Help:Contents

Help with TAGS

Hello.

I have some concerns regarding this article but am not really sure where to start Tudor Rickards there are so many TAGS that could be used i'm not sure what one would be the best?

While Tudor Rickards could possibly be notable enough for inclusion, his article reads like an advert for his business and methods and is not properly referenced. I think there is a lot of original research in there. I would appreciate it if an admin could take a look at it if you get chance. Thanks. Ponty Pirate (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, {{coi}} for certain. The article has been extensively edited by the subject and people who have met him. It seems pretty biased and unobjective too. Has it been nominated for deletion before? Mfield (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No. I don't think it has been nominated for deletion before. Is that an option? Funnily the main article is so long that my browser wont let me edit and put a tag on it. I have just tried. I'm using Firefox. Thanks for having a look. Ponty Pirate (talk) 07:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I put COI, OR tags on it & nominated the article for deletion. Thanks. Ponty Pirate (talk) 10:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And I have tagged it for G11 speedy deletion - it reads like a resume/curriculum vitae - clearly inappropriate in its current form. – ukexpat (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

CSD was declined, so it went to AfD, which closed as keep. The article still needs work however. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

I am worried and concerned about a possible edit war beginning on the article entitled "Cult of Personality" LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Personality

Specifically, I am speaking with Editor R. Fiend in his (her?) continually removing evidence of the alleged CoP forming around President-Elect Obama. There is a link for Hugo Chavez in there and the source for that one is also an opinion. However, there is enough anecdotal evidence to support a CoP around both individuals.

I am speaking with R. Fiend on his talk page, and hope to hear back from her (him?) soon. However, I am a newby here and the last thing I want is to be booted (or warned!) before I get my feet wet.

However, I also do not want this to degenerate into an edit war. I believe (my opinion) that given the fact that it appears as though R. Fiend seems to be doing most of the CoP Obama editing, I am concerned about her (his?) motives.

That is not a statement to be made lightly, nonetheless, I have concerns. Wikipedia should be agnostic whereas opinions and politics lie. I believe we as a resource and we as Wikipedians should be fair, even-minded, even-handed, and completely neutral.

However, I did wish to make you aware of the situation.

Happy trails! Dr. Entropy (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I tend to be wary of anyone who claims that there is "evidence" of "cult of personality" forming around any politician. Unless, like Kim Il Jong, a politician is actively and blatantly cultivating the CoP, it's generally going to be a matter of opinion. And right now, most of the talk of CoP around Obama seems to come from self-published bloggers and fringe-y pundits like Michael Savage. If you're going to cite Krugman, first, attribute him instead of the vague "there is evidence of alleged..." sentence, and second, keep in mind that Krugman was much more outspoken about his claim regarding the cult of personality in the Bush admin ([1] and [2]). Mosmof (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, Mosmof! Thank you for taking the time to write back, I appreciate it. I'm still a newby and am not sure in which way to write what you have suggested so that it could be presented in a factual, non-opinionated way. Although, to be blunt, somebody somewhere is going to get offended no matter what you do. Would something such as this be acceptable?

"According to columnist Paul Krugman, the Obama Campaign was '...seems dangerously close to becoming a Cult of Personality.' "

Happy Trails!! Dr. Entropy (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much about anyone being offended as much as keeping everything NPOV and verifiable. Krugman saying Obama supporters "seem dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality" (emphasis mine) is not the same thing as "evidence of alleged cult of personality developing", especially when in the next sentence, he gives an example of what he believes an actual cult of personality looks like. You have to be especially careful with a concept like CoP, since it carries a pejorative connotation, and is near impossible to verify. And you should also be careful to draw a clear line between a CoP-like fervor among supporters around, and actively crafting a CoP. Whatever you think of Obama and his supporters, drawing a parallel between Stalin/Mao/Kim Jong Il and Obamania is, I think, intellectually dishonest (and keep in mind that pundits, some more subtly than others, are drawing Hitler parallels without actually saying so). For that reason, I don't believe Obama belongs in the article. He simply doesn't fit the definition provided in the article introduction, and that CoP "arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise" Mosmof (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, Mosmof! Again, I do want to thank you for writing back to me, I do appreciate it. Please don't take what I am about to say as an argument, but I'm not sure that I agree with you. Here's why:

Recently, we've seen several news organizations openly admit to their pro-Obama bias. MSNBC comes quickly to mind, as does The Washington Post, both of whom stated that their coverage was biased. Two days ago (Wednesday 19-NOV) I was watching CNN during "The Situation Room" and one of the two anchors was openly laughing that nobody was shaking the hand of President Bush during some function or other. He stated that he couldn't see the President. The other anchor thought that was a bit excessive, as did I.

I'll be honest in that I don't like President Bush. Nevertheless, he is my President as will Barack Obama be when he takes the Oath.

Given these examples (simply Google them, or ask me and I'll provide a link later) isn't it possible that Mr Obama could be using said outlets for openly flattering comments and commentary?

We just saw on MSN how when Gov. Palin "pardoned" the turkey that the headline was that turkeys were dying behind her. I'm sorry, but in my opinion, that's not exactly unbiased. True it was, but if Mr Obama or Mr Biden had been there, I'd be willing to bet my entire year's salary that that line would not have been there. (Mr Lieberman, perhaps. His own party seems disgusted that he adhears to his conscience, but that's another matter.)

My only point is this: with several examples of major media organizations stating openly their pro-Obama bias, I believe it is possible that Mr Obama might be willing to manipulate them to produce favourable articles. Note that this is also my opinion, and while there is anecdotal evidence to support it, there is no proof. Also, I am not stating that he would, only that he could.

But again, I want to thank you for taking the time to write back. Considering some of open hostility I've gotten on several newsgroups, you come across as very mature and well spoken. Frankly, I don't believe there is a better way to have an honest discussion.

Happy Trails! --Dr. Entropy (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

LNER Peppercorn Class A1

Could I please have assistance with dispute resolution on LNER Peppercorn Class A1. The issue is trivial but the underlying principles might be applicable in other cases. There has been a long argument at Talk:LNER Peppercorn Class A1 which has proved impossible to resolve. The issue is whether Tornado is, or is not, the 50th member of the class. I maintain that this is a matter of opinion but MickMacNee maintains that it is a matter of fact because he has references to prove it. I believe that references are irrelevant in this case because references can only be used to establish facts, not opinions. Please advise. Biscuittin (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for posting here. I took a quick look, so I might have missed some subtleties, but it occurs to me that "member of the class" is going to be difficult to resolve until the class is defined more fully. If one means "locomotives built to a particular design", then the conclusion will be different from the case in which one means "locomotives commissioned by BR to design specification such and such". As to the matter of the "controversy", are there any reliable independent sources which describe the controversy? If there are, then it might be a legitimate part of the article, although it might fit better in the specific article on the tornado. If there are no sources, then it doesn't belong in the encyclopaedia, I'm afraid. I hope that helps, --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you please tackle this subtlety: Does an opinion become a fact simply because it has been published in the Railway Magazine? Biscuittin (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a universal answer to that, but sometimes it's parsed like this: "Bob Jones has said blah blah blah" and then it's sourced to where he was quoted. That tends to be in the context of a paragraph about "Some commentators say X, while others say Y". --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. In this case the quote from the Railway Magazine is: "From its earliest days, the A1 Trust regarded 60163 not as a replica or copy of any one of the 49 Peppercorn A1's, but as the 50th member of the class". Thus, the statement is the opinion of the A1 Trust and should not be claimed as an immutable fact. Biscuittin (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And as you say, we prefer facts to opinions. However, it is a citeable verifiable fact that the Trust has made this statement. That is, while the class remains loosely defined and therefore its membership can be subject to debate, there's no problem with a statement that the Trust has taken that position. Indeed I noticed a reference to this in the article; the text there doiesn't seem to be causing any problems at all. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have no problem with the text. My objection is to the heading which states "Tornado - 50th member of the class" as if this were a fact, rather than an opinion. Biscuittin (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The main issue actually is really rather simple. Tornado was never a BR locomotive. Hence, since we have to follow the LNER/BR classification, it was never classified. It could never have been. Secondly, from a article flow point of view it is better to list it separately at the end in a preservation section. Thirdly, the point of it not being an "replica" is really to do with them not building an exact replica but they can make modifications to. Fourthly, the stock list should match published sources (e.g. Yeadon, Longworth), which are historical works and would not be amended to include it. MacNee seems to be confusing a list of names with a stock list (including build and withdrawal dates). Tony May (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not a Wikipedia policy to match or even emulate historical paper volumes. There is no way any reader is ever going to be confused into thinking that despite all the explanatory text, and the 40 year difference in build years in the table, that it is a BR locomotive simply because it appears at the end of a table. If anything, leaving it out only serves to be disruptive as it attracts its addition by IPs who see the obvious chance to update the article, which given the supporting sources is not an unreasonable step. MickMacNee (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Locomotives in preservation and locomotives in service are dealt with separately in all other articles. The table is a stock list. Tony May (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping we were going to get some outside help here but it seems that we are just going to have a repeat of what has already been said. Biscuittin (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the edit war seems to have re-started at LNER Peppercorn Class A1. Biscuittin (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added a dispute template to the relevant section. Biscuittin (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As this page is to request help may I suggest that the discussion is held on the article talk page. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Am Unwarranted Redirect of a New Listing with the claim of Copyright Infringement

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Micromercurialism&diff=236963377&oldid=236646653

Eubulides rightly acknowledges that "[my] article's text appears to consist mostly of copyright violations. The list of references, which is the bulk of the article, is copied from pages 21–36 of a paper (in German) by Mutter et al. 2005 (PDF), PMID 15789284. The 247 citations are copied verbatim from Mutter et al. to Micromercurialism, with only one minor change that I can see"

However, Dr. Mutter and I have collaborated on this entry of Micromercurialism and I have the email from earlier this year to substantiate it. Further, Eubulides redirects to "Mercury Poisoning" which has very little to do with micromercurialism, and in fact is so stated in my text early on.

I was away for three months and unable to work on this important project which rightly lays out the role of chronic subacute mercury exposure. I had intended to eventually cull a lot of the references whiuch I had placed there (with Dr. Mutter's consent) until I had finished the subject.

I wish micromercurialism to be reinstated as its own independent topic and cease being redirected.

Thank you

Bruce R. Dooley, M.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdooley (talk • contribs) 00:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for posting here. If the content is copyright, then it can't stay here. Perhaps a precis or abstract would work? Please, be careful about our conflict of interest guidelines too. This isn't the right place for publishing your original research; eventually somebody else will write the article if need be. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The new man in Nicollette Sheridan's life

Resolved. Material has not re-materialized since.-Mfield (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like an opinion, please - I don't usually follow the Lives Of The Stars, but I happen to have David Spade on my watchlist because I followed a vandal there last week. Yesterday I removed this edit from the article; today it reappeared slightly modified as this. Similar material was added here to Sheridan's article. Cited or not, is such material acceptable for Wikipedia celebrity articles? It just seems trashy. --CliffC (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It certainly isn't what would be termed a reliable source, and even then there are no hard facts only rumors and gossip. I am reverting both them per WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:BLP. I have also posted to the editor's talk explaining all of that in more words. Mfield (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Advertising or not?

I'd be grateful if you could give me an opinion as to whether the content on these pages (below) qualifies as advertising. In every single case the same Book, it's Author and the Author's status is mentioned, not as a footnote reference, but within the content of the article.

I (and others) have previously tried removing it but invariably it gets reinstated, sometimes with a pithy comment. Each to his own... As per Wiki's suggestions I've contacted the person behind the edits some time ago to try and resolve this but I never had a reply.

I believe that this is advertising / self-promotion that doesn't enhance the quality of the articles it's featured within. However, I could be wrong which is why I am seeking another opinion and I'm happy to let this drop if you feel that's for the best.

This is the history of one of the pages where the edit reversals have recently happened again: [3]. This is a list of edits made by another user, in each case trying to remove the reference to the book. [4] All of these edits were subsequently reversed.

David T Tokyo (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

From the contribution history it looks like spamdalism to me. Will revert and warn soon. – ukexpat (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help - much appreciated. David T Tokyo (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Guy Browning

Dear Sirs

I recently added a link to Guy Browning's wikipedia page. - http://www.jla.co.uk/conference-speakers/guy-browning

Guy is an artist represented by my agency for corporate speaking and after dinner speaking engagements. The link I added to his page includes articles specially written for JLA and video footage of him speaking that is only available on our website.

To me this seems a valuable and useful addition to the information on Wikipedia about Guy and his activities outside of the books he writes and his agency Smokehouse.

The biography for Guy has no citations - but goes on to mention he is a comedian who avoids telling contentious or political jokes, the video on my site features him telling gags as part of a speech, which reaffirms the original editors prose.

Where I have pages with unique content such as commissioned articles written about key topics I would like to add them to Wikipedia. I am not trying to use Wikipedia as a 'linkfarm' as I know that the links from this page are not used by Google or similar search engines to boost my page rankingds due to the no follow instructions given to spiders.

You'll also notice on all of my pages on the site where there is a Wikipedia page we are hapy to drive content this way as we believe the more information a client of ours has the better understanding they will have if they should decide to contact us about a booking.

Best regards

Rob

PS. The biography of Guy Browning is currently out of date, his latest book is called Maps of My Life which was published in October 2008 by Square Peg. I would try and update it but whenever I make an edit they seem to get reverted within seconds anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobdevani (talk • contribs) 16:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the link was removed because it was considered linkspam in contravention of WP's external link guidelines, even if that was not your intention - it does look spammy when his agent adds links like that to the article. Because of your conflict of interest, I suggest that you open a discussion about that and the the new book, gain consensus then someone will edit the article (or not) accordingly. – ukexpat (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It would seem to me to be appropriate as an "official" Web site of the subject of the article. I would think it is no more "link spam" than the overtly commercial "official" web sites of popular musicians. Proxy User (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you read it? "Official" or not, it's touting his after dinner speaking, therefore promotional, therefore spam. – ukexpat (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

And there for, along those lines so are virtually every official musician web site here at Wikipedia. Do you as well object to those? I'm not trying to start an argument here, but honestly, I see little difference between the two, and those sites most certainly are found to be acceptable at Wikipedia. Do you object to *any* web site listing *anywhere* at Wikipedia that shills some product central to the notability of the subject? Remove the links to all commecial software companies as well, they shill for the company. Pepsi and Coke: there are products for sale at their web sites, remove the links. The Metropolitan Museum of Art sells posters at their site, shall we remove thin link? See where I'm going? Discuss, please. Proxy User (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No I am not advocating that at all, and for the purposes of this discussion other articles are irrelevant. In this context, a link to a page on his agent's website that specifically touts his availability as an after dinner speaker is spammy. – ukexpat (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It is his official Web page. It contains substantial biographical information. WP:OSE discusses articles, not legitimacy of external links, which are not mentioned nor alluded to. If being "spammy" was the criteria for external link removal, Wikipedia could free up terabytes of storage space by deleting all those 1's and 0's.

This discussion would be more appropriate on the Guy Browning talk page, but for the record here, I think the link is inoffensive and perfectly legitimate. Honestly, I wonder if Browning is even notable enough to have a Wiki article. Proxy User (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The link is spam, pure and simple. It has been added to the profiles of a number of UK celebrities/personalities and subsequently removed as spam. The Guy Browning article has a number of problems that need to be addressed, most notably it needs to be written from a neutral point of view and needs its weasel and peacock language removed. I don't doubt the subject's notability as I own one of his books.--TimTay (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

On-going disagreement with Damiens.rf

I have an article up at the wikipedia page about Dwight Lauderdale. This is the second article I've created and because of WP:BLP concerns I requested a review at a few areas. I got a reviewer, however, he and I are not in a disagreement of sorts. He repeatedly places a template on the page stating what he believes to be wrong with the article, he also took time to write in the talk page (at my request - to be fair) what he found wrong the compressed box at the bottom. I looked it over and answered his feedback (which was mainly - "Not referenced", which is not true, as evidenced by the article). I left him a the same response on his page and removed his template and collapsed his comments into a box. Since then, he's been repeatedly placing the same template on the article page and he has been reverting the collapsed box accusing me of "hiding the problems" not just once but again. In all fairness - I had to revert myself on the talk page because I violated WP:CIVIL (in the very least - no cursing mind you, but smart-aleck comments that pretty much attacked him!). I've been removing his template off the page as well, because I belive it's not correct, nor warranted. He's been reverting with edit s ummaries like "Address the concerns and don't hide them" (which was done right away, and can be seen on the talk page of that article) and "Don't hide the article issues, discuss on the talk page" (as I mentioned, I responded to his first critique both on this page and on his and he issued no response - a discussion requires two people :) ) His best comment was his most recent "(You didn't let me fix the article, didn't fixed the article yourself and didn't find anyone to fix the article. LEARN that you don't own it!) (undo)" To be fair, yes I have been reverting his template with "RV trolling" as I belive he really is trolling because, first, when I answered his original critique, I invited him to fix what he thought was wrong. This invitation has been standing since 11/17/2008. He has done nothing even remotely resembling any editing on the article except to place that template. Second, his claims have no merit at all (IMHO). I'm requesting Editor assistance, first to see if damiens.rf's claims have merit, and second, to see if he really is trolling, or if I"m the one in the wrong. Feel free to comment on the talk page or my page. Thanks KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 17:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've responded on the article talk page, and attempted to begin some cleanup on the article. BradV 21:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Mi-Ki or Toy Mi-Ki

There is a person who keeps changing the Mi-Ki breed page. They sound very much like a disgruntled buyer. Claiming the dog is nothing more than a mutt has health issues and gives vague references to puppy mills. I feel it is very unfair to allow a post like this to stand. Like any other breed of dog, there are good breeders and not so good breeders. I have changed the page to something more nuetral 4 or 5 times now and they keep switching it back. I'm sorry I really don't understand all your rules and regulations. It is not my intention to create a fight on your site. but i would sure like to see something a little less biased on this page. I did get a message telling me not to change it again without going to "talk" i don't understand. i went to the discussion page and foun d that rather confusing too. I'm afraid I don't have several hours to research this site on how to edit correctly. Is ther some kind of quic reference guide that i can use for assistance?

Thank you

Annette

Mi-Ki person

Please feel free to contact me via email if you choose

(Email address removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mi Ki person (talk • contribs) 02:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions, here, here, and here, you appear to be trying to remove large portions of the page and replace them with your own version. I would advise you to discuss with the other editors what you feel the problems are with the article and what improvements you would like to see. The best place to have that discussion is at Talk:Toy Mi-Ki. BradV 02:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?...

I saw User:Edwardsully add the semi-protected tag to the List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" after he recently edited it with false edits like this.

He likes to make changes to numbers and such without citations such as an addition here and a change of a number here. Should I assume good faith or are his legitimate edits like this only a coverup for a sort of numbers-vandalism? Themfromspace (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The page has been semi-protected since May (see the log), so you shouldn't have any trouble editing it. Regarding the other edits, I don't see anything that looks like vandalism. If you believe those numbers to be wrong, perhaps you could find a source and change them. BradV 04:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is a more obvious remedy: either remove material from the page which isn't reliably sourced or cn tag improperly referenced text. Most of it seems to be sourced from blogs or web sites without clear editorial responsibility or accountability. The AfDs on this article contained Delete votes complaining about the lack of reliable sources, and many Keeps said that this is an editorial problem and can be fixed through ordinary editorial process, it's not a reason for Deletion unless nothing is left after material without reliable source is removed. So ... I really wonder that this article has survived as it is, for so long. --Abd (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Most everything in that article is sourced. The problem was that in the edit I pointed out, the user had changed a sourced number (228) to a seemingly arbitrary one (300) that didn't fit with the reference. Themfromspace (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

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

I'm new to wikipedia. I've been doing some editing and I came across this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Lime. I'm a fan of the band Scarling. It needs some help but every time I try to change it, it gets reverted to its redundant original state.

