Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Spinningspark (talk | contribs) at 17:14, 15 March 2009 (→Editor abusing his admin status in personal vendetta, knowingly supporting misinformation: link to previous request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

OBTS: Teaching Society for Management Educators

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

Several points: First, you should not be writing articles about subjects with which you are closely associated because of conflict of interest concerns. Second, copyrighted material can be made available for use on Misplaced Pages if the copyright owner follows the process set out as WP:IOWN. Third, any material from the subject's website is likely to be promotional in tone and an article based on it will probably be speedily deleted as spam. Fourth, any article about his subject will have to demonstrate its notability by reference to reliable sources. Bottom line, if this organisation really is notable, someone else will write an article about it in due course. – ukexpat (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Or better yet, put it on the board of requested articles. (no idea what it's called though, can someone else lend a hand?) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:REQUEST? --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, could you be more specific as to which facts you corrected and which sources and discussions exactly you are referring to. There are a lot of statistics and a lot of discussions so it is important to be clear. Mfield (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, specifically I was trying to modify the entry regarding the so-called Manchester-Liverpool area by referring to the British office of national statistics. The talk page discusses this specific topic multiple times in "#9 UK figures" & "#18 Manchester". Ghaag (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As the main source of these articles appears to be publications of a one man band, namely Wendell Cox, allegedly a an opponent of public transport, it would seem that articles based solely on his data are unlikely to be encyclopaedic and should probably be deleted. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A number of users have expressed similar concerns regarding the validity of the source on the article's talk page (#2, #9, #14,

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

However I only tried to flag some specific data as dubious and the article as "disputed" which I hope is a reasonable and productive position given the context. I am also trying to engage the contributors into discussion rather than unilateral revert but to no avail so far.

Ghaag (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Correction to above - one other source is a one man band Stefan Helders and it appears that the Wiki pages are being owned by User:Polaron. Looks like a serious rethink of the purpose and need for these lists is required. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, In accordance with WP:AD I tried to had a {{disputed}} and a {{dubious}} warnings pointing to the relevant section in the talk page in an attempt to draw more people in the discussion. Only to see it reverted without any input in the dicussions nor answer on the user talk page.

• My question is should at least the warning be maintained on the page ?

Ghaag (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have re-inserted the disputed tag. I see you have requested help from the Mediation Cabal. I hope all goes well. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez

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

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

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

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

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

At Misplaced Pages we have a very high burden of proof for information included on Biographies of Living Persons. Anything that is in any way controversial or potentially libellous must be reliably sourced to a primary THIRD PARTY source. AfterEllen.com are not and can never be an independent reliable source for information on a dispute they were involved in. If there were some coverage of the issue by a truly independent source then the matter could be discussed for inclusion. Until that point it is an absolute no no. Please also be aware of 3RR, which prohibits editors from more that 3 additions or reversions of the same content in a 24 hour period. It is in place to prevent the kind of edit warring which has been taking place on the article in question. Mfield (talk) 05:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Mfield. That's exactly where I stand on the matter. It's already been discussed off-wiki in a number of places and frankly, the BLP subject must come first here. Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle for personal agendas, especially not at the expense of a BLP subject - Alison 06:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding, from an admin on this board, is that Misplaced Pages's stance on editing is as follows:

"There is no tampering going on, anyone and everyone can edit wikipedia, that is one of the guiding principles of :::the project. What the subject would like to see in a biographical article about themselves is irrelevant and POV, :::providing the facts in question are notable, verifiable and do not infringe the subject's privacy."

The dispute with AfterEllen would constitute "notable, verifiable and do not infringe on the subject's privacy". The :::point of contention, being her sexuality. Given that the subject herself brought her struggles with her sexuality :::into the public domain this is worthy of note and no infringement on privacy.

