a sockpuppet on multiple occasions. His accusations are unfounded. When asked for proof, he claims to be "workign on it", but repeatedly adds the sockpuppet banner to my user talk page. I would like him to stop these actions. Quite frankly, I have no idea where he got the idea from, except for the fact that I had an old account without unification (just fixed that) and I have commented a few times recently (as a relative noob) with out logging in and also without signing my comments properly. Thanks you Memsom (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

To be clear - one account - but it said it was "old style" without unification. When it ran the unification process, it only found one user, which was this one I use now. Memsom (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually the accusations were genuine and an investigation was filed with evidence (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Memsom) but closed after User:Memsom explained himself (above and on talk pages). -- samj inout 03:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Having read the case, I can see where Sam was coming from - it did look dodgy to me too, until you realise that the IP address that cause the most suspect edit - indeed the one that caused an admin to reopen the case and ask for more details, was nothing to do with me. As far as I'm concerned, SamJ and I have put aside any personal issues we have and agreed not to put ourselves in to a conflict situation again. For my part, I have made a conscious decision not to get involved with any of SamJ's edits or pages SamJ has a strong presence on (he lists a number on his user page). Memsom (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe people won't suspect that you are a sock if you don't give them reason to LetsdrinkTea 23:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Cape Cod Community College

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I am a long time reader of wikipedia, but just started contributing. A few months ago, while reading the article on Cape Cod Community College, I noticed that the entry listed "Harvard of the Middle Cape" as a nickname for the school. That seemed odd, so I decided to add a citation. I googled the phrase, and was unable to find any reference to this other than the various sites that copy wikipedia entries verbatim. I put in a citation needed, and nothing much happened. I then removed the nickname, and asked in the edit history that anybody who put it back please put a citation as well. It got added back by an anonymous IP. I fixed it again, referencing Wikipedia:Citing, asking that anybody who put it back please include a citation. It got added back *again* yesterday, with nothing in the edit history other than, "tru cape coders know this name is real." It's obviously unproductive to keep up an edit war, and the person who keeps doing this doesn't have an account I can send a message to for resolution purposes. So what do I do next? Downfall2209 (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

Simple fact is that things need to be backed up by citations; I've removed the nickname, as per your comment here that you couldn't find any references for it. I see the IPs have said it's "common knowledge" - well, common knowledge means not much in terms of WP:RS. I'll keep an eye on the article and deal with it if necessary. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, considering it is the only institute of post-secondary education in the Middle Cape area (a small area indeed), it seems a dubious distinction at best... It's sort of like being the Wayne Gretzky of your local rec hockey league... 12:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

would like to request articles?

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

any help? --Dairywebz (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

you are a registered editor you can create articles yourself. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a system for requesting articles, but it relies on someone else caring enough to make the article for you, which is pretty unlikely. In case you don't know how to make articles for yourself, here's a standard message:
Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.
Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.
If you still think an article is appropriate, see Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. Algebraist 02:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Oddball article

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hydraulic hooklift hoist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I spotted hydraulic hooklift hoist some time ago. As it's written, it to pretty seriously go against the MOS. It's a neat-sounding topic, but really I have no clue about this and no idea where to even begin fixing it up. I posted this to WT:TRUCKS a couple days ago as well, but I'm not sure that's necessarily the right WikiProject for this topic. Considering the aritcle's over 2 years old, I figured it'd be better to list it here than just leave it for longer since it's IMO a pretty badly messed up and neglected article. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 12:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, you've put some tags on, which is good. I see taht the major author seems to be an IP address, so there is not much hope in contating the. I would suggest leaving it as is for a couple of weeks and if no-one improves it move for AfD. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Smells like a copyvio to me, but I can't find it. It's definitely a marketing piece, though; a hooklift hoist is just a multi-hinged boom usually attached to a truck for picking up small loads and placing them on the truck. The whole theory of hydraulics is definitely not necessary for explaining that. I'd be willing to bet that a manufacturer's rep built this article at some point. It could possibly stand on its own with a massive rebuild... Tony Fox (arf!) 17:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

User following my edits

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Chrisieboy has been following me on EVERY single edit I make and changing them. He is basically following me and making my wiki-life a living hell. He reverses edits from an article to which I have more of a profession than him...