Any editing help would be most appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.239.112.1 (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on there, but it's been done again. Could I suggest you go to the talk page and inquire as to why editors are removing your edits there? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone help me to comprehend

I’ve received a message [5] with link to [6] explained [7] I was unable to comprehend how my edits were matched to “area of conflict” - Estonian history—particularly post-World War II history in regards to my concerns about [8] - legal matters and legal acts interpretation – together with correct addressing the time of historical event existence. I try to made as wider as possible explanations on talk page for newcomers editors and for editors which not familiar with historical political geography, economics, demography and legal scope of responsibility of the different multi-national Institutions. Thank you in advance. Jo0doe (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The above editors' contributions have been disruptive to the articles due to poor readibility; moreover he engage in edit-warring and other mischief. An example of his approach:[9]. The edit history is quite clear [10]: it overwhelmingly consists of either low-level edit warring (doesn't violate 3R, but has been reverting other people's works every few days for months if not years) or unpleasant arguments on the talk pages that take up others editors' valuable time. He has been warned of such behavior here: [11] and here: [12] Despite such warnings he continues to smear others, such as here when he implied that members of the Ukrainian community abroad are Nazi collaborators or murderers: [13] and when he even accused other editors of supporting Nazi collaborators: [14]. It's great that finally someone is doing something about this. I know that I have been provoked by this editor but if you think that I'm just another edit warrior, feel free to look at my own record of contributions, particularly barnstars received for working cooperatively with those who have different viewpoints [15], etc. and compare it to that of the editor above.Faustian (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Evryone new your personal opinion about my edits [16] But please stop this never ending "Austrian officer" [17] approach. You know it's far reached from reality - as same as new order in Europe from [18] and I think your comment related to my recent [19] and forgot to [20]. Thank you to end your effort to put others in misconseptionJo0doe (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed my achivements is tiny [21] [22] - but it's notable - per WP:NOHOAX - no more "Makivka and Black forest" by barnstarned editor. WP reliability is a mustJo0doe (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what particular assistance you need here. An administrator banned you from "all pages related to Holdomor ... due to persistent violations of WP:TALK and WP:SOAPBOX". You can talk to that admin if you need further clarification, but I have no idea what you expect to achieve by forum-shopping. —BradV 18:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I need to advice of how this case [23] related to my edits (becouse I was unable to find any similarity nor been warned about this specific case nor how I was able to persistent violations of WP:TALK and WP:SOAPBOX at numerous articles of this topic which A)Most of them I never editing B)Uploading a Maps at Ukrainian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic is now called a WP:SOAPBOX violations? Or may be my intent to call "joint statement" a " joint statement" but not declaration and Detailed explanation at talk page for editors which not familiar with International Law and Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court and demography is persistent violations of WP:TALK? May be I've missed an important thing - so may be someone able to advice. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Does this page pass WP:ONEVENT?

Fakhriya Taha Muhasen

I don't have any experience with the policy WP:ONEVENT. Also, does the article pass notability in general? Thank you. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No. —BradV 03:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Now redirected to Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi. – ukexpat (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Nordic Combined 2008-09

Resolved. Heard nothing back but requester has been editing article happily since.–Mfield (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please help me to make 2008-09 Nordic Combined World Cup more like an normal wikipedia article about a Nordic Combined season? I cant do that myself. Zoggoemila80calgary (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

How's that for a start? The races need tabling really, I'll have a look at that, and add some categories. Mfield (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You should refer to 2007-08_Nordic_Combined_World_Cup for how to table it up. Mfield (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I did a little copy-editing and grammar fixes, hope that helps! Skinny87 (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I then had a look at the other language versions after someone added the links in. The German one had a nice table setup, so I ripped it off and translated it. Only thing I am not clear on is what HS should be changed to as a discipline. I would assume it is short for Hochsprung which is literally High Jump, but that's no doubt not the English term as that is a different sport completely. Someone with more relevant knowledge should swap those instances out for something more obvious to English speakers. Some of the flag templates didn't work as they are obviously designed to work differently on German WP, so I had to fettle them around to add the town and winner names separately. It should be a good start though for future filling in. Hope that helps you. Mfield (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

HELP!

Resolved. Requested broken citations (and other broken references) fixed.-Mfield (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

WebCite and Zotero have BOTH been useless to me! I'm trying to cite some sources before they become linkrot, but for some reason the tools I'm using aren't working. Zotero won't even appear when I right-click a website! --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to create new cites or reformat old ones? What articles and sources are you trying to cite? Did you try Makeref if they are new cites and Reflinks or Citation bot if you are converting existing ones? Mfield (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to re-format old ones on the Chinese Democracy page in the Dr. Pepper lawsuit section.--Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I just cleaned out some pointless brackets on some other partially completed refs lower down that were making the bots skip (unrelated to your problem though) and then ran Reflinks on the article including a bot cite overwrite. It performed some overwrites on the Dr Pepper section. Did that fix it? Mfield (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed the two clipped refs you were referring to, I stripped them back to bare URLs and ran reflinks again. I think all is good now? Mfield (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much, and sorry it took me so long to reply on this, connection's kinda slow. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

How do I propose an idea to help?

Hi, I think we should highlight the refrence tags (in beteen ref/ref) to blue or something to better distinguish the material and references. What do you guys think? InternetHero (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Its a good idea. I would love colors on the markup, red for tags, blue for wikilinks, green for refs, black for text etc. I have no idea who implements that or where to ask mind you, I have just noticed though that if I copy an article text out of the edit box into my favortite text editor Smultron and set it to display Pascal syntax colors, then all the cite refs turn green. What's the chances of that. Now off to hunt for a Wiki aware text editor. Mfield (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Something like this is listed at Wikipedia:Tools/Editing tools; I've just started using wikEd for firefox and it certainly helps to highlight different types of content, although it doesn't go quite as far as InternetHero suggests. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"currently Mozilla, Firefox, SeaMonkey only" :( Looks like I might have to switch to Firefox for WP and keep Safari for everything else. Mfield (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that it does work in Safari (as it says it does in User Prefernces) - woot. Am off to update Wikipedia:Tools/Editing tools to reflect that. Mfield (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Peter Tatchell

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

I believe this article is using false information and also has a lot of slander within it

82.39.42.72 (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It would help if you were more specific about what parts you consider to be false or slanderous. At first glance the article looks well written - it has 79 citations, compared with just 7 requests for citation.--TimTay (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Larger Urban Zones

This article includes the cities of Turkey for no good reasons. Larger Urban Zones is a Eurozone project performed by eurostat, the statistics office of the European Union. Turkey is an EU candidate and as such is not covered by eurostat. The user Palaron keeps reverting to edits that include Turkey and citeshttp://www.urbanaudit.org/help.aspx as a reference. I went to this reference by Eurostat and there is no mention of Turkey. I feel the inclusion is a blatant political move to promote Turkey as a candidate and that falsely misprepresents Eurostat. Many thanks for your help.90.202.140.209 (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not edit war. The continuing battle of the reversions is achieving nothing. You need to contact the editor who is reverting your changes and ask them to engage in the discussion that is open on article talk. The editor is an established editor who will explain their reasons. The article certainly needs to make clear why certain non EU cities are included (which they every right to be as they are included in the project database), and I have posted a message to that effect on the talk discussion. Mfield (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The front page of the Urban Audit website states "Following a pilot project for the collection of comparable statistics and indicators for European cities the first full-scale European Urban Audit took place in 2003, for the then 15 countries of the European Union. In 2004 the project was extended to the 10 new Member States plus Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey." - meaning that Turkey is within scope. The list of city profiles includes cities from Turkey. Based on those two data points and reading the text of the article I cannot see whey Turkey should be excluded. --TimTay (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Help

Resolved. Only FIV-related edit by Wikipedian2 was a proper reversion of vandalism --Jh12 (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedian2 keeps vandalising the FIV article!

90.201.151.14 (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Can only assume from your vague request you are referring to Feline immunodeficiency virus. Seems like the only recent edit Wikipedian2 made was reverting blantant vandalism by an IP. Trying to accuse him of vandalism isn't going to achieve anything. Suggest other sources of amusement. Mfield (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to assume good faith in your message but my troll detector is beeping... – ukexpat (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Loser needs help please

Hi there,

I've just written an article about a comic book guy called Jim Connolly within my user area. I've been trying to 'move' the page to be labelled as simply 'Jim Connolly' in the main site but I either don't have the right to do this or I'm a complete idiot. Please can someone help me as I've created a couple of redirects I don't really want. Cheers

Rhubarb rubber101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhubarb rubber101 (talk • contribs)

I don't think you'll be able to do that, exactly. Jim Connolly is a redirect to a disambiguation page James Connolly (disambiguation); that's pretty common practice here for a name (or names) that might refer to several different people. The best thing would be to set up the page you wrote at Jim Connolly (illustrator) and then it can also be listed at James Connolly (disambiguation). By the way, try not to put so many external links in the body; they should go in a separate section at the end. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I presume you'd like the page at Jim_Connolly_(1978-) to be deleted, since it's a redirect. I can't see any more...? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I might nominate Jim Connolly - Illustrator too, once the (hopefully) last move has occurred. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I just moved Jim Connolly - Illustrator, to Jim Connolly (illustrator). – ukexpat (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Suspected template vandalism affecting user page

Resolved. Template vandalism located and reverted by Closedmouth

Much to my surprise clicking the "show" link to look at User:iMatthew's userboxes pops up a non-worksafe image, Image:Sam Masterbating.jpg. The image is show as being in use on a number of user pages. Any idea what gives? William Avery (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, after a long hunt, I finally found it, but it seems it's taking a while to propagate. Try purging the cache of any userpage with that image. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Genius! William Avery (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Intervention - Episode Guide

There has been back and forth of whether or not to include a detailed episode guide or simply list the issues presented in each episode with a link to the show on A&E's website. Some feel that the episode guide is a place to check for updates to previous subjects of the show while others feel the guide does not consistently describe each episode or the issues tackled therein. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Vertigo (book)

Hi. I've just dramatically rewritten another article by the same author (The Loser (novel)) due to massive violation of WP:OR, as well as WP:V, WP:RS and WP:PLOT. Before I tackle this one, is there any opinion as to whether I'm being fair and correctly adhering to the policies ? I obviously don't want to spend time editing an article if there's nothing actually wrong with it as it stands. I notice that he's talked to another author about this article, using phrases such as "The fact is that I liked the Di Piero review very much, because it caught the subliminal themes of Sebald's book: so, I took the core of his article and paraphrased it, rewriting some of the passages.", and "The rest stays, as it's only a synthesised commentary of excerpts. OK ?" - surely that's immdiately indicative of violation of WP:OR ? Anyway, I'd appreciate some feedback. Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Fix a page

Please fix http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Hannity

I cannot entirely disagree with Cpfriscia <remove copied personal atack> But I think Wikipedia should provide more information.

Thanks!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.48.220.131 (talk • contribs)

That was vandalism that was self-reverted by the user within a few minutes. I have removed your repeating of that content as such content should not remain posted for viewing anywhere. See WP:BLP. The user who posted it and blanked the article's content was warned, albeit, not with the level of warning I would have used given the nature of the vandalism.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the help, Fuhghettaboutit!

Complaint about User Unpopular_Opinion

Could someone please look at this User's edits? He/she has made many, many unreasonable revisions, calling them "minor" changes for material he/she personally disagrees with including changing direct and cited quotations. Many of these edits are in support of Conservative issues. Thank you. 71.174.9.166 (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Unpopular Opinion appears to be just removing vandalism I would suggest his reversion of your edit at Parents Television Council because of the words used appeared to be vandalism, but as you say it is part of the quote. Unless your edit is reverted again it is probable no big deal and should be left, but if it happens again leave a note on his/her talk page. If others revert your change to remove the quoted words then it may be worth an explanation on the article talk page particulary that wikipedia is not censored. MilborneOne (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)