So, if a third party source can be found (http://guanabee.com/2009/02/alisa-valdes-rodriguez-lesbians), then this is :::a legitimate edit? user:jsrchicago:jsrchicago

That blog is not a reliable source - see also verifiability/self published sources. Mfield (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

What about this one, then? http://www.lesbilicious.co.uk/books-art/interview-alisa-valdes-rodriguez-on-bisexuality-and-the-haters/ . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.234.235 (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The link above leads to an online magazine with an interview with the subject about the controversy. Surely this should be considered a reliable third party source?Owomnyc (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that that is a WP:Reliable source either. The only references to it that I can find are self-references or blogs. No statement of editorial policy or ownership appears on the website. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Section removal from Right to keep and bear arms

I think it would be helpful, to understand this issue better, to read the text below on face value without following all the lnks I have given in the first instance. The references can of course be followed thru later at leisure.

BACKGROUND On 14 Feb I added a section to the article entitled "Correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths" which was effectively drawing the link between the actions of campaigners who wish to restrict the Right to keep and bear arms who often point to the correlations discovered by researchers between the high level of gun ownership and the high level of deaths from guns and correspondingly the low levels of gun violence in countries with low levels of gun ownership. The intial edit is here. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms&diff=270583927&oldid=270565333 (added for completeness only.. this is not the edit that got deleted. That is referenced a little further down).

The initial edit was a first attempt and did not contain too many references. The section was deleted several times and reinstated several times, and at one point (here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms&diff=271201858&oldid=270583927) the section got renamed as "Gun violence and the politics of the right to bear arms".

The section has been controversial and several editors have sought to delete it. One editor User;Yaf actually deleted it in breach of 3RR but I generously did not report him (although he tried to blank references to this at some place(s). The final version which was deleted (and should be the main focus of attention) is here

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms&diff=next&oldid=272894916. It was deleted by an editor not logged in but deleted the edit within minutes of User;Yaf deleting it and me reinstating it.

CONTENTIOUS ISSUES Editors have claimed the section is either POV pushing, not conforming with NPOV, WP:OR or else WP:SYN. The most serious focus of attack has been the claim that it comprises WP:SYN.

Most of the discussions about this have been discussed in the the talk page in the sections here and here.

I would like to use WP:EA to review this deletion and determine whether its deletion was justified.

(P.S. I see some editors are continuing to argue about this edit, which I personally view as pointless until we get an independent review. The issue is a simple one to review. Either the edit was WP:SYN or it wasn't. Either it was WP:POV or it wasn't. And WP:OR or not. A simple assessment on the right and wrong interpretation is all that we need to make collective progress. The issue has not gone stale just because I am not contributing to that ongoing discussion.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

The discussion on the talk page is here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms#This_deletion_.5B.5B3.5D.5D_has_not_been_properly_discussed and some have continued elements of the discussion in later sections. However, my main argument is laid out clearly there.--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

ADVICE IS SOUGHT FROM NON-U.S. BASED EDITORS ONLY

I know how controversial this article and its content is in the United States. I therefore would like assistance from an editor who is not in the United States so that this can focus purely on WP policies and not be infuenced by their own personal opinions. Because I have been accused (falsely in my opinion) of canvassing (see next section), the person providing assistance should not be User:HowardBerry.

you're making the broad assumption that merely being a citizen of the US predisposes editors to being biased, and that editors outside the US are not predisposed to being biased. that's overtly contra to WP:AGF. Anastrophe (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

For information (not really relevent to the main issue but added for completeness)

Before making this request I used a proxy account to raise this matter with User:HowardBerry, a contributor in the UK who is listed in the Editor Assistance page as someone who can help in disputes. I did so because I wanted to discuss the issue in general terms to know how to proceed, especially as I have some particular concerns about the editors at the article and the possible presence of persons in an advisory or administrative capacity who allow personal prejudices to sway their response (whether knowingly or otherwise). I have too much experience of editing controversial articles in areas covered by powerful and well funded lobby groups to know that this kind of thing goes on. I happened to make a single edit in the wrong account and my silent approach to this person involved in WP:EA became exposed. I have since been accused of sock puppetry, meat puppetry, canvassing, and heaven knows what else, but in my opinion, my actions were perfectly reasonable and well within the rules. You can see the consequences here , here and here