I was just wondering If I could make my contributions private, I don't want to be followed by this user GrumpyGuts (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If by private, you mean making edits without attributing them to you, then no you cannot, it is a legal requirement of the GFDL that all edits are attributable. In any case it is patently untrue that Chrisieboy has changed all your edits since the two you made immediately before this post have not been reverted. Of the ones I looked at he gave apparently valid reasons for reverting. You will need to provide diffs showing unwarranted changes if this complaint is truly a serious one. SpinningSpark 23:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Google versus Wiki

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Rlathe (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)The entry for myself was flagged recently with "orphan status" This is highly understandable. In a google search the No. 3 item concerns a blogspot item issuing allegations of inappropriate behavior. As Wiki properly notes, these are unsubstantiated. Blogspot is wholly owned by google. A search on Clusty, for instance, does not highlight any blogspot item on the same search parameters in at least the first 100 items. This is a clear instance where google policy is unjust and prejudicial. Google has a different agenda to Wikipedia: this has an inappropriately large influence on Wikipedia listings. Kind regards Richard LatheRlathe (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you need help? I'm afraid I'm not sure what you would like to request. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused as well, could you please clarify Rlathe? -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 03:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
My best take: Rlathe is concerned about the tag stating the article is orphaned, but seems to think it's something to do with off-Wiki search rankings or something. Rlathe: the "orphaned" tag means that your article isn't linked to by other Wikipedia articles. It has nothing to do with anything occurring off-Wiki. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Most likely concerned about the article Richard Lathe, which he seems to suggest is about himself, and is tagged as an orphan article. I think the complaint might be related to the "cautionary note" at Talk:Richard Lathe... but as we aren't talking about it, there's nothing we can do about it. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Do products such as Speedlite 580EX II, Speedlite Transmitter ST-E2 and Speedlite 580EX really deserve their own articles. They're products by a well-known and notable company (Canon), but do WP guidelines really state that every product produced by a notable company is inherently notable ? Where's the dividing line between that and WP becoming a consumer catalogue for company products ? Personally, I'd have though these should be merged into some article about the Canon flash range, but would prefer some feedback before I get trampled on :-) CultureDrone (talk) 12:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

When in doubt, refer to WP:N. If the individual products have reviews in reliable sources, then they may merit their own article. Also, there are some stylistic concerns; even having relevent source material does not mean that a subject needs its own article, there may be compelling reasons to merge these into a single article, for example, on the product line, especially where the individual cameras (in this case) may be doomed to "permastub" status. However, this discussion should best occur on the talk page of one of these article. Start a merge discussion, and link to it from the other affected articles so interested parties can comment. 12:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Really, as both an editor and a canon photographer, I would think that the Speedlites would be better merged into an Canon_EOS_flash_system. These are widespread devices but they are designed and marketted as an ETTL flash system and would be better discussed as a whole from an enc point of view. Mfield (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
So am I, and I second that. – ukexpat (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I have added the 430EX,430EX II and 550EX to the merge proposal. Mfield (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

edit <> view

Resolved: Question answered. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 01:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Erik9bot#Baronets_2. Kittybrewster 21:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I might understand your request. You're looking for the tag. Wrap everything in your message with .... If this does not make sense, let me know. If you want me to make the change for you (so you can see what I mean), let me know. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 21:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Kittybrewster 21:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

unintended edit war on the Bushmaster M17S page

Resolved: Seems to have been a compromise that satisfies all parties. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 01:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been trying to add some content to:

When I first added it, Nukes4Tots removed it with a terse comment indicating it was wrong. I corrected what was wrong, then he again removed saying it was original research. I then undid his change, and added a reference link. Then, he removed it a third time, threatening to turn me in as a 3RR violator.

So far, I've undone his edit, and he's removed my edits three times now, even when there are factual references.

As the edit finally sits, I think it is both factual, and backed up by a reference. However, this person continues to blankly remove the content.

What am I doing wrong here, or how should I resolve this? My inclination is to revert his again, but I'm coming here for help instead.

Lagaman (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things:
  1. You should take up dialog on the talk page. If you bring up your intended additions and discuss them with other parties there you will avoid the kind of edit warring that leads to 3RR issues and may find that the other party will explain their objections in more detail than in a revert summary. If someone reverts something, take it straight to talk. If the other party refuses to discuss then you have some high ground, as you will have made an effort to engage.
  2. You should add the reference as an inline citation rather than just adding it to the references. That way it makes it clear where the information comes from... so use <ref> Bushmaster FAQ ID #1004</ref> right in place after the text you are adding and it will get a citation number automatically and appear at the bottom.
  3. You need to make sure that the text you are adding says what is in the supplied ref and does not infer anything extra or make any conclusions of its own - that would be original research (disclaimer - I didn't look closely at what you added or the ref to check if that was the case, so if it does not apply here then all good)
  4. Make sure the source is reliable and explain why on talk. It does come from a help forum, so some might try and say that forums are not a reliable source, but it is from the manufacturers help forum, staffed by their staff so it should represent official company statement - that would make it reliable. Explain that fully.

Hope that helps. Mfield (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. They are helpful, and I have done as you suggested.

If they do not engage, what next steps should I take? Lagaman (talk) 05:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You might want to drop a note at Nukes4Tots' user talk page that you've asked for advice from here and want to take the discussion to the Bushmaster M17S talk page in the hopes of gaining a wider discussion. I'll drop by in a bit and try to chime in as a neutral 3rd party. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 06:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I have dropped Nukes4Tots a note linking this request. Mfield (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocking with no warnings?!

Resolved: Handled elsewhere. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I know that Wikipedia generally blocks *vandals* only after 4 warnings (generally). However, I was using the automatic date-unlinking script by Lightmouse because I was unaware there was a "temporary injunction" on date unlinking. I just got a very rude message from a Wikipedia admin, User:MBK004, stating he could have simply blocked me for a day. No admin should block a user who is unaware of a particular rule without warning a user first. It makes me wonder if any of the users on the block list further down on that page were even warned. I want an assurance that administrators of Wikipedia are supposed to warn editors that they are doing something wrong before blocking them, and I'd like to know why this admin was so rude. RainbowOfLight Talk 02:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You should post this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Mfield (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The matter was resolved at the injunction's talk page instead. Never mind. RainbowOfLight Talk 02:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
This has been a very ill-tempered long running issue with edit-warring on both sides. Battle-hardened participants are inclined to "shoot on sight" at the moment. Sorry you got caught up in it. SpinningSpark 09:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Why can't create a nonexistent page

Resolved: --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried to create a page for Smithsonian Institution Libraries, which does not exist. Such a page used to exist until 2006, per Smithsonian Institution discussion page. I created a page under Smithsonian Libraries, instead. But I want it to be under the correct heading, Smithsonian Institution Libraries. Thank you.Meaningofitall (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)meaningofitall

It does exist, as a redirect - Smithsonian Institution Libraries - to Smithsonian Institution. You can edit the redirect if your content is well-sourced. You might want to include a reference/link to the main article. Then you should replace your existing article with a redirect to the new one. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I moved it in for you. Mfield (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both! All I know about Wikipedia contributing, I learned a few hours ago. Much more to still learn. Meaningofitall (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to come back here if you have other questions. And don't be surprised if/when other people come along and edit the page; on thw whole they'll help to improve it, even if it's not quite what you might have expected. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

moving user page to main region

Resolved: for this page's purposes. Article is in userspace and is discussed at editor's talk page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to move my user page to the main region. Please advise or move the page for me. Thank you,

Nhbaldwin (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, You'll be able to move it once you're auto-confirmed, after 4 days and 10 edits. However, I'm not sure it's quite ready to move yet. It would be much more likely to survive if you could show notability of the company; it needs to meet the standards at WP:CORP. I'll put some links to other useful info on your talk page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
In the meantime I've moved it to a sandbox, User:Nhbaldwin/Apollo Systems, since it was a draft article, not a proper userpage. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I've added relevance based on history and ties to larger conglomerates as well as technologies in use by the US government. Is that enough to warrant moving the page to the encyclopedia, and can someone move it for me? Thanks much,
Nhbaldwin (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Not quite. There needs to be independent 3rd party coverage of the firm in order to establish its notability, and that needs to be shown in the page. The links given for notability and for WP:CORP spell that out in more detail, should that be helpful. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

OBTS: Teaching Society for Management Educators

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I am a member of the Board of OBTS and the Communications chair. As part of my duties, I was directed by the Society's President to create a Wikipedia entry about the Society. I created a new entry as no entry existed, using wording from our official website since that wording best describes who we are and what we do. I received a notification that the entry was tagged for speedy deletion. How can this be resolved easily? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary Coombs (talkcontribs) 20:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Several points: First, you should not be writing articles about subjects with which you are closely associated because of conflict of interest concerns. Second, copyrighted material can be made available for use on Wikipedia if the copyright owner follows the process set out as WP:IOWN. Third, any material from the subject's website is likely to be promotional in tone and an article based on it will probably be speedily deleted as spam. Fourth, any article about his subject will have to demonstrate its notability by reference to reliable sources. Bottom line, if this organisation really is notable, someone else will write an article about it in due course. – ukexpat (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Or better yet, put it on the board of requested articles. (no idea what it's called though, can someone else lend a hand?) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:REQUEST? --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


I am concerned regarding the article List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population.

I was initially involved in corrected what appeared to me to be a factual inaccuracy only to be reverted on the basis of lack of reference which strikes me as fair enough. However even after providing official references my corrections were reverted again without justification. Since I wanted to avoid an unproductive revert war I went on the talk page only to realise that the very fact I wanted to correct was already subject of a discussion with a clear consensus in favour of the correction.

Furthermore the validity of the main source has been abundantly contested by many contributors.

After a few month and several unanswered discussions, modifications are still arbitrarily reverted to data generally considered as inaccurate.

To be honest I am a bit lost and confused regarding the situation. Ghaag (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could you be more specific as to which facts you corrected and which sources and discussions exactly you are referring to. There are a lot of statistics and a lot of discussions so it is important to be clear. Mfield (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, specifically I was trying to modify the entry regarding the so-called Manchester-Liverpool area by referring to the British office of national statistics. The talk page discusses this specific topic multiple times in "#9 UK figures" & "#18 Manchester". Ghaag (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
As the main source of these articles appears to be publications of a one man band, namely Wendell Cox, allegedly a an opponent of public transport, it would seem that articles based solely on his data are unlikely to be encyclopaedic and should probably be deleted. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
A number of users have expressed similar concerns regarding the validity of the source on the article's talk page (#2, #9, #14,

#24, #26, #27) as well as many many more.

However I only tried to flag some specific data as dubious and the article as "disputed" which I hope is a reasonable and productive position given the context. I am also trying to engage the contributors into discussion rather than unilateral revert but to no avail so far.
Ghaag (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Correction to above - one other source is a one man band Stefan Helders and it appears that the Wiki pages are being owned by User:Polaron. Looks like a serious rethink of the purpose and need for these lists is required. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, In accordance with WP:AD I tried to had a {{disputed}} and a {{dubious}} warnings pointing to the relevant section in the talk page in an attempt to draw more people in the discussion. Only to see it reverted without any input in the dicussions nor answer on the user talk page.
  • My question is should at least the warning be maintained on the page ?
Ghaag (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I have re-inserted the disputed tag. I see you have requested help from the Mediation Cabal. I hope all goes well. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This author became involved in a highly contentious dispute with the website, a highly respected and award winning RS site. The author's dispute (which proved to be fabrication on her part and not that of AfterEllen) is of great interest to her LGBTQ readership -- to whom she herself has reached out.

Her own justification for falsely accusing this site of misquoting her, as explained in the reference, is related to struggles with her sexuality. Alison (talk · contribs) has argued that this is "not true". But by the authors own admission, it is.

The details of this dispute have constantly been removed by the editor Alison, arguing that it does not meet BLP standards. As this is backed up by sources from a respected and verifiable site, this is simply not the case. This dispute is part of the story of this figure (who has positioned herself as an LGBTQ advocate) and should be public knowledge.

While I am willing to, grudgingly, remove the reference to struggles with her sexuality (although this was given as her justification for threatening and offensive comments about the lesbian community), the details of the dispute should be in the public domain?

Jsrchicago (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

At Wikipedia we have a very high burden of proof for information included on Biographies of Living Persons. Anything that is in any way controversial or potentially libellous must be reliably sourced to a primary THIRD PARTY source. are not and can never be an independent reliable source for information on a dispute they were involved in. If there were some coverage of the issue by a truly independent source then the matter could be discussed for inclusion. Until that point it is an absolute no no. Please also be aware of 3RR, which prohibits editors from more that 3 additions or reversions of the same content in a 24 hour period. It is in place to prevent the kind of edit warring which has been taking place on the article in question. Mfield (talk) 05:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Mfield. That's exactly where I stand on the matter. It's already been discussed off-wiki in a number of places and frankly, the BLP subject must come first here. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for personal agendas, especially not at the expense of a BLP subject - Alison 06:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
My understanding, from an admin on this board, is that Wikipedia's stance on editing is as follows:
"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."
The dispute with AfterEllen would constitute "notable, verifiable and do not infringe on the subject's privacy". The :::point of contention, being her sexuality. Given that the subject herself brought her struggles with her sexuality :::into the public domain this is worthy of note and no infringement on privacy.
So, if a third party source can be found (, then this is :::a legitimate edit? user:jsrchicago:jsrchicago
That blog is not a reliable source - see also verifiability/self published sources. Mfield (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
What about this one, then? . —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The link above leads to an online magazine with an interview with the subject about the controversy. Surely this should be considered a reliable third party source?Owomnyc (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that that is a WP:Reliable source either. The only references to it that I can find are self-references or blogs. No statement of editorial policy or ownership appears on the website. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Language issues and references

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the general policy or guideline for using references that are published in a different language than the main article? My current prediciment involves another user who added some really dubious information to an English-language page, but the reference he cited was in Ukrainian, and I can't find an easy way to translate it. I'm wondering that, if anyone else is reading the article in English, how will they be able to use or judge the reference themselves? What's the point of it then? Shouldn't it belong on the Ukrainian version of the page? -LogisticEarth (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The standard is reliable sources, without regard to language (or being online, or cost). This does make it difficult sometimes; while a lot of Wikipedia is based on free web resources in English, there's no such requirement. Studerby (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there some pool of translators or something like that that I could get to look over the page, translate it, or judge it's veracity? -LogisticEarth (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Consider calling the article and edit to general attention here, so that others could perhaps ponder the likely reliability of the article, source, and edit? Xenophon777 (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The article in question is in this section of the Honey wikipedia article:Honey#Preservation The paragraph in question is:

"Heating up to 37°С causes loss of nearly 200 components, part of which are antibacterial. Heating up to 40°С destroys invertase, and important enzyme. Heating up to 50°С turns the honey into caramel (the most valuable honey sugars become analogous to sugar). Generally any larger temperature fluctuation (10°С is ideal for preservation of ripe honey) causes decay."

The referenced web article for this info is here: [] Thanks in advance for any help/insight -LogisticEarth (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You could ask at Wikipedia:Translation for the Ukranian version of this artcile tio be translate which migh help. Ukrainan bversion at: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Gerald N. Epstein Revision Looking for Comments

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have entered a revision of an entry on Gerald N. Epstein and would appreciate comments. Many thanks. David Hollidays (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Revised page in userspace at User:David Hollidays/Gerald Epstein. – ukexpat (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Ongoing discussion at Talk:Gerald_Epstein Jezhotwells (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Kimkins diet plan

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The information about the Kimkins diet plan is incorrect and nothing but speculation. The allegations against the diet and the founder are not only incorrect but unfounded. Yes there is a lawsuit pertaining to fraud, but the case has not even gone to trial yet. Kimkins is an excellent low carb diet not unlike many others online. We have over 40,000 current members that are very satisfied and because of the actions of a handful of trouble makers we are suffering sales. Wikipedia is the primary online source for facts on any subject and for the editors to keep the one sided views posted without opposition is not only unfair but wrong. We have tried to correct the description of Kimkins only to be edited by these "haters" with nothing better to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The record of contributions for that particular IP address shows that somebody at that address blanked the page - that's not really going to be considered constructive. Since you sclaim to represent the manufacturer, the best thing would be for you to read our conflict of interest policy and then make suggestions at the article's talk page rather than editing directly. If that doesn't work then please come back here, say so, and somebody will be able to help you. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deleting of a Company's Page and References

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

First, the editor deleted the company page citing blatant advertising (/adenin before it went to Adenine). Then the editor proceeded to remove the company from all pages where it's mentioned (not merely removing its internal link, but deleting them entirely even though competitors appear on the same lists with links to their own internal pages).

As for the company's page -- it listed the facts (who, what, where, etc.) and backed up these facts with footnotes. This posting involved studying Wikipedia's posting guidelines as well as company entries (competitors, too) that remain posted.

So I ask -- what is acceptable for a company page and mentions in related pages? If the company's pages weren't acceptable, then many others need deleting which had the same facts and more.

I've left a message on the editor's Talk page and still wait for a response. Thank you for your help. Wikipedia is a valuable resource and I'm doing my best to follow its standards.

Merylk (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Merylk

Perhaps a good approach would be to create a new page in your userspace, say at User:Merylk/Adenin, and then come back here and ask for some help in making sure it meets standards? No doubt there are other borderline, or even blatantly deletable, entries here, but that's not an argument to allow more such pages. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The article as deleted last (it was also deleted twice previously, including once at AFD was still promotional. It listed out the product modules, customizable apps, clients, included a section on "solutions" that read like marketspeak, and lacked outside reliable sources. I've just searched Google News and find a lot of PR Newswire (and boy does THAT article need to be beaten into shape!) references, but not much outside of that. User:Merylk: as suggested above, you should work on an article in your own space, seek out outside, neutral references, and build the article in a factual manner without going into the details of the great things the company offers. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

David Van Day, Dollar (band) and Thereza Bazar webpages on your website

Middle Colonies disinformation

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please straighten this out. There are some ludicrous assertions and throwing the book around to cover them up. Check the talk page for the lack of progress. I have been nothing but rational and my patience is at its end. Too many situations like this. Perhaps somebody can take over for me. (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page and your talk pages it seems to me that progress is being made, albeit slowly. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone focus on fulfilling "Copy to Wikisource"?

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I found that in Constitution of Sri Lanka, the bulk of the text was the constitution of Sri Lanka itself, which suggested that the text of the constitution may be a candidate for copying to Wikisource instead. I added a {{Copy section to Wikisource}} template to the appropriate place on the page. However, I found that this adds the page to Category:Copy to Wikisource, a category where pages appear to remain for long periods of time. The first two pages I looked at in the category had been tagged for copying to Wikisource for nearly a year or longer.

Is there a WikiProject, task force or other community within Wikipedia that takes a particular interest in transwikiing content to Wikisource? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest posting at Wikisource:Scriptorium. SpinningSpark 18:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

OR, Plot Descriptions, and Dispute

Stale: recommmended take allegations of COI, sockpuppetry etc. to WP:Administrators' noticeboard Jezhotwells (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently in a dispute with User:Dragonfiend over whether descriptive plot and cast descriptions of a fictional work (in this case, a webcomic called Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy) can be used without secondary citations. I made an argument that descriptions are fine given Wikipedia policies and cited the relevant text on the article's talk page [7]. Her response was to accuse me of COI and using multiple accounts (neither is true) and revert my edits to the article (she's reverted me several times if you look at the article history). I was hoping to work to consensus, but that seems less and less likely. I don't think I've posted anything that would warrant such a terse response, but I'd like someone to look at how I handled it and provide advice on what I could have done better and what I might do to to proceed. I've tried to compromise by shortening the plot, shortening the cast list, and letting her keep the COI tag (even though she and I are currently the only two main contributors), but none of this has worked. I also tried to use the talk page to work at consensus by explaining why I was editing as I was, but she hasn't really reciprocated unless I revert her edit and ask her to use the talk page (I fear this might be what angered her). I'd also like someone to make sure I'm reading WP:OR, WP:NOTOR, and WP:WAF right and correct me if I'm not. Thanks! Ancemy (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say that using a primary source for cast lists, synopsis, etc is fine. That is not OR. I have commented to that effect on the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you censoring Obama's entry

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you censoring Obama's entry? Is this the proper role for a nonprofit 501c3. It seems this type of editing is more political speech that would be more of a 501c4.

Here is a recent article on the bias you are showing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) (talkcontribs) 02:46, 9 March 2009

Might I suggest that you familiarise yourself with WP:reliable sources Jezhotwells (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Unjustified Deletions to "Gideon Koren" Page - Help Sought

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned and frustrated at what has happened to the entry for Gideon Koren. I added to this entry for a living person, which read like a PR piece, a reference to the fact that the man has been censured by two professional bodies for writing anonymous hate mail.

After I was challenged about my addition, I had my content significantly altered and then deleted. Under the associated Talk page I entered a detailed account of my motives for my interest and actions (I don’t know the guy, live in a different country, have a professional interest in anonymous letters, and feel the proven and admitted unethical behaviour is pertinent to individuals considering consulting or employing Dr Koren). I made known my name, unlike most other contributors, who for all the public know could include Dr Koren or his friends.

I also asked anyone altering or deleting my copy to explain their reasons. Today, I again find the section I entered has been deleted but without any justification posted. While not a technophobe (I have created websites with FrontPage), I don’t find editing Wikipedia easy and have limited time to learn. I would appreciate help in restoring the content I added under the heading “Controversial Behaviour”. This was kindly tidied up by another contributor. PB (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It took me some time to figure out that PB is in fact User:Wendwell. Not sure how that helps your case. The last edit made by User:Wendwell was on 27 January. Since then it has been copy-edited by numerous editors, but the essence remains. I see no deletion. Pruning perhaps. Others have added citations properly formatted and I see no problem. There is copious discussion on the talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

my edits are being ruthlessy deleted out by a user

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

ALR user is purposely deleing my edits to Wiki site information on RAF Rudloe Manor Wiki page.

First user deleted my further reading references, which makes no sense. Next user deleted my information relating to letters I had received from Ministry of Defence on stated facilities having moved to a new location in section UFO conspiracies, all my information relating to UFO sightings tracked by military on Radar, information for this is available for public scrutiny at the Public Records Office at Kew Gradens London. The user ALR deleted this information.

I think user ALR is a UFO information hater hence their deletion of material concerning this subject matter.

I think they are absuing the Wiki facility badly by taking away relevant factual information for their own personal reasons, and not in line with allowing adding of factual information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseekers666 (talkcontribs) 14:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You should discuss these changes with the user in question on the article's talk page. Algebraist 14:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
In accordance with WP:V, WP:RS, WP:Fringe, WP:OR and probably WP:COI
ALR (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, please note the links in the welcome message from User:ALR on your talk page. Material you add to a page needs to be verifiable and to have reliable sources. So, for example, quoting correspondence received isn't good practice because it's not verifiable by other editors. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Politically motivated attacks on Obama's web page.

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It has lately become some sort of political debate about what to include on the American President's wikipedia article. Most of the controversy seems to center around some sort of citizenship claim. Now, I don't know much about politics, or whether this is some sort of last-ditch republican effort or if it is a real concern. I don't know much about politics, or really care much about politics. What I care about are facts. And if some sort of pro-obama club is stopping all mention of this dispute, that is just as much of a concern to me as some sort of anti-obama club making the dispute the centerfold to the American president's Wikipedia page. Now, as much as I hate politics, I've done some fact checking, and it looks like a lot of people, either rightly or wrongly, are concerned about this. (see )

Now, I don't want wikipedia to become a political battleground. If a major dispute exists, we should not blacklist it. We should show both sides of it. We need, as an objective, fact based web site, to allow properly cited posts so long as they are devoid of bias. I think perhaps we should charge a pro-obama member with writing something acknowledging this dispute... something that basically says a lot of people are concerned, and here's why they claim to be concerned, and that many people think this is a political ploy, although those who claim to be concerned say it is a legitimate concern. ... or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

As discussed above, is not a neutral or reliable source. Further, there is a page for these contentions, at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)