Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:00, 15 June 2009

Archives

• v
• t
• e

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

Help please

I am trying to change some pages to be consistent with a website which has four regions and is inconsistent with wikipedia which is labelling them as one "countrylink" region - this is not correct. Some editors are changing it to reflect inaccurate information which is not what what was there before. I don't disagree with their new tables, just the fact that the information they are putting in them is wrong. They also think I am some other editor and are ignoring my suggestions made to them in good faith. Can you help me please? Lonelygirl16 (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you've been accused of sockpuppetry, but whomever made that accusation hasn't filed a Sockpuppet Investigations case. As to the dispute itself, I can't figure out what you're talking about. Would you mind pointing to some specific articles? —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 04:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The sock tag has now been retracted. The dispute still needs looking at. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 15:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the dispute, the issue is that Lonelygirl16 is suggesting that the information in a group of articles and/or nav templates is incorrect. Looking at some of the pages in question... yeesh. contributions was asked repeatedly by the Lonelygirl16 to explain his behavior (that is, reverting her contribs to these pages). I can sort of understand where the Endarrt is coming from; he appears to have frequently used the edit summary "rv:discuss your changes first, then we'll take consensus". However, where Lonelygirl16 has attempted discussion, Endaart has ignored it. Not so good, if you ask me. Template:Strathfield platform box is one page affected by this, and is the page where Lonelygirl16 attempted discussion. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 11:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I also talked to him on his talk page but he ignored me. Lonelygirl16 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I dropped a question with Endarrt asking him why he's ignoring you. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 20:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Now in discussion with Endarrt at my user talk... —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 11:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Or not... I asked him to chime in at Template talk:Strathfield platform box, which he did, but in an extremely terse and frankly rather unproductive manner. I'm concerned about this editor's conduct, Lonelygirl16's complaint notwithstanding. WQA might be a good next step... I'm on the fence as to whether this merits it already. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 14:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Third-Party Ruling Requested

Farid al-Atrash, Asmahan, Dabke, Qatayef, Baba Ghanoush, Kanafeh, Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria

I am requesting Editor Assistance to resolve what I see as un-neutral, hostile, and childish behavior on the part of the following users: Supreme Deliciousness and 81.233.32.209, who may very well be one and the same or very closely related. These user(s) have engaged in "undoing" and "reverting" practices on articles related to the Middle East. They think they have a monopoly on certain cultural aspects that are part of the daily lives of many Middle Eastern peoples. Their edits and reverts are offensive, biased, and unsubstantiated by evidence. I am asking for third party ruling on the following articles:

Farid al-Atrash, Asmahan, Dabke, Qatayef, Baba Ghanoush, Kanafeh, Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria

... etc.

Regards, (98.194.124.102 (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

Dear moderators and admins, please take a close look at the edits user anonymous "98.194.124.102" have brought to wikipedia and you will clearly see that he falsifys history. He goes into all Levantine articles and puts in "Egyptian" without any kind of scource or reliable evidence. He started this with Syrian celebrities as Asmahan and Farid al-Atrash and he is now continuing this with Levantine dishes such as Baba Ghanoush, Qatayef, Knafeh etc. This resembles much how the israelis have taken over all Levantine Arab food articles. These dangerous acts of falsification should not be delt with lightly and actions must be taken against anonymous "98.194.124.102"

Look: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/98.194.124.102

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have only looked at one article in detail (Qatayef) but I think that is enough to give me the picture for the moment. The first thing I would advise both of you is to forget about the editor and concentrate on the content. Once you start to make it personal it becomes impossible to work together, but working together is what you must do on a project like Misplaced Pages. You must also put to one side national pride, and please, SD, for goodness sake don't start raising the Arab-Israeli conflict - that is sure to poison all hope of collaboration. The way to resolve any disagreement is always to refer back to the sources and base what you write on what is in the sources. Doing anything else is really not consistent with Misplaced Pages policy. Moving on to the particular article I reviewed, Qatayef: before the dispute, the origin of the dish was unreferenced. 102's edit at least had the benefit of including a reference. Now certainly, newspaper articles are not very scholarly so they do not rate very highly as far as verifying history goes. However, if you believe this is incorrect, it is the wrong approach to start an edit war over it. The right approach is to let it stand for the moment and go and find a better reference. I see the article currently says "Fatimid" origin rather than Egyptian, which is what the reference actually says and I suggest you accept that as a fair compromise until more scholarly references are found. Please stop bandying around terms such as "offensive" and "falsification". At least from this one article, everyone seems to be acting in good faith. If an editor is mistaken, try and work it out with them, and above all, spend some time researching references, that's what will decide it in the end, not some judgement from this helpdesk. SpinningSpark 16:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I will not stoop down to the tactics of Miss Deliciousness (since she implies that she's not anonymous, then that's probably her real name). Miss Deliciousness does not seem to realize that interjecting her blurbs between already posted contributions detroys the chronology of the thread and just lacks courtesy!

In any case, please see the official STATE INFORMATION SERVICE website of the GOVERNMENT OF EGYPT. The Egyptian Government lists Farid Al-Atrash as one of the country's prominent EGYPTIAN FIGURES (see: http://www.sis.gov.eg/VR/figures/english/html/Farid.htm). The website states that Farid left Syria with his mother (and as it is well known, also with his siblings Fouad and Asmahan) "at a small age". The Misplaced Pages Article itself states that Farid and Asmahan immigrated to Egypt at ages 8 and 5, respectively, and were naturalized as Egyptian citizens. They lived for the rest of thier lives in Egypt (except for Asmahan who was briefly married in Syria before returning home to Egypt) and all are buried in Egypt. Virtually ALL of their musical work was created in Egypt and in the Egyptian dialect.

Since the Governemnt of Egypt declares Farid (as it did also his mother and siblings) as an Egyptian Figure, on par with Egyptian Giants Mohamed Abdel-Wahab and Umm Kolthoum, then my statement in the article that Farid and Asmahan were Egyptian of Syrian-Lebanese origin is absolutely and entirely accurate.

Please see also the abstract of an academic research paper from Cleveland State University and University of California, Berkeley

"Building a Man on Stage - Masculinity, Romance, and Performance according to Farid al-Atrash

by Sherifa Zuhur (see: http://jmm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/5/3/275)

"This article explores the life and career of male singing star, instrumental talent, and Composer Farid al-Atrash, who created a prototype of the romantic male musical star from the 1930s until his death in 1974. An immigrant to Egypt and a member of a distinctive religious sect, the Druze, he arose from poverty and the invisibility of the previous generation of musicians thanks to his talent, ambition, and investment in his own film productions. A lifelong bachelor, he constructed a popular image with references to the authentic Arab Islamic poetic/historical past and an idealized version of modernity. Tales of his love affairs enhanced his popularity during his lifetime and were seemingly merged with the lyrics of his love songs. From Arabic sources, the author attempts to uncover the psychological rationale of a man whose life goals were shaped by his mother, who was overshadowed by his sister, and who consciously elevated music making to a professionalized art form.

"Key Words: masculinity • Arabic music • Druze • popular performance • Islamic culture • Farid al-Atrash"

Even Syrian website "Damascus Online" (see: http://www.damascus-online.com/Music/farid_alatrash.htm) states that Farid and Asmahan moved to Egypt in their childhood and makes no mention that Farid ever returned to, let alone lived in, Syria afterward.

Finally, Graeme Bartlett, please allow me to quote you personally. You stated: "I must agree that it makes more sense to call Farid al-Atrash Egyptian!" (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:98.194.124.102).

Therefore, my statement in the article that Farid and Asmahan were Egyptian of Syrian-Lebanese origin is absolutely and entirely accurate. I ask that you please restore the Farid al-Atrash article to my latest revision. Thank you. (98.194.124.102 (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

User Sciencewatcher monopolized two articles and keeps vandalizing contributions

Monosodium glutamate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Glutamic_acid_(flavor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sir/madam:

I am bringing to your attention vandalism exhibited by the user Sciencewatcher, who on June 4th 2009 several times deleted my contributions to two articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Glutamic_acid_(flavor) http://en.wikipedia.org/Monosodium_glutamate

The versions that Sciencewatcher keeps restoring provide only one view on the substance described in the articles, pertaining to the health concerns regarding its use in food. I made changes enlisting works by several independent researches around the world, whose findings are different. In my view those edits provided balance to the article and made it more informative for the readers.

I am respectfully requesting that a temporary lock would be put on the following versions until the dispute with Sciencewatcher is constructively resolved:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Monosodium_glutamate&diff=294470706&oldid=294426465

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Glutamic_acid_(flavor)&diff=294470896&oldid=294427212

Sincerely Aaron Wechsler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.206.250 (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that the IP keeps inserting references to non-reliable fringe sources like Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I never know what to make of "fringe" or alarmist sources either in Wiki or elsewhere. As a reader, I almost always go to primary sources if I need to make an important decision based on a topic and in this case primary sources would range from refereed journal articles to anecdotes to folk lore. The range of ways in which secondary sources can interpret these results is quite large. After following drug stocks for a while, I'm quite sure the public statements of experts are not always right and there is rarely enough evidence to justify many specific conclusions but many interpretations can be rationalized. Remember the Nobel Prize winner who was running around claiming that massive vitamin C would cure AIDS or cancer or something? AFAIK there was little evidence of this and plenty of "secondary sources" covered his claims and his credential were credibly. Would this be a fringe idea or something you want to mention in related articles? It is INTERESTING, if not helpful in determining what to eat or how to cure disease.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Orangemike, can you please quote any publications where the two sources that I provided were qualified as 'fringe' or anything to that effect. I think that if it your personal opinion, than the other readers should be allowed to form their own. By the way, the contribution was not limited to those two works that you denounced as 'fringe'. There was more. Can you please elaborate what is your motivation to suppress the contribution?

Sincerely, Aaron Wechsler 12.10.219.167 (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no impulse to "suppress" anything; but Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills is not exactly a peer-reviewed journal. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, Sciencewatcher is not the only Wikipedian having an eye on these two fringe magnet articles. Cacycle (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr Wechsler, I would respectfully suggest you thoroughly read WP:MEDRS. Thank you for your time. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Popular perceptions surely differ from scientific understanding on many different topics. What is wrong with just characterizing the source in the text? How about just explicitly limit the view to the source or group. " One source claims that donuts cure cellulite. This source emphsizes while attributing less credibility to than is normally seen in scientific review articles" etc etc. You aren't aiming for a scientific work on the subject, just capturing the state of knowledge or belief of notable things associated with it. Again, pages on religion probably encounter this all the time- you are documenting things that make something notable, not doing original research or settling any arguments. Through out history, magical or various properties have been associated with things, today we have magic chemicals- antioxidants, amino acids, etc. I would treat these issues in about the same way- beliefs that were popular even if known to be wrong today may still be included AFAIK. This doesn't mean dumbing down or diluting or detracting from the detail in scientific stuff, just mentioning that others have different descriptions. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sanitizing MSG article for alarming information

Orangemike, I have taken a note that your tone changed dramatically in your response to me compared to your initial characterization of the work at hand as 'fringe'. Although you are denying it, you did suppress a contribution, just as Sciencewatcher and Cacycle did. There is just no other way to describe repeated deletion of material by reverting an article to its previous version. It sounds like you have reasons to believe that the source quoted may be inaccurate. Can you elaborate what those reasons are? For example, your own research turned out different results, or you read contradicting article etc. I have also taken a note that Sciencewatcher resorted to outright lies in the edit summaries (that I used research from 1969). It does not reflect all too good on the 'Wikipaedians'.

Sciencewatcher invited me to brush up on MEDRS. Appreciate that, however there would only be a reason for that, if the research quoted was annulled by others. Such annulment is nowhere in sight. The way the MSG article is worded at present is heavily biased towards the opinions expressed mainly by the US federal government and food industry that MSG is ultimately safe. This is as far from neutral as it could be. This whole situation begs me to reiterate the question I asked in the summary: how much is Ajinomoto paying you, Sciencewatcher, for monitoring MSG page and erasing every bit of information that may indicate to the reader that MSG is not as innocent as they want it to appear? 12.10.219.160 (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Aaron Wechsler

Neutral doesn't mean bland, superficial, positive towards all who might complain, or non-committal. If the data supports one side, the article can reflect that. If it helps any, see how was thimerosol was handled. Before someone deleted it, I made a reference to it as an area where the actual data on the immune system was confusing and the area was controversial and left it at that ( I tried to cite this on Dendreon but the whole critical section defending the FDA got deleted and I haven't had time to fix it yet ). AFAIK, people are not dropping dead from MSG and it is GRAS ( again AFAIK). Excitotoxins get their name from being a natural result of brain activity or excitation-glutamate is a CNS neurotransmitter. Personally I would think "alarmists" should see these are "all natural things your body makes anyway" as alarmist works tend to use a lot of rationalization but I would just mention the areas where reasoning has been shown ( by other sources ) to be superficial or in contradiction to other data.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That is largely irrelevant. Firstly, your claim that MSG is natural is void of reason. Glutamic acid is naturally occurring in some proteins, but that's where it ends. MSG is produced via hydrolysis by genetically modified bacteria and there is no process in place to control its purity. The vast majority of MSG producing plants are in mainland China where FDA etc. have no control whatsoever. This substance is far from natural, yet it is not regulated. As an unregulated artificial substance in food with questionable effects, it deserves every bit of information, positive or negative, published and extensively DEBATED, not silenced. Your continued suppression of information and the extent to which you go out of your way to delete any negative references (not you personally but Orangemikle, Sciencewatcher et al) leaves no rock on stone as to credibility of Misplaced Pages, and it is obvious to every scientist. I appreciate you taking part in this conversation, however I would like to hear the arguments from the other two 'Wikipedians' who deleted the material in question... Crickets!

12.10.219.160 (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Aaron Wechsler

Is there an entry for tryptophan? That would probably be a good analogy then as I recall that during debates about this it sounded like properties of the substance and manufacturing were being mixed up. And of course it is an amino acid thought to be involved in neurotransmitter balanc. I didn't go to any effort to weasel word the natural stuff nor intend to debate merit, sure there are a lot of possible problems with synthesis, just pointing out some issues that may be common and relevant. Re-reading my words however I think I managed to remain accurate as glutamate release, often in an autocatalytic cascade from already weak neurons, is what makes it toxic but the pure substance is in fact naturally produced either in the body or other organisms.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And again, that is absolutely irrelevant for the purposes of balancing a Wiki article on MSG. MSG does not equal glutamic acid which you keep writing about. You are very talented in distracting and avoiding result-oriented conversation, but not enough. Can we get back to the point: since when a consensus of anonymous self-appointed Internet users is grounds for silencing others?

12.10.219.160 (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Aaron Wechsler

I'm actually generally supporting inclusion, but often these things do come down to a battle of words and catagories, the false multi-chotmy ( dichotomy? ) problem. At issue is the wording and more general principles. Regarding the specific issue, I guess you could make some argument that the glutamate remembers its former sodium partner but it would clearly be original quantum physics research. Alternatively, you could argue something about a complex chain of signals from finding solid sodium glutamate in the GI tract. Or, maybe something related to electrolyte imbalance etc. The excitotoxicity of glutamate however is unrelated to the sodium.

Personally, something referencing the source with a few citations to primary sources it cite would probably be ok. Often, anecdotes or "case studies" are documented in medical reports as that is all that exists. Perspective and wording may be an issue of course but I don't think anyone really wants to suppress widely help beliefs. ( please correct if wrong here).

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If only there was a battle of words! This is a mischaracterization of the situation, which I describe as suppression. Battle of words is actually quite welcome in true scientific circles, it is called healthy dissent. When three self-appointed vandals above will stop deleting material from the article and will instead rebuff the contribution with data of their own finding (not scientific finding of course, rather search engine finding), your characterization would fit (that not 'anyone really wants to suppress...')

You correctly noticed that toxicity of MSG is irrelevant to the metal. But once again, it is irrelevant. MSG is a generic name for free processed glutamic acid as food additive, as it is known to FDA and consumer. If the intent of the article was to inform the reader of the mere fact of existence of sodium salt of glutamic acid, it would have been sufficient to provide a chemical formula and basic physical properties. However it is plainly obvious that the article deals with food additive, taste enhancer, and not just an abstract formula. From the perspective of arrival of the readers at the articles, one on MSG is primary and the other on glutamic acid is secondary, not the other way around as it would be normal when dealing with pure chemistry. Thinking otherwise is simply cruel and misleading, considering that people seeking information on MSG are usually suffering from one or many crippling conditions. This is a question of ethics, whether to publish information about what they labelled 'fringe' group research or not. Ethics calls for full disclosure once the substance is already controversial for so many years and in so many ways. Without that Misplaced Pages is not credible.

12.10.219.160 (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Aaron Wechsler

At issue is the evidence linking MSG to human death and suffering. The book title in question suggests that MSG is a clear and present danger and presumably the content reflects that conclusion too. The issue with glutamate was to clarify the term "excitotoxicity" but maybe there are other reasons MSG is associated with hazards, I have no idea. I'm supporting the idea of mentioning the viewpoint, citing this source or others that may describe it, along with primary sources they cite that support their opinion. I'm not as yet suggesting any particular wording but would you object to something like, " while the US FDA considers MSG to be GRAS, some groups consider it to be a cause of various health problems. They tend to rely on evidence from "? Maybe peanut allergies would be another thing to look into for comparison- not sure how much controversy there ever was about that but I kind of laugh when I see those warning labels but I guess people really do get sick.

I guess you can find examples of situations where it took a while for anecdotes to get to the level of credibility needed for scientific acceptance and I'm not personally opposed to contrary opinions with any non-frivolous sources. However, of course, many popular press claims are simply refuted by well established repeatable experiments. If the belief is notable, I don't see it being the encyclopedia editor's job to settle an argument but it may just be an issue of wiki preferences as to what to include.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly what I contributed and what was suppressed by the still absent from this discussion three vandals.

12.10.219.160 (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Aaron Wechsler

Too long, didn't read. But here's a basic question - have you tried resolving this with the other editor on the article's talk page or on your respective user talk pages? – ukexpat (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to discuss it here and keep the conversation more general to controversial science items- note tryptophan, peanuts, thimerosol, etc. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the first places to discuss content disputes are the talk pages of the relevant articles, or in this case as there are several, on user talk pages. – ukexpat (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Telepathy and war - user removed 19 legitimate references and then claimed article was unreferenced

Yes, this is still an ongoing concern. The article was slandered, vandalised and misrepresented in discussion here by a small handful of users determined to have the article deleted. I would like the article reinstated. It was being edited and contributed to by other users who supported the article. The article was well written and referenced and no original research was involved, contrary to Papa November's claim that the article contained synthesis. The article was relevant and interesting, particularly in light of recent reports from reputable sources about military funding and advances in the area. The article also referenced material from the websites of universities involved in research in the field, and a book written by a defense intelligence agent about Remote Viewing and "psychic spying". Why, when Misplaced Pages contains an article on Remote Viewing, should an article named Telepathy and war be dismissed on the grounds it is "fringe" material. The decision seems inconsistent. The two users behind the campaign to remove the article were Papa November and Verbal, who engaged in deliberate provocation and breached almost everything that I thought Misplaced Pages was supposed to be about: encyclopedic facts, good writing, neutrality, collaboration and creating a co-operative environment. Frei Hans (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Telepathy and war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Telepathy and war

Hi. Recently I created a new topic to cover reports about research funded by the US government into computer mediated telepathic applications. The research was reported in Wired and as I read more about it, in the course of creating the page, I found 19 references to related research. All references were published by reputable news providers and science magazines, including the National Geographic and BBC. Related research was also published on the websites of the universities where research into robotic arms controlled remotely through the power of the mind was carried out on monkeys - at Duke University and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Two separate articles reported the research was funded through Darpa, a division of the Pentagon. An article also said that Darpa had funded related University of California research. I named the article Telepathy and war. Within days of creating the article, the article was nominated for deletion. What appeared to be a small group of users said the page contained unreferenced material - but the page had 19 references from 19 separate articles published by reputable publications and news organisations. I entered into discussion with these users, willing to make edits. I have always been impressed by Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy and thought that these users, while critical, might help to improve the article. Instead, the users bombarded the page, deleting entire sections and references. One user later boasted on a page nominating the article for deletion that he had 'chopped out' and removed 'un-referenced' material. Earlier I had noticed one of his edits, which curiously had removed an entire quote from block quote tags and replaced it without quotation marks. I thanked him for his imput but said that we should consider replacing the block quote tags to attribute the content. Minutes later I revisited the article and found he had removed all but two footnotes of the original 19 - incongruous with his boast that he had removed 'un-referenced' material. I visited the user talk page of one of the users and found that the user had been involved in prior discussions over other articles of their own nominated for deletion. I am not sure if that particular user feels that deleting content is the way to resolve content disputes because that is the way that user has been treated or if the user is regularly involved in edit wars for less than neutral reasons. The user warned me that I might be blocked from editing if I edited content myself - while they themselves appeared to be one of a party who systematically removed almost the entire article. The article, while covering research that might seem extraordinary, was full of genuine content about an interesting (if perhaps alarming) field of military research. I am leaving the article rest for now, but would like advice from other experienced editors. How would other editors who prefer to resolve conflict and retain genuine content handle this? I feel the article is important and that Misplaced Pages should contain information about new advances in science in technology. I cannot understand why a topic as interesting as this, and well referenced, has been refuted in a community that prides itself on being neutral - and in a community that has become known for documenting genuine encyclopedic content and in being technologically savvy. Frei Hans (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

To summarize the above, the article Frei Hans created has been nominated for deletion, and has received near-unanimous support of deletion, though another editor has seriously edited the article and is suggesting merger with deletion of redirects. I don't exactly know how to respond to this request. Parts of it appear to call for the sort of help WP:ARS provides, but I'm honestly not sure the content merits it considering the arguments at AfD re: original research. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 14:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Original research? I can assure you that I have not been funded by the US military to conduct research into telepathy in monkeys. In creating the page I used only material I found already reported in reputable publications. I did create an original 'artistic' impression for the page because I am conscious of copyright and wanted to create an image to illustrate the page without infringing copyright. Wired Magazine itself used an 'artistic' impression to illustrate its article on the topic. Interestingly, the same team that has been calling for deletion of the page has also called for deletion of this image. The image does contain modified content from another image-maker, who I attributed in uploading the image and am now waiting reply from to resolve any possible license issues. I am beginning to suspect sock puppetry from the team of people calling for deletion of the page. Frei Hans (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at what our original research (and WP:SYN in particualr) policy actually says. Verbal chat 14:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I am familiar with the policy. It states "citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented". That is exactly what I did. Papa November removed 17 references included block quotes that were referenced. I am proud to approach controversial material with neutrality - hoping to represent all facets of this topic on Wikpedia in as much as they are documented. I am surprised by this reaction to a topic that was well referenced. Frei Hans (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Also see WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Misplaced Pages is not a battle ground, and should not be treated as "them vs us". Verbal chat 14:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

My view is that this is already being dealt with at AfD and there is therefore nothing for us to do here. The Article Rescue Squadron tend to hang around AfD and likely will pick up on it if they think there is anything salvageable, but drop them a note anyway if you like. As far as I can tell, the references deleted by Papa November were contained in sections he deleted as being irrelevant to the article (not related to warfare) so the references went incidentally. This is an issue that can be dealt with between the editors or at AfD, again, no reason for us to get involved - keep it all on one forum. SpinningSpark 14:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The removed sections were entirely unrelated to warfare/telepathy or were covered elsewhere. I have given a more detailed explanation at the AFD. Perhaps, the author would care to note that I've been trying to salvage some of the content of his article. The unanimous view of other editors has been to delete his work entirely. Papa November (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The sections were entirely related and all that anyone needs to do is compare the content before you edited out all of the references and block quotes, and after. I have been flexible in considering a name change, in rewriting content and in considering your first few edits - but your subsequent edits now appear to be nothing more than vandalism. I decided to have a break from other discussions with you and sought advice here - where you have followed me. Frei Hans (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think the sections were removed unfairly, please address the specific points I made at AFD. Also, content disputes do not count as vandalism. Please read the policy (it's very specific) before accusing people. Papa November (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Frei Hans, I've looked through the history of the article and in particular compared the last of your sequence of additions with subsequent edits. I see that you added a good deal of referenced material, but I also see that you included some statements that were not directly drawn from the references. Some of those statements appear to have been a synthesis of referenced material; while that might appear to be logical, even inevitable, to one editor, another editor might find them to be questionable. In order to avoid such debates, any synthesis of that type is not permitted here.

For example, the lede of this version states "According to information released by the National Research Council and the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon intends to use telepathy on the battlefield and also to intercept and influence 'enemy' commands" whereas the sources only say that some research in that area is beng conducted. You might say that the one inevitably leads to the other, but we must limit ourselves to that which is directly supported by the sources.

I hoep this helps to illuminate some of the distinctions we must draw. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The 'lede' was referenced and came from an article that had been referenced and block quoted (later removed by Papa November). The Wired article wrote:

"Last year, the National Research Council and the Defense Intelligence Agency released a report suggesting that neuroscience might also be useful to 'make the enemy obey our commands.'"

The same wired article also wrote:

"Before being vocalized, speech exists as word-specific neural signals in the mind. Darpa wants to develop technology that would detect these signals of 'pre-speech,' analyze them, and then transmit the statement to an intended interlocutor. Darpa plans to use EEG to read the brain waves. It’s a technique they’re also testing in a project to devise mind-reading binoculars that alert soldiers to threats faster the conscious mind can process them.

The project has three major goals, according to Darpa. First, try to map a person’s EEG patterns to his or her individual words. Then, see if those patterns are generalizable — if everyone has similar patterns. Last, 'construct a fieldable pre-prototype that would decode the signal and transmit over a limited range.'"

The page I created had 18 other references to other articles covering related research, including research at UCLA funded by Darpa.Frei Hans (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking a break from this for now, but would like to add that the article was nominated for deletion by someone who was recently banned for edit-warring (named Verbal) and then content was swiftly removed by another user named Papa November. Frei Hans (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to echo Spinningspark's comment above; handle this problem at the AfD or at the article talk page. Don't bring accusations of editorial malfeasance here without pretty good evidence thereof. Being blocked temporarily for edit warring or violations of 3RR does not mean a thing. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 16:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Update

• Some issues resolved, some users are working to improve the article.
• User Verbal, who nominated the page for deletion, has begun reverting content to versions with almost no referencing and citation and taken to dropping "edit war" messages on my user page.
• A user with no account and the IP 160.103.2.223 deleted a lot of text - this was reverted within a minute by a bot noting possible vandalism. The user IP 160.103.2.223 edit happened shortly after Verbal attempted to revert content to nearly nothing. Clarification of Article history: Verbal reverts content to near nil, other users add content, the article was blank tagged and then a bot removed the blank tag.

Frei Hans (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

By the same logic you and CW are the same person. I don't think that for a moment. Verbal chat 08:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And I don't think for a minute that a genuine new user with no editing login would know how to create a blanking tag. Frei Hans (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The blanking tag is created by the abuse filter and not placed by the user, and since I know about the abuse filter (WP:AF)and would realise that such an IP edit would be reverted it would make such an edit a bit silly. Please see WP:AGF and take heed of the advice given to you by editors, and stop making accusations and insinuations. Verbal chat 13:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not silly, Verbal. The bot reverted vandalism. The vandalism was a blanking tag placed by a user. Frei Hans (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If by blanking tag, you mean this edit, that "blanking tag" is auto-generated, and is used to note that the edit in question removed a large section of text, which is why clue-bot reverted it. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 10:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean if a user deletes a big block of text that a "blank tag" is automatically generated? Ie: a user deleted a lot of text and one bot tagged the delete so that another bot could revert the delete. That makes two bots reverting vandalism. Thanks for making this clear. When I saw the notation in the edit history I thought a user had created the tag as well. Frei Hans (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

how to remove page banners

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

Trying to see how long it will take to remove the banners at the top of the page warning "This biography of a living person does not cite any references or sources. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful." and "This article is written like an advertisement. Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view. For blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic, use {{db-spam}} to mark for speedy deletion." The page was heavily edited removing any biased information and citing multiple resources. The page is now written as a neutral encylcopedic topic.

Lfcarlton (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Lfcarlton

If you feel that the concerns expressed in the banners have been met, then you can remove the banners. They are there to attract editors' attention and encourage improvement of the articles. I would say that the article still has a long way to go and needs to be re-written in a more neutral manner. It seems to focus on Azria's designs, with no mention of critical response or reception. The list of brands is un-encyclopaedic, I think. Needs more about the person, which is the subject, rather than his clothes range. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Tasmanian genocide

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

I have been involved in a protracted dispute with two editors, Webley442 and Philip Baird Shearer (PBS) regarding the treatment of the Tasmanian genocide and the possible introduction of smallpox into Australia in 1789.

These subjects have a reasonable international consensus, which is summarized ad-nauseum on the talk page, and which is not disputed very much by PBS. But the changes to the text of the page which I have tried to put in to comply with undue weight and NPOV were reverted with little explanation, by the two editors.

The main issue is that a fringe position, that of Windschuttle, is presented as if it were an accepted position. The rest is obvious from reading the talk page and looking at diffs.

I would appreciate if someone who is completely neutral could take a look.Likebox (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

To be more precise, after it became clear that this dispute would not be resolved, I saved a copy of my preferred text at User:Likebox/HistoryWars. The sources introduced in this text are not in the body of the article. More significantly, the general information in the international consensus is missing from the article.Likebox (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There's certainly a fair bit to think about. I need to re-read the talk page before commenting, but when I do, I'll go to the talk page rather than replying here.—S Marshall /_Cont 00:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Took a look at it Likebox. I'm familiar with Windschuttle's position and yes it is what might be called a "fringe" one, emerging within the last decade. His book generated a little attention at the time it was published, but is widely regarded as belonging to a revisionist school of history that has been criticised for racial bias. Discussion of his book could be interesting in that commentators consider it typifies an era in Australia where indigenous rights issues regressed after some movement forward between the 50's and 80's. His book could not nearly hope to represent the ideas of all other Australian historians let alone sum up all of the histories of people involved in indigenous issues in Australia. As you say, it should not be presented as an "accepted" position as Windschuttle himself set out to question "accepted" positions. Aside from that, the two articles (as they appeared in both versions when I read them) could do with some small adjustments to improve grammar and readability. The main page certainly has the mark of an entry that has been edited for political reasons rather than for reasons that might have included grammar. In resolution I would suggest merging elements from both versions, maintaining referenced sources to cover commentary from as many historians - including oral historians - as possible. Personally I tend to think of Windschuttle as a deliberate provocateur. Ultimately his book, The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Volume One: Van Diemen's Land 1803-1847, seemed to generate a backlash against his own opinion - which he seemed to me to suspiciously enjoy. Frei Hans (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Aren't WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE relevant here? – ukexpat (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah. That's why I was editing. But the two guys there won't let anything new in.Likebox (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Same editors, same problem at genocides in history.Likebox (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope somebody else can get involved, because I am not an expert on the topic, and I am currently trying to put in a majority position without help, and I am outnumbered. The discussion on the talk page has become very repetitive.Likebox (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In the case of History wars, you may have better luck posting a request for involvement at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board; the people there would be in more of a position to help dredge up and represent a majority position than the general helpers we have here. WP:ECCN might help get you some editors more experienced in these sorts of cultural disputes. Also, if the two editors you mention are simply reverting without substantive discussion, while you're attempting discussion on the edits, you might consider WP:ANEW if it's becoming clear they're just edit warring and deliberately stalling in discussion. However, you're right that this needs more eyes. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 15:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Evolutionary argument against naturalism

Talk:Evolutionary argument against naturalism (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

I am very concerned about recent developments on the talk page for EAAN particularly this thread.

I consider that the thread concerned not only makes no constructive contribution to the article in question, but it is an inflamatory expression of an unsubstantiated personal opinion.

This is not the only "offending" thread on this talk page which, overall, is beginning to take on the nature of a blog page or discussion group. I have tagged the page with a "talkheader", have requested all editors to restrict themselves to edits of the article based on WP:RS and to use the talk page for constructive discussion of same.

However the talk page is, in my personal judgment, beginning to take on the nature of an open forum.

I should also add that I'm somewhat reticent about the rather derogatory marks being directed at Plantinga and philosphers in general - this may not be a biographical article, but surely throwing insults at people just because one doesn't like the nature of their work is a breach of the spirit of the "no derogatory remarks about living persons" policy?

I would like to ask whether I am right in my sense that this thread is well beyond acceptable limits, and, if so, how should I proceed.

Regards, -- Muzhogg (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I slapped a {{notaforum}} on there too. Personal attacks and insults should be deleted per WP:BLP and if directed at other editors should be reported to WP:ANI, per WP:NPA. – ukexpat (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

An univolved editor (I don't have the time today or I'd do it myself) could swing through the talk page and archive anything forum-like or soapbox-y. Having previous conversations like that on the talk page tends to encourage others to do the same. Just make sure that it is some one univolved, and post a thread reminding that the talk page is to discuss article improvement, and that anything else (personal views, etc) can be removed at any time. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 17:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for takin time to make a response: I relocated the "tl|notaforum" to the top of the page - just to ephasise the point, and will take your other suggestions under advisement. I'd like clarification on one thing however. Obviously removal of material from talk pages - particularly other people's remarks - shouldn't be undertaken lightly. And I'd like to know if I, as one of the involved editors, have the right to revert/delete any POVish material? I can see where a person familiar with the history of the discussion and the subject of the article might be best placed to act on this matter, but I can also see the merits of third-person involvement. Have you any comment on this, and is there a policy/procedure/precedent on the question? I'd like to proceed with caution in order to get it right, rather than inflame what is a potentially volatile situation. -- Muzhogg (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: I was not talking about removing POV from the talk page, I was referring to removing material, personal attacks and potentially defamatory stuff etc, about third parties (ie non-editors) which at least in spirit violates WP:BLP. – ukexpat (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm glad you offered that clarification as I thought deletion was a rather strong option! I'm glad you offer the observation that the spirit of WP:BLP applies, as I've been arguing the same thing myself! -- Muzhogg (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sun `n Fun Fly In

Sun 'n Fun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like to add additional information in Word format to help expand and better describe the site listed above. I created a user name and password and then copied and pasted the information from one of our documents. apparently it is too lengthy to do that. how can I accomplish this?

thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1940stearman (talk • contribs) 15:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The best thing to do, especially if you have a conflict if interest, is to discuss on the article's talk page the changes that you are seeking to make. – ukexpat (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The thing to remember is that Misplaced Pages is not a directory and an article is not a "site". Misplaced Pages is an on-line encyclopaedia so any material added in collobration with other editors needs to be encyclopaediac. If you cut and paste from Word, you will lose the formatting as you have discovered. There is a range of formatting tools above the edit pane. More help is available at Misplaced Pages:How to edit a page. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Reductio ad Hitlerum

Reductio ad Hitlerum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have a dispute over the example section of the article. An editor has been attempting to keep "Linking Israelis with Nazis" in the article which I feel is unwarranted and poorly cited. First of all the beginning sentences do not appear to make claims which are supported by the cited sources. The lead sentence, "Many cartoons, essays, and editorials have equated the actions of the Israeli government, Israel's supporters, or the political philosophy of Zionism with the actions or beliefs of the Nazi Party during or before the Holocaust.", has hardly any relation to the sources as all given sources in the example refer only to Israeli government policy and not the broad claim the editor is supporting. The following sentence which seems to be the one intended to explain the relationship between the fallacy and the example is so poorly written (and uncited) that I can't understand what if any point its making.

"These comparisons commit the fallacy discussed in this article if they ask the reader to derive specific conclusions about desirable actions by or towards Israel that would directly correspond to how the reader would similarly judge Nazi Germany."

The editor seems to only edit articles referencing Israel from looking at his history and I think that he's just trying to push his point of view into the article. As seen in the talk page, this edit is clearly controversial and the fact that it is poorly written with at least half of it uncited makes me think it should be removed until it is better written or sourced. Mekeretrig (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

A quick look leaves me with the impression that there is a lot of original research in this article. The sources for the examples should mention the name of the fallacy in some form, and if they don't, then they and anything they reference shouldn't be there, as it is then simply a Misplaced Pages editor saying X is an example of Y. I presume you are familiar with WP:OR? Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

alot of original research there - there isn't a single source in that section that mentions "reductio ad hitlerum" or ties it to israel/nazi comparisons. untwirl(talk) 18:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC) (edit) - one source has just been added re:barbed wire that provides a good example of this fallacy without naming it as such. it would be a good addition but doesnt merit its own section. untwirl(talk) 18:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The editor advocating the example has reverted my removal of the edit twice, saying its against consensus, I don't really know how to pursue having this evaluated by a neutral third party to reolve the issue. Mekeretrig (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an extremely problematic article. It's not particularly well-defined and liable to arouse a lot of confusing discussion. My advice would be to just go work on other articles and give this up as a loss.

Regarding getting a neutral third party, there is a mediation cabal, but be aware that a mediator will never settle the dispute for you. Mediation is simply meant to initiate discussion and help participants arrive at a compromise. If the positions are such that no compromise is possible, the mediator will not decide if one person is right or not.

So there is no third party that can come and resolve this for you. That's not generally how things work on Misplaced Pages. You can get more opinions by requesting an RFC and if people agree with you, then that should indicate claims of your edits being non-consensus are wrong. But if the other editor chooses not to believe this and has a lot more time for this than you, you'll be fighting a losing battle. Another place to raise further issues is at the NPOV or OR noticeboards. Perhaps you'll find some interest there, but don't be surprised if you don't or if the interest dies out and you are left alone to deal with the article.--C S (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems there is already considerable discussion on the talk page now. I suggest arriving at a workable compromise with everyone....this is probably the best it is going to get. --C S (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

editor userface

Hi,

Where would I go to request changes to the editor userface? Specifically, it would be nice if the IPA option actually covered the IPA, as it does at Wiktionary, so that I wouldn't need to constantly clip and paste from the IPA article.

Thanks, kwami (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You can use other editors, seeWP:Tip of the day/January 6 Jezhotwells (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You could try starting a discussion at WP:VPR, and linking that to that discussion from MediaWiki talk:Edittools; the talk page of the interface page which contains those inserts. If I get you correctly, that the organization of that list of IPA symbols is just awful, then I hope something does change. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 20:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked at Edittools, as that seemed more appropriate. kwami (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

An Insultive Behavior - seeking and advice

Hello. Cryptonio (talk · contribs) is not an easy customer: here is the example of our latest clash.

He was recently filed on an incidents board here but to my best knowledge it went unresolved.

It should be noted that just a week ago we were engaged in edit warring that ended in a 72 h block for him. It was the last but not the only time, we had similar fightings before.

His remark produces little impression on me and that's not the point. The point is that by tolerating such behavior, a legitimacy (to him or to other users) is given to act in a similar way. I am pretty new in Wiki, but I think this must be dealt with.

So, the question is - do I have a case here (based on one last instance)? If yes, where to address it?

It could also be noted that me myself is no angel, and it is concievable that some of my remarks and responses were inappropriate - for this I am ready to take responsibility. Moreover, I realize that I am unobjective, since he is my prime and uncompromised adversary.

Rules are rules and they ought to be enforced - this is what I think.

Thanks in advance, --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think WP:Wikiquette alerts is probably the place to start. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

User has been warned not to make personal attacks. No need to do anything further for the moment. SpinningSpark 13:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine. As far as I am concerned, this issue is resolved. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This comment Cryptonio made at his user talk, while it was quickly followed by blanking, is pretty unsettling. I'm hoping I just see it as such because there's some greater context I don't realize. I definitely don't see this as resolved, but possibly moved to WQA for the time being... but considering the overall problem and some of Cryptonio's other comments, this may rapidly become a ECCN situation. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my user page, and later removed because I'm not planning in being involved any further in these areas. That these issues has anything to do with ethnicity, is a speculation, and so, it could be investigated and whatnot, but I doubt anything meaningful would come out of it. I really don't care, and I am not going to cry wolf at sceptic's actions since they mean almost nothing to me, in a personal way, but I've made it clear to him that his actions are pretty much unacceptable in this professional setting. Other than that, since sceptic keeps being open about his own questionable actions, and leaves no doubts on these forums about his bias intentions, I cannot take these forums seriously at all, and again, I prefer to contribute in other areas of Wiki where my actions won't be as 'attention-gathering'. Thanks for, whatever this is. Cryptonio (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Your own actions, seen in the comment at Talk:Gaza War and at your user talk page, no matter what Sceptic's actions are, are unacceptable for any collaborative setting, professional or otherwise. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 20:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I had seen the comment on your talk page and the only reason you did not get blocked was because you seemed to think better of it and immediately reverted. User pages do not have an exemption from the requirement not to make personal attacks. You speak of a professional setting, but the way you speak to other editors is anything but professional. A professional keeps their responses civil, calm and to the point, even when they think the other party is badly wrong. SpinningSpark 20:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt I'll have the time for more of this really, guys. If we were to keep these discussions to actual article-related subject, we would be able to not only ignore these comments but actually avoid them. My actions are only a product of those of others, no matter how much we play judge after the fact. Talk pages are not the articles, and what goes on in there is not a macrocosm of Wiki, but simple heated debate(in most cases). If all parties were to keep their bias away from the articles, talk pages wouldn't even be necessary. There are many ways in how to carry a conversation. Anyways, I am not defending myself or anything like that, I don't feel threatened, I am simply saying that 'this', whatever it is, is only a result of someone crying wolf first. I am not in the business of 'throwing the stone and then hiding the hand'. Rest assured, that I don't think of scpetic as an adversary or anything like that, and that I will no longer engage him in any way. And about my actions in the Gaza War talk page, I am much better than that, and I really doubt it's needed away from the Israeli-Pales subject matter. I sit where ever I sit because I was invited. Peace, let's drop this. Cryptonio (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If you believe your actions are just products of others, be warned admins around here don't agree with you; and if you continue acting as you have, you are on the fast track to incurring disciplinary action. We have no reason to believe you are any better than you appear by your talk page comments, and your contribution history doesn't back up your claim - neither does your block log. Maybe it's best you step away, as you've said, and don't come back until you're ready to approach things with a level head and a good attitude. Fleetflame 01:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Endeavor (nonprofit)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Endeavor_(nonprofit)

I work for Endeavor and would love to get our entry back up! I am happy to reedit it so it meets the correct criteria!

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.22.90 (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI - if you have a conflict of interest with the subject of a proposed article you are strongly discouraged from creating or editing articles about that subject. If, however, you do wish to do so, first of all you will need to create an account -- IP editors cannot create articles; second, create the article as a draft in a user subpage. But before you do that, please read WP:YFA, WP:RS, WP:CORP, and WP:SPAM. – ukexpat (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The article had been speedily deleted previously per criterion A7, meaning the article didn't assert the importance or significance of the subject. As ukexpat above indicates, however, just passing that criterion won't mean such an article will stay... the subject itself should be notable by Misplaced Pages's guidelines for organizations (WP:CORP). —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this anything to do with Endeavour (organization) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem likely given the IP's geolocation (NYC) versus that Endeavour's location (QLD). But I suppose it's a trivial matter for someone with the tools to check if Endeavor (nonprofit) == Endeavour (organisation). —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 01:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Nah, it's different. Check the IP's other edits, linking to something at endeavor.org, which is different from Endeavour (organisation). —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 01:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Was I wrong to delete a comment of another user?

The other day I noticed on my watchlist a new discussion of interest at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions. When I got there, I saw an interesting proposal, and a single comment. This is a policy talk page in which I've participated in the past, but hadn't participated in much since February (except for a one word comment on May 9 and a couple of minor edits in the first few days of June). So imagine my surprise(shock, really) when I noticed, in this new section in which I had not participated, a criticsm of me. Totally out of the blue, and unprovoked. This edit shows the comment in question, and here is a link to how that section looked when I first discovered it. The comment in question, when taken out of context, apparently does not appear to others to be nearly as obviously problematic as it did to me:

I'm opposed to this, as written, although perhaps too much credence is presently given to WikiProject conventions. The royalty naming convention has reduced some edit wars, and the place naming convention was reducing edit wars until the editor now known as Born2cycle (talk · contribs) started acting as if the US place naming convention was a nullity. — <user redacted>> 22:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please remember, this was a criticism about me made in a discussion in which I was not (yet) participating, made by a user with whom I've engaged in several disputes. Also, consider that I found this to be a complete distortion about my behavior during events that go back to one or two years ago. If it was not a personal attack what was the purpose of identifying me by name? I considered my options, not necessarily in this order, on how to proceed.

1. Ignore it and participate in the discussion as if the comment was never made. Rejected because I was concerned that that would totally incorrectly imply tacit agreement with what the statement said (since then I've read Misplaced Pages:Avoid personal remarks and now realize the potential folly in that thinking).
2. Respond to it there. I was concerned that would create a totally irrelevant tangent to the discussion about the proposal.
3. Respond to it on the user's talk page. See #1.
4. Request that the user delete it. Frankly, I found that to be so unlikely I did not give it serious consideration. Indeed, the editor defended the comment soon after as not even being derogatory. My question as to whether he intended it as a complement was never answered.
5. Edit or delete the comment myself. Because it did not occur to me to ask a neutral party to edit or delete the comment (my bad), I considered this to be the only reasonable option. I was much more comfortable with deleting rather than editing the comment for two reasons. First, I can't speak for someone else. Second, WP:NPA allows for deleting of comments, not for editing comments.

So, I deleted the comment, citing WP:NPA in my summary comment: Remove derogatory comment per WP:NPA "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor."

Shortly thereafter someone else restored the comment, saying "restore, - these do not appear to be personal attack". After a brief discussion on my talk page that user agreed to redact my name out of the comment, plus adding a comment saying he redacted the name "per request". And then the discussion about the proposal proceeded with no more discussion about any of this.

Except, I got some comments of concern from yet another user on my user talk page, and that's what this request for assistance is all about. I'm requesting that someone, or several of you hopefully, read that thread on my talk page and help me out with these questions. Thanks in advance.

1. Do you think you would consider yourself personally attacked if someone with whom you'd had disagreement in the past, out of the blue, suddenly shared his biased and critical opinion of you on a policy talk page in a discussion in which you were not even involved?
2. Do you think it's reasonable to characterize an unprovoked criticism of a contributor on a policy talk page in which that contributor is not even participating to be a personal attack?
3. Do you think it's reasonable to characterize the comment in question as a "true personal attack" especially in the context of what is meant on WP:NPA where it states: "On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack."?
4. Is it just me, or does it also seem to you like the user with whom I'm engaged in discussion on my talk page has some kind of bone to pick with me?
5. What do you recommend I should have done? As I did, or something different?
6. Do you think I did anything "wrong"?
7. What do you recommend for me now?

Thank you very much. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In short: Arthur was wrong to name you, but the comment reflected poorly on him not you, but by acting like you are, you are justifying his impression of you as a troublesome editor, and anyone following any of this will tend to agree with him.

Longer answer: In Misplaced Pages, people get their passions roused, things are said that are later regretted, etc. Administrators are not the civility police. They can't go around making people be nice, no matter how hard some of them try (and yes, some will bring down the hammer on you just for something like 'you know how argumentative so-and-so is' while others will be fine with comments like 'you mother fucker' and just respond 'oh tone it down a bit'). Given the wide variety of personalities and interactions, it's impossible to maintain a consistent standard. However, the NPA guideline is at least uniformly understood to disallow extreme attacks and incivility. Now on to your specific questions...

1. Yes.
2. Yes, but on the scale of personal attacks, not a particularly noteworthy one. You can make a mountain out of a molehill, but nobody will respect you for that. If you ever want a PA removed, it's better to ask an admin to look at it and do it for you. If it's particularly egregious, the admin will probably even go warn the other party for you. Saves you a lot of time and energy.
3. No.
4. Yes, of course.
5. Just ignoring it would have been the best policy. If someone goes around making barbed comments about someone else, as I said above, that doesn't reflect well on him. It doesn't take a genius to understand he's got a problem with you. I suppose even a reasonably short paragraph explaining he has, in your view, mischaracterized your actions would have been ok. But you have a tendency, I've noticed, to go on at length way after the issue is dead. I think, for example, you've turned your RFC into something of a pyrrhic victory. But there was no reason to go on at length about this.
6. See previous.
7. You seem to let things get to you where you can't let go. Short of a personality transfer, I'd recommend you just ignore things that distract you from contributing material to Misplaced Pages. In the long run, that's what you're supposed to be here for.
8. Write articles. Don't bother following people around to see if they are making snarky comments about you and then stirring up ghosts of old disputes.

--C S (talk) 08:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

C S hits it right on the head. Deleting the talk page comments of others is surprisingly difficult to justify, and more often than not backfires (compare to the Streisand effect). The best approach is to ignore it if you're the target of what you consider a personal attack. meatball:DefendEachOther goes more deeply into why this is a valid approach. Especially on policy and guideline pages, which are watched by many highly experienced editors, a personal attack isn't likely to remain unchallenged.

I understand, of course, that there's a concern of being wrongly characterized in the eyes of editors who don't know you... and this is a genuine concern. My advice in that regards is that, if you do believe there's a pattern of thinly-veiled personal attacks, or attempts to prejudice other editors against you by a particular editor, and you have evidence of it, it may be time to go for WP:WQA or something more extreme. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 15:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but I'm still befuddled by something.

1. (Q1) C S would consider it to be personally attacked if someone out of the blue, suddenly shared a biased and critical opinion of C S on a policy talk page in a discussion in which C S was not even involved, though not a "particularly noteworthy" one per Q2.
2. Despite that, such an attack would not be a "true personal attack". (Q3)

So what, a "true personal attack" has to be "particularly noteworthy"?

In general I'm puzzled by the apparent between-the-lines effective approval of personal attacks at Misplaced Pages, despite the very strong words against such behavior at WP:NPA, and strongly worded explanations about why attacks are harmful to WP. It's almost like people don't really agree with what it says.

For example, why is it so strongly discouraged to delete a comment that is a personal attack? Why is it not encouraged? If every time someone's personal attack was deleted, they'd probably figure out much faster how to make their points without attacking anyone. Where's the harm in that? It's not like it's very difficult to edit out the personal attack in a re-edit.

--Born2cycle (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to keep a sense of proportion here. If someone posts "Spinningspark is a gay pervert who is out in the park looking for rent boys every night", that is an unquestionable personal attack that should quite rightly be immediately deleted (even if it were true) because it is clearly intended to be disruptive. The post you deleted reads (in part) ...the editor now known as Born2cycle (talk · contribs) started acting as if the US place naming convention was a nullity. The editor is clearly guilty of the mistake of concentrating on the editor instead of the actual content, but a personal attack? Come on, don't be so sensitive, Misplaced Pages can be a bit of a bear pit at times, and this was part of a serious discussion, not vandalism or trolling of some kind. I would also comment that it is established etiquette to let you know of a thread you are being discussed in by name.

I would agree with the advice you got above that the best approach is to ignore the personal comments, lead by example and just discuss the issues. Failing that, ask the offending editor to strike the comment himself, although that often just leads to more uneccessary heated exchanges in my experience. Deleting the posts of other editors is considered very bad for good reasons. Firstly, if others have responded, it can make a nonsense, or even completely change the meaning, of those replies. It can also change the meaning of the original post as the remaining text may in some way have been dependant on the deleted passage. In short, the talk pages are meant to be an archive of the discussions that took place and altering them after the fact is always frowned on, the accepted practice is to post a correction later on and/or use strikethrough on the original post.

SpinningSpark 09:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The editor is clearly guilty of the mistake of concentrating on the editor instead of the actual content, but a personal attack? That's like saying, "the man is clearly guilty of unjustifiably killing a human being, but murder?", or "he is clearly guilty of holding up that bank, but robbery?" Concentrating on the editor, in a derogatory or insulting way, is the definition of a personal attack. "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." (WP:NPA) For the life of me I cannot understand why so many people are so willing to tolerate this totally unnecessary and harmful-to-WP behavior, as clearly explained in WP:NPA. What is wrong with have zero tolerance for personal attacks? Why does a personal attack being relatively mild make it okay? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The harm, B2C, is that removing someone's comments risks escalating the situation rather than the intended effect of promoting civility. Powers 12:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There would be little risk of escalation if there was zero-tolerance for any kind of personal attack, and true acceptance of the right of anyone to remove any comment that feels like a personal attack to any contributor. Recently I was accused of making a personal attack for making a statement that did not refer to anyone by name, nor did it imply anything about anyone in particular. Even then, if someone would have removed it I would have accepted their (incorrect) interpretation, and reworded it.

But apparently zero-tolerance for even perceived personal attacks is not what the community wants, for reasons I cannot comprehend. I can only surmise that it is because everybody wants to retain the right to let someone have it once in a while, because they believe sometimes people deserve it. I don't subscribe to that thinking, but apparently that puts me in the minority. I have never hit anyone in real-life either. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're being a bit ridiculous here, especially when you end your comment by implying that Misplaced Pages community standards on verbal tolerance are related to whether or not we think physical assaults are ok. Why should there be zero-tolerance for a perceived attack? Plenty of people like to create drama and imagine damaging slights upon themselves. NPA policy is not here to cater to them, anymore than FIFA rules are designed to reward footballers who fall to the ground, rolling in anguish, when an opponent brushes his jersey. The NPA policy is here to make sure things don't get out of hand and keep things civil so people can engage in the activity of building Misplaced Pages, not to be used as a tool to create needless drama. --C S (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Kaplan University

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

There's been a bit of an edit war brewing on the Kaplan University article, and I'd appreciate some assistance/mediation. One editor, User:Logger9, insists on inserting material that appears to be more along the lines of adcruft than encyclopedic. They may be good-faith edits, but the editor refuses to disclose what connections they may have. Affiliates of the subject organization have a history of POV edits on this and related articles. Please see the Talk:Kaplan University page for more info. Thanks! --averagejoe (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have left a brief review / 3rd opinion on the talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't have to disclose his affiliations. While the revelation of a COI might seem helpful, in reality, if the content is poor, then it should simply be fixed. Accusing another user of having a disruptive COI without substantial evidence could be seen as a personal attack, though as you may know going out and harvesting such information is likely going to be a violation of WP:OUTING.

In short, unless it's blatantly obvious vanispamcruftisement, you should just assume good faith on the part of Logger9, and try to work towards establishing a consensus, using the dispute resolution process (as you've started to do, by posting here). WP:NPOVN might be the best next step if it's a big deal; while WP:COIN might be appealing, I don't think it's going to help unless you can establish said user has a disruptive COI. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Average Joe has good reason to be wary of suspicious editing on that article, given the history there (e.g., this discussion). That said, without clear evidence of a COI, it is a non-issue, and the focus should be on the edits themselves, not whomever may or may not be making them. It appears that at least two other editors are helping to watch the page, which should be enough to keep the article from becoming too POV. Discuss, and if it becomes and issue, make use of WP:3RR. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 20:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

CObra group marketing

Cobra Group (Marketing) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

HI. There is a user (user: gobananasman) and an ip address (79.121.174.249) both responsible for adding promotional material to an article and also removing links and references they don't lik ethe look of. I think they may be company employees who are protectinmg and promoting the company.

Can anyone help? PLease check out the Cobra Group marketing page and the page history, you'll see what I mean.

Cheers --79.97.105.2 (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

User 79.97.105.2 keeps putting incorrect information on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/Cobra_Group_(Marketing) How can I block him from doing it?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobananasman (talk • contribs) 07:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There's some edit warring taking place from both users on this article. I went through the article and excised the least unencyclopedic content and will monitor it going forward.

It appears both editors (IP 79.97.105.2 and Gobananasman) have undeclared conflicts of interest with this company. Make sure to read Misplaced Pages's conflict of interest policy, and know that reporting it here (and/or being right) does not make you immune from WP:3RR. tedder (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeez... I was about to respond to this but I didn't notice that contributions had overwritten the request. As a procedural note, this was highly inappropriate. Thanks to Tedder for catching this and keeping me from making an ass of myself.

In this particular case, I think we're reaching a moot point; Tedder massively cleaned up the article and removed what appears to have been the points of contention as they simply weren't encyclopedic to begin with. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 14:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears Gobananasman has a habit of rewriting comments from this IP before. I placed {{uw-tpv1}} and a personal note on his talk page. tedder (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm hitting both users with {{uw-3rr}}; each one appears to be at 3, maybe 4 reverts in the last 24h. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 14:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR is appropriate, thanks. I'm hoping we can nip it in the bud by getting into a discussion with the editors and monitoring the article, rather than going down the 3RR route. tedder (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I have been undoing/reverting changes made by Gobananasman, but only in response to their removal of my contributions. I know this is not necessarily the best way to go about it, which is why I put this request for help on here, I'm not a wikipedia genius by any means. Tedder has done well in stepping in, but the article is now quite unsatisfying in that some of the information leads nowhere, and also the link/ref to the daily mirror article has been removed. You will notice by loking at the history of user Gobananasman that he has been deleting/editing.reverting.removing any posts made by myself which can be percieveed in any way negative. I have tried to open discussion on the talk page (removed/edited by Gabananasman) and also in the explanations of changes i have made, but Gobananasman continues to replace anything that can be perceived as negative with blatantly promotional material, which leads me to believe that they are a current employee of The Cobra Group, or at the very least someone else with an association with the company or one of the subsidiaries. I am an ex-employee of the company with first-hand knowledge of the positive and the negative that go with association with the company and I am in favour of a balanced article, so long as that balance leaves room for refereces to what is quite widespread public criticism of the company. I understand and acceot the 3RR warning thing, I was expecting this when I posted this plea for help initially, but my question now is what am I able to contribute to the article in the future, and is there any way of protecting the article from user such as gobananasman who seem to have no interest other than promoting the company? Thanks again.

--79.97.105.2 (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I would rather the page was just blocked all together or even better removed from wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobananasman (talk • contribs) 15:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I moved this article to Cobra Group (company) which is more compliant with naming conventions. – ukexpat (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the page is about a notable subject and belongs on Misplaced Pages. It appears both of you have conflicts of interest with this company. However, the COI and 3RR warning shouldn't prevent you from making productive contributions to this article or other articles. Remember, focus on the content. tedder (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

IP/User refusing to talk?

I'm not exactly a new user, but I'm really not sure where else to go with this. Basically, I'm trying to apply the guidelines from Template:Current sport, inviting those users who disagree with them to discuss them on the template's talk page. That's worked quite nicely so far, with the exception of a user and/or various IP addresses on the Spanish football articles. What pretty much happens is the following:

• I remove the template per its guidelines from an article about a current Spanish football season.
• I get reverted by an IP, when I'm lucky with a comment in the edit summary.
• I go to the IP's talk page and try to explain the situation, and invite it to the discussion if he/she disagrees with the guidelines.
  • If I do nothing from then on, nothing whatsoever happens. The template stays on the article, I get no reply at all.
  • If I remove the template again, I get reverted again, usually by a new IP. Once again, I contact the IP on the talk page, and once again I get no reply whatsoever until I revert once more.

I'm not so much frustrated about the reverts, everyone is free to disagree with me, after all. What's getting seriously annoying is that the IP is pretty much refusing to talk to me while actively reverting me at the same time. The only thing that gets the IP to actually say something is to revert again, which means the only way for me to get some comments is to revert war, and I really don't feel like doing that. The results of that you can see here. And, instead of reverting once again, or at all, I'd rather figure out what the hell to do instead to get that IP to talk to me. --Conti|✉ 16:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Tough problem. Here's the thing- are those guidelines actually binding? Looking at the ongoing discussion at the template's talk page regarding the application of those guidelines, I would say it's contentious at the least. Maybe there's consensus to treat them as binding... and as such you should feel OK to go for WP:BRD on those IPs.

However, you've gotta be damn careful not to edit war or be seen as edit warring... and in any case be real damn careful to evaluate the consensus as to how binding those guidelines are. WP:ARBDATE can be seen as a situation where an even more trivial-seeming editing change, which didn't have obvious consensus, got blown way out of proportion. My own fight over {{IPsock}} last month is a similar situation where there was no clearly documented consensus to cite, despite what I viewed as an obvious matter that shouldn't have even required consensus beyond already-existing policies, guidelines and practices. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 16:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines are never binding. :) Again, the point wasn't whether the guidelines should be applied or not (I think they should), the point was that the person disagreeing with me didn't talk to me about it. But, just after I've made this post, the IP started to talk to me after all, and now actually agrees with me on the issue. So this seems to be moot now, unless there'll be a new IP starting to revert me soon or something. --Conti|✉ 16:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I know guidelines aren't intended to be binding, but they're certainly used in such a way. What I mean by this is that once there's a measurement of consensus, and the guideline is written, then until there's some measurable change in consensus, it is in effect binding. Now, whether multiple IPs using the template in a different manner constitutes a measurable change in consensus is pretty questionable... but it's questionable enough that you may find yourself under scrutiny in the future if it comes to WP:ANEW or elsewhere.

But as to getting the IP to talk... there's not much you can do. My response above was mostly geared towards the very likely situation you'll encounter, where you're the only one removing, while there are several IPs adding it... you can come off looking a bureaucrat or, even worse, edit warrior. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 16:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Requesting help in keeping information from being blanked out in Sathya Sai Baba

Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sathya Sai Baba is a very controversial topic in India. All coverage of the individual in reputable western media has been strongly critical. In Sai Baba related pages on wikipedia we are facing some major issues, which I attempt to outline below.

• Continual blanking of critical and well sourced information by IPs, newly registered editors and people who apparently consider sai baba their god ( which can be evidenced by several comments to the effect on the article's talk). This blanking happens completely in violation of wikipedia policies. Some of the recent edit comments include: "I know that the changes I made where right", "I add \ed thta because I know what to do", "I changed it because this is offensive to a lot of people, and it isn't even true", "My dad was in Puttaparthi his whole life and this never happened"- just to point out a few. It is quite difficult, if not completely impossible, to engage in rational arguments with people making changes with "rationale" like these. THese edits were reverted but there are many more - which involve blanking of information, addition of advertisement like conent etc. which are hard to handle.

• Section blanking, deletion of clips revealing cheating in purported miracles( which can be seen in this version: )- the article is continually subject to such attacks. And the way the people who want the info out work make it impossible to fix these without getting quickly reverted and attacked.
• "Info", self-advertisement by any standard, sourced directly to the controversial sai baba organization cover entire sections now. All this material is completely in violation of WP:RS.
• Slander and attack against neutral editors. Almost 100% of info from respectable sources on this person is critical in nature - be it The BBC, The Guardian, The Times or The DTV. Editors adding well sourced material are targeted by and slandered by the Sai Baba group on their websites and blogs. Which makes many editors scared to contribute to the article and just stay away from it.. Even people like Robert Priddy have had their character assassinated by the group's lies and propaganda. I had personally used an alternate account, of which I had informed the arbcom, to edit the article. Mainly because it is an extremely controversial topic in India and there have been attempts at life on many critics including elderly people. People related to the sai baba organization had an SPI slyly raised against me to ascertain my identity. The admin, initially confused my alternate account for a sock and ended up revealing my details. Later investigations revealed that my alternate account was just a legitimate alternate account and was never used in an abusive manner - and thus my account was unblocked. I was further attacked by editors who wanted me not contributing to the namespace - which led to me deciding to stop contributing to the article. Recently I was taken aback by how all well sourced information was being removed and replaced with self-sourced praise and attempted to point out the issue on talk and fix it - with little effect. Even if I try to re-add the well sourced info - it would just be quickly blanked again.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Without knowing anything about the topic, I liked the first paragraph as it follows essentially what I was suggesting ( based on personal opinion) about describing food controversies,

""Sathya Sai Baba (Telugu: సత్య సాయి బాబా), born Sathyanarayana Raju on November 23, 1926 with the family name of "Ratnakaram", is a controversial South Indian guru, religious leader and orator. He is described by his followers as a godman and miracle worker.""

but presumably with the addition of a one sentence summary such as , " but his critics contend he is something almost libelous."

Is there anything you can say that is factually easy to document ( satements of opinon by notable groups constitute facts about their opinion, " the Trogolodyte Club says he is a CIA operative ") that gives a reader the critical evaluation?

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This version of the article contains the well sourced criticism that is being shoved under the carpet by a set of users. It would be of great help if editors could see that the well sourced content in there is not blanked out with misleading edit comments or manufactured excuses. I would very much revert to save this info but I am afraid I've already reverted a few times today. I sincerely request editors here to please help save this content. Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add that the amount of criticism in the article is astounding, especially for a BLP. The general agreement on the talk page was to find info that Dilip had removed (as white_adept) and re-add it, to expand his biography and teaching sections, and to cut the criticism into a well sourced, but smaller, section. There is currently an ongoing edit war between Dilip, Sbs108, and Radiantenergy about re-adding videos that were initially added without a consensus, and were removed pending an agreement about having them on the page, as well as info about SSB's charitable organizations and such. . The revision of January 3, 2009 shows just how much criticism Dilip has added to the article. The criticism isn't being "shoved under the rug", it is being cut down to the standards set for a BLP. Thanks, Onopearls 18:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC) I withdraw my reply. I have no opinion on the SSB article. Thanks, Onopearls 03:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, assuming the sources are credible and fairly represented, it doesn't sound like the existence of these allegations is disputed, "Allegations of sexual abuse, deceit, murder and financial offences surround" any more than there is dispute that lots of people seem to worship him. I'm keeping the discussion here because I'm also trying to keep it general. You would think that in many controversies with non-frivolous viewpoints represented, that a simple statement of "A thinks B about subject while C thinks D is more accurate about subject." In this case, it isn't really either or as financial and sexual crimes are culturally determined, most people believe that deception and taking of human life can be justifiable. So, this people who worship him may or may not see these are problems. My only point here is to avoid moralizing and try to stick with facts. If the sources say he engages in some notable sex practices, why should that be less relevant than his "miracles" which presumably would be difficult to state as fact in articles on unfavorable religions in the West?

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Mass cremations in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The above article, which I created, was nominated for a speedy deletion. I looked over the reasons for the deletion as well as the guidelines for pages on Misplaced Pages and was struggling to figure out what needed to be changed. I therefore wrote on the talk page for the user who had nominated the article (which in his comments on my talk page he said I could do if I had questions) but he has yet to respond and as I am a fairly new wikipedia user I am unsure what to do next. Looking over the history of the page I did notice one other user had said that page does not qualify for speedy deletion and had declined the request, but I wasn't sure if this meant that the article was no longer up for deletion or not. Any help on this issue would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you. Franchesca786 (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As the notice on your talk page indicates it was nominated for speedy deletion as original research. However that is not a valid criterion so speedy was declined.  – ukexpat (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Having looked briefly over the article it is sourced, it might not be strictly neutral (in Misplaced Pages terms) but you have some reliable sources there. I would think that the deletion tag was a type of vandalism, perhaps best to ignore it. Carry on developing it, consult the WP:Good article criteria for guidelines, carry on with the good work. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sad to say that sometimes this will happen. The article that was nominated for a speedy deletion is not significantly different from the current one, and is indeed, perfectly fine. Of course, one may need to work more on weeding out any WP:NPOV issues, perhaps with discussion amongst editors. But on the whole it seems a suitable topic for inclusion and well-sourced so far. The reason I say I'm sad is because the speedy tagger accused the article of being: 1) an original topic 2) no Google hits 3) designed to disparage India. Regarding #3, while the article itself does not show any disparagement of India, one might wonder why someone would immediately accuse another of such. I expect there is a nationalistic pride issue here. Furthermore regarding #1 and #2, the sources clearly refute #1 and I was able to find plenty of Google hits including this one. So if the user you wrote to doesn't respond, I would just let it go. Just be aware people will sometimes act out if you work on this type of topic. --C S (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference Formating

I am working on an article about SocialSense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), based on the advice from several editors I added additional supporting references to the article that shows the media’s coverage for the name SocialSense. Yesterday I discovered that they were removed because apparently, I added them as external links (which I should not have in retrospect). Can you please show me how to incorporate one of these references correctly and I will do the rest myself. Also can you provide some information about best practices for references (i.e. how many do I need to add, do I use commas between them, etc.).--PiRSqr (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If you read Misplaced Pages:Citing sources you should be able to see how it is done. Plus check out Misplaced Pages:Featured articles and WP:Good articles for examples. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Assistance?

Thought an edit to the 2020 Olympics wiki page was appropriate... another thought not... Please refer to complete discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Cm1ij

Any thoughts from anyone? Cm1ij (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems like your trying to include a political topic that most people, I would think, would not think particularly relevant to the article. It also smacks somewhat of original research. While it's fun to think about these things, we really have no idea how the charter and legalities of host countries will interact. --C S (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wigan Athletic

An anonymous editor ("he", for argument's sake) removed some content in the Wigan Athletic F.C. article, because it was not sourced. I reverted the edit, and asked him to at least give time for editors to find a source. He did not do so, and reverted my revert. I warned him for disruptive editing via Twinkle, searched the Internet and found sources for the claims he disputed, but he disputes the reliability of the sources I referenced. I have 100% confidence in the source, and I'm not sure how to put an end to this edit war. Please can I have some assistance? GW(talk) 10:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not necessary to give time to source something in an article. Quoting Jimmy Wales, "random, speculative" info "should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced". However, the disputed sentence in the article (about it being the youngest club in the league) appears to be true. The best thing to do in a situation like this is to add multiple sources so that there can be no dispute about their accuracy. I suggest adding these two:

• http://premierskills.britishcouncil.org/the-clubs/information/wigan
• http://sports.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Profiles/Clubs/Wigan-Athletic/articleshow/3490290.cms

These two are reliable sources and should be enough to backup the claim. One is a site connected with The British Council, and the other is a well known news site. Also, you guys seem to have been waging quite a revert war on the article. I suggest you discuss things like this on the talk page in the future and come to a suitable agreement, instead of simply re-reverting. Chamal 11:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately you were in the wrong to warn him for disruptive editing. "Legally" he is in the right to have removed the unsourced edit. One could say it's not particularly collegial, overreacting for such a little fact, etc., but he's perfectly within the rules by doing so. This is analogous to if a neighbor calls the landlord on you for making noise at night instead of just politely approaching you. As a long term plan for interaction, calling the authorities on an apartment neighbor on a first offense is a very bad idea and likely to lead to future trouble. But of course as an "anonymous" IP, probably he doesn't much care about future interactions. However, with the sources given above by Chamal_N, now you are in the right to add the disputed statement. If he reverts you again, then you can simply report him at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents, pointing out that you are in the right with reliable sources, and an admin will take care of it. Be careful not to engage in edit-warring, particularly the 3 revert rule. Before taking anything to the noticeboard, It is best to notify the user first on his user talk page and the article talk page (there seems to be no discussion there, the dispute taking place entirely in edit summaries), that you have new sources and that further reversions will be seen by others as being in the wrong. --C S (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Horn of Africa

hi need an urgent help with this article ive contacted the admins on a previouse occation and they suggested that i reach a consensus with the parties involved.i followed their advise but this has failed. The argument centers around the defenition of the Horn of Africa.The article mentions that the term Horn of Africa refers to peninsula but it refuses to mention what lands are contained in it. this is important becouse the term is also extended to refer to a region. now most of this area lies is well outside the peninsula.and when people read the article they errounosly assume that these countries are also contained in the peninsula. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liban80 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This same user posted almost the exact same request for administrative intervention a little over a week ago ('absit invidia' is him). He was told in no uncertain terms then by separate editors to discuss matters over on the article in question's talk page with the other editors involved in the dispute so as to establish consensus, and to also bear in mind that fringe issues come into play in this particular case. Instead, the editor above has been repeatedly attempting today to force his idiosyncratic definition into the article, to the point of consecutively reverting three separate editors. As I write this, he is now blocked from editing for breaching WP:3RR. I would therefore take his assurances of simply trying to "reach a consensus" with a grain of salt. Middayexpress (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add that Liban80's intention is to erase a definition that is supported by multiple different sources and replace it with a personal interpretation of a source that neither contradicts the current version of the article nor supports his definition. He has accused both me and Middayexpress several times of 'distorting' or 'lying' when we pointed this out. --Scoobycentric (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Which version of this guy is blocked? Because in my opinion, they both need to be blocked.Drew Smith What I've done 02:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that whole double name thing is about. However, I do know that Liban80 appealed to have his block overturned, but his request was declined since he impersonated an administrator: he added a fake template to his talk page claiming that his request to be unblocked had been granted, and that it was handled by one 'absit invidia' (his other handle mentioned above). Middayexpress (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that Middayexpress is adept in the use of mad slinging. but you will not distract me from the issue at hand. First of all you suggested that i completely altered the definition of the Horn. I did nothing of the sort. it states in the wiki article about the Horn of Africa that it is a peninsula, I simply added a description of what is contained in that peninsula. Ive also posted references to support my case and these were the Oxford Online reference and the Columbia Encyclopedia.I dont know how much reliable you can get than those two prestigious sources.

As for people objecting to my defenition. there were only two individuals who disagreed with my definition in the talk page and they were middiyaexpress and Scoobycentric. and the only argument they put forth was that my describtion was a fringe. Sorry guys but the oxford press and the columbia encyclopedia's expertise exceeds yours in this area. they are not in the habit of publishing fringe definitions.

I invited Middayexpress to talk the issue over in his talk page but all i got from him was stone walling. and the issue is deadlocked.The only i can see to resolve it, is to bring in an admin to arbitrate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liban80 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully nipping self-promotion in the bud

I occasionally keep up with the article on Talkeetna, Alaska where I live. I recently removed what I consider self-promotion by a local newspaper but wanted to make sure I didn't go to far and/or more experienced editors agree. If not, please revert before a potential edit war starts. If you agree, perhaps watching and reverting if the promotion continues would be helpful. Thanks. jimkloss (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like you've done a good job. You might want to look at WP:CITE as the citations need fixing, eg the raw urls. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Potential edit war at Jovan Vraniškovski

Jovan Vraniškovski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I seek assistance as I don't want to start an edit war with User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise. I am a new user and I believe Misplaced Pages is about neutrality and contribution, not POV pushing and deleting others' efforts. That user initially reverted all my edits, labeling them as tendentious. I tried to start a discussion, elaborating why I consider my approach to be more objective. Unfortunately, he doesn't reply to any of the arguments, doesn't provide his own, but instead admits that he doesn't know much about the subject, and keeps insisting on his version of the article?! I provide references and proof for all statements I make. 'The other party' does not. Hope someone can help! Thanks.

Kpant (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see that you have provided some sources on the talk page. Did you insert neutrally worded statements with inline citations to those sources in article? Because it looks to me as if you didn't. All material must be properly cited and neutrally worded. If not then other editors may, and in fact are encouraged to remove it, especially form biographies of living person. Please see Misplaced Pages:UNSOURCED#Burden_of_evidence Jezhotwells (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Jezhotwells, thanks for your reply! I try to do exactly what you suggest, but since it looks to you as if that is not the case, I could use some help. For example, what is not neutral in the note about Amnesty International declaring Jovan Vraniskovski a "Prisoner of Conscience"? There is also a reference included, where we can read exactly that. On the other hand 'the other party' does not argument anything against this, but simply deletes it from the article. Kpant (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, looking in further detail it looks as if bioth editors have removed material and references. I have left a note on the artcile talk page suggesting the enlistment of the Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal Jezhotwells (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Tiger dispute

Hi!

I`m new at this, so I have edited a few things on the "Siberian Tiger" article that is very wrong. The article is so bad that some might call it for a internet hoax (or propaganda), as tigers do not hunt grown brown bears on regular basis. Most killed brown bears are cubs, but the other guy wont let me give that info either. Its very rear that a tiger attacks a grown brown bear. Every time i change it, the other guy changed it back. So I got a warning. I have the documentation, but dont know how to put in references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norw73 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the problem here is clearly the lack of references, you might like to read these:

• Misplaced Pages:Referencing for beginners
• Misplaced Pages:Citation templates

Hope these help. However, I suggest you discuss with the other editor(s) on the article talk page about the changes before making them. Clearly explain why you think the current information is wrong, and show your source. This will help avoid any further edit warring. Chamal 14:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

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

User Berean Hunter is vandalizing the page Allen Collins. I have repeatedly posted the following edit: "In 1987, Allen Collins met Bill Massey, Jr., and together they co-founded Roll For Rock in loving memory of Ronnie Van Zant. Both young men had been paralyzed in the prime of their lives, and they wanted to help other people. Roll For Rock hosts benefit concerts and wheelchair sports events to raise awareness about spinal cord injury and to provide opportunities to those facing physical challenges. Roll For Rock also participates in medical research that is seeking a cure for spinal cord injury. Allen's dream was to use music as a way to educate all people about ways to flourish in life despite a physical challenge" Berean Hunter is constantly accusing me of adding promotional material, using popups, spam. I am doing NONE of those things! He has threatened to block me from editing. I believe there is no good reason for his reversions. I am simply stating what Allen Collins did before he died. Please help! There has been so much negative written about Allen, and not very many people know that he really tried to help others before he died. The information is factual, I am not an owner of Roll For Rock, I recieve no money from them ever, and I would like to see these facts on Allen Collins page. Thank you very much, R4RVolunteer —Preceding unsigned comment added by R4Rvolunteer (talk • contribs) 15:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the problem here is that you have been inserting un-sourced material, which has been correctly removed, as have the spam links. You have received warnings on your talk page. You need to read WP:Reliable sources, to see what is and is not considered reliable for Misplaced Pages purposes. You have been warned for edit warring. Please calm down and cease attacking other editors. If you can find reliable sources for the information then bring them to the talk page, discuss and work with other editors. Oh, and please sign messages with four tildes Jezhotwells (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, please do not post the same question on multiple boards. You already have a thread open at WP:NCHP#Constant removal of my edit. It is called forum shopping, it wastes everyones time and we don't like it. SpinningSpark 20:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

And at WP:AN3#Vandalizing Allen Collins

And at WP:RPP

How many times do you need to get the same answer? SpinningSpark 20:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Weird rendering.

Is there any reason why First Law of Thermodynamics page looks like this?

ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, it looks like your browser is not obeying the float:right instruction in the "laws of thermodynamics" template - in my browser, the second box appears neatly on the right of the screen, rather than obscuring the table of contents. What browser are you using? If you visit Template:Laws of thermodynamics separately, does that appear on the right or the left of the screen? ~ mazca 22:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears on the left. It's weird cause I don't have any issues with other templates that show right, such as {{NJhistory}}. Using firefox 2.0.0.20 (not updating until 3.5 comes out). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

edit fixed it, the parameters for margin were wrong. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Grow shop

Grow shop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Can someone please help with this article and its editor. It doesn't know if it is about hydroponics (as the commercial links which shouldn't be there suggest, as does some of the description and the 380 number in the UK), or a place to grow marijuana. I tried a redirect to Hyrdoponics but that didn't stick. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The article's talk page is nonexistent, and you haven't even attempted to establish communication (much less consensus) with the other user, Michael 38 (talk · contribs), other than welcoming him. This is always the first step towards getting things accomplished in any dispute; then things go on from there. Fleetflame 01:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I welcomed him right after I posted this, apparently before your response. I could do what you suggest, but I thought that after my unfortunate redirect it would be better if someone else did. I was hoping this would be the appropriate place to ask, but perhaps not. I'm not interested in a dispute with him, I'm interested in getting him some help and frankly I don't know what the best advice would be for him. I don't think we should have an article with commercial links and suggesting there are 380 marijuana growing grow shops in the UK, but I also don't think I have time to deal with this. Dougweller (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A generic welcome template is not an explanation for your redirect; that edit summary is highly unsatisfactory, and I know if I had gotten one like that, I'd be scratching my head. I would say the topic and content is legitimate, if confusingly written. I suggest initiating a real discussion on his talk page or the article talk page. There are many problematic articles on Misplaced Pages. I don't know if this is really the right forum to announce "hey I have a problem with this article but I'm too busy to fix it...who wants to help?" --C S (talk) 06:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Drummond, Katie (2009.14.05). "Pentagon Preps Soldier Telepathy Push". Wired Magazine. Retrieved 2009.05.06. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)

• Misplaced Pages help forums