Hauskalainen (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

using a "proxy account" to raise the matter is the very definition of sockpuppetry. this requires sanctions. Anastrophe (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

also, you contradict yourself blatantly above. you claim that you raised the matter with howardberry using a proxy account "because i wanted to discuss the issue in general terms ". then you claim "I happened to make a single edit in the wrong account and my silent approach to this person involved in WP:EA became exposed.". so, you admit doing it purposefully, then claim you did it accidentally. Anastrophe (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

May I ask why my own neutrality has been brought into this discussion? I have found several comments in different wikipedia pages relating to me and this issue, with the moniker "meatpuppet" banded about quite a lot. Firstly, I would state that I have not been swayed by any supposed canvassing; secondly, I informed the user in question to go through WP:EAR and then I would look into it; and thirdly, I have not engaged myself in editing or becoming involved with the editing of any of the articles in question, nor have I contacted any of the users in question regarding the comments left on my talk page. I have totally kept out of the debate. Now I see it is being stated that I am not allowed to be involved. I see nothing wrong in my actions that merit such a statement and it seems as if I am being accused of being impartial or as having been solicited as a "meatpuppet" when my actions prove otherwise. I would hope for an explanation and an apology. Howie ☎ 06:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Howie. It's because these people are desperate to throw dirt, that they don't really care who gets hit in the process. The key things for anyone reading this to know is that

(a) Under WP:EA, approaching an editor directly IS ALLOWED (it says to do via the assister's talk page, which is what I did),

(b) my using an alternate account was because I wanted to get the advice in private

(c) I was not hiding my real identity from you. I made it easy for you to work out who I am. SO I am not a sockpuppet.

(d) I made it clear that I did not want you to edit the article (so soliciting a meat puppet is also clearly a false accusation)

(e) It was me who suggested that you now don't get involved (only because I want to protect you from such accusations as meat-puppetry, but as you see, I am already too late). But if you are prepared to put up with an assault on your reputation, you are welcome to try! Personally I'd sugggest you don't.

I agree wholeheartedly that you deserve an apology from the people who have made accusations against you. Funnily enough I think I need some apologies too from much the same people (but somehow I do not think that they will be forthcoming). I for one certainly apologise to you for the consequences of my approach to you (even though I acted with honour throughout and I have not been the issuer of any of the false acusations made against you). I am especially aggrieved by the statements of Edit Centric made towards me. I have come across such editors in the past in articles of a contentious nature, Their actions are ugly and they and their friends are such they always want to have the last word on the matter. See if I am right.--Hauskalainen (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that the whole article is unbalanced with large sections on UK and US law and little on elsewhere. The artcile title is questionable. It would be more accurate if it were called gun legislation or similar. hope this helps. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really helpful because it does not address the issues of alleged OR/POV/synthesis. I do think the article rather over plays the issue of the "right" because almost no country allows an unfettered right to bear arms. Most countries control the right to have a firearm for instance (see http://www.uncjin.org/Documents/6comm/4e.pdf). The right to bear arms is no more significant than the right to drink alcohol or the right to drive a motor car or the right to take a life-saving controlled medicine, ot a thousand and one other things that are regulated. Firearms control is, however, antithetical to the unfettered right to bear arms. Firearm controls are introduced by legislators in civilized societies for the purpose of reducing death and injury. I know of no other reasons why firearms use is regulated. Attempting to say that there is no connection between (a) the right to bear arms and (b) the deaths from gun violence (whether deliberate or accidental), as the people who want the section out of the article argue, is just plain nonsense. If there were no deaths from the use of firearms there would be no need to regulate them. The statistics may or may not prove the issue, (and I doubt that they do totally), but they are totally relevant to the topic of the article, whether they do or do not. Other people have made the connection and that makes the deleted section neither WP:OR or WP:SYN. I also believe that it fairly represented the evidence so it is not WP:POV either. --Hauskalainen (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This issue is still active. --Hauskalainen (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

regardless, the proper venue is the original research noticeboard, where i have opened an incident. resolution is unlikely to be found here, considering all of the above issues unrelated to the original issue. Anastrophe (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "considering all of the above issues unrelated to the original issue"? Why is it unlikely to be found here? The issue you have raised is identical to the one I have asked for comment above. Does the independent research on gun ownership rates and gun violence have a bearing on the right to bear arms. I have given ample evidence that other people have made that connection. That the references do not use the exact words "right to keep and bear arms" is of no significance. The right to bear arms is regulated in almost every country. That regulation only occurs to stem the risk of gun violence (whether deliberate or accidental).It is oxymoronic to claim that statistics on gun deaths have no connection to the right to bear arms because if there were no gun deaths there would be no need for restrictions on the right to bear arms.--Hauskalainen (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Despite best efforts and much dispute, this is still an unresolved issue.--Hauskalainen (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

yes, and that's when a topic is normally marked as 'stale' by the editors who mind this list. unfortunately, you've been artificially "bumping" this section by repeatedly stating that it is 'active', when apparently there isn't interest by the editors here to resolve it. likewise, my request at the original research noticeboard is moribund, so i suggest it's time we took this matter to mediation, or whatever the next formal step is. Anastrophe (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it will be stale if the editors at the talk page have dropped the matter. Clearly we have not! This item still has not yet reached the top of the list. It certainly is not stale just because the assisters here have been busy on other items. I specifically asked for the editors at the OR noticeboard to wait until this had run its course. It will be dealt with here in due course I am sure. --Hauskalainen (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

quoting from the top of this page:"Assistants: Please tag each settled request as {{resolved}}; all other requests should be marked as {{stale}} after approximately five to seven days of inactivity. A thread can be archived after being tagged for two days.". so, you are mistaken. there is no 'top of this list' on this page. this issue has been stale for well more than seven days, except that you keep posting every day or two to keep it artificially 'active'. your request at the OR noticeboard is meaningless, no assistant has suggested that your request was even read. there is no policy that suggests that one or the other of these noticeboards takes precedence. since this is a question of synthesis, the OR noticeboard is the more relevant place; but regardless, neither of these topics has received adequate attention. we should move this to mediation. Anastrophe (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop this ridiculous argument over what the assistants here should and should not do and leave it to the assistants themselves to decide. You just caused me an edit conflict for no good reason at all on a post that had taken a long time to compose. SpinningSpark 16:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the main reason that there has been no response here is that instead of simply asking for assistance, the argument has been continued on this page making it difficult for assistants to actually work out what is being asked, and reluctant to get involved in a dispute which will probably attract odium to them from both sides. The only editor who dared to give you any advice on the article (Jezhotwells) above was immediately shot down as not being what you want to hear, even though, in my opinion, his advice was quite useful and relevant. I am British, and have no strong opinions on gun laws, so I meet your requirement of a non-US editor. Against my better judgement and initial decision to leave this one alone, I will give you an opinion anyway.

I am presuming that the question being brought to this board is the contents of this edit on the link between gun crime and gun laws. I see from the edit history that there are several other disagreements on related edits but I will concentrate on this one as that is what was originally asked. In general, I find the accusation that the section is POV to be unfounded. It has a neutral tone and is well referenced. I say in general because I do have a problem with the very opening statement which is then going to set the tone for the whole section. Legal restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms are usually put in place by legislators because they believe that they will reduce gun related violence. I do not doubt that the three newspaper articles given as references are discussing politicians who do indeed have this belief (or at least hope). However, it is OR to synthesise those three articles into a general statement if you do not have a source that has made that synthesis. I find it wholly credible that in the majority of cases gun laws exist for entirely different reasons - my OR would be fear of the guns being used to overthrow the government would be top of the list in many countries.

Besides the question of reliability, there is the question of whether the material is suitable for this article. The article subject is the "right to bear arms" in the various jurisdictions of the world. Certainly proposals to change those rights have a place in this article. Discussion of the link (if any) between gun ownership and gun crime is really getting a little off-topic. Certainly, there is an obvious connection between the two subjects and if this is discussed elsewhere it should be mentioned and linked in this article. If you really need to put all this material in this article then I would suggest you need to be looking at renaming it to something more suitable.

Finally, I would caution you to carefully distinguish between politicians' beliefs and policies, statistical correlations and causal links. These are far from being the same thing. For instance, there is a strong correlation between the sun rising and the amount of city traffic. You would be very unwise though, to claim a causal link; the traffic has not caused the sun to rise, nor has the sun caused the traffic. This is still the case even if you can find politicians who do believe in that cause.

Hope this has helped. SpinningSpark 16:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

i'm sorry you took umbrage at my edit causing an edit conflict, but i think it's a bit over the top to chastise me for it. edit conflicts happen.

that said, i disagree with the suggestion that the article be renamed. as has been pointed out, there are manifold other articles that are appropriate for statistics on crime, 'gun' crime, homicides, suicides, gun ownership rates, etc - Gun politics, Gun politics in the UK, etc.. - those are the articles that exist for expanded discussion of the politics of the issues. Right to keep and bear arms is about the right itself. a section addressing opinion on the connection to gun violence et al has been proposed, but never responded to. editor hauskalainen has insisted that gun ownership/gun homicide/suicide statistics must be in the article, ignoring that the right to keep and bear arms is elective, thus those statistics are misrepresentative of the topic of the article. Anastrophe (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It is likewise a bit over the top to specify that only non-US editors respond, and then for a non-US editor to join in on a topic for which they obviously know very little. Would it be equally acceptable to demand a white people ethnicity editor only must comment on an article written on, say, the history of South Africa, rather than for everyone simply to assume good faith? No. It is a violation of assume good faith for prejudice to enter into evaluations through a demand for a particular kind of response through forum shopping. It is likewise entirely rich to state that the section is NPOV and well referenced, being that the cites do not verify the text as was even pointed out by SpinningSpark, after assessing the proposed content. The presence of unrelated cites does not mean a section is well cited. Well referenced, OK, but with sources and cites that do not verify the text. The POV becomes even more evident by virtue that the cites do not verify the proposed text. It is likewise offensive and POV to see speculation on "Certainly proposals to change those rights have a place in this article.", when no such proposals exist, and "forum shopping" has evidently produced an equally biased editor who advocates pushing a POV into an article without any cites to verify the viewpoint that this indicates. Again, this is further evidence of extreme POV bias, in speculating on future events in violation of Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. In the United States, there is even a constitutional amendment that specifically prohibits any infringement on this right. Speculating on a removal of the US Constitution for citizens in America through including discussions of non-existant constitutional conventions that would be required to extinguish the right is entirely POV and undeserving of inclusion in this article. Yet, that is what "Certainly proposals to change those rights have a place in this article." when no such proposals exist outside of one or two editors' minds, where it appears to be a goal. This is Original Research, clear and simple. It has no place in the article. So, despite the "Hope" that this OR has helped, no it has not. Such a "Change", inserting text for which there is no verifying cite(s), has no place in Misplaced Pages. Yaf (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to thank User:Spinningspark for his positive and helpful contribution. I think that he has given both sides in this dispute food for thought.

As I see it the NPOV opinion is clear. It is not POV.

The WP:SYN issue raised by User:Spinningspark about the generic action is easily correctable. It can mearly say "some politicians and activists" rather than make the seeping statement. The WP:SYN claims by people opposing the section inclusion seems to have been rejected because of the statement "certainly, there is an obvious connection between the two subjects". I am assuming that is because I gave adequate references for the connection cites that that others have made the connection (so it cannot be either WP:OR or WP:SYN on my part).

On User:Spinningspark's own WP:OR point I agree with him that we need to be careful not to draw sweeping assumptions about the correlation statistics of presence of guns and gun violence. My feeling was that the edit was cautious about this issue. It said "Speculating on possible causes the researchers concluded that "all we know is that guns do not reduce fatal events due to other means, but that they go along with more shootings. Although we do not know why exactly this is so, we have a good reason to suspect guns to play a - fatal - role in this"". These words were in the original report but I would habe no problem with adding words of additional caution if they are in the UN report that we have referred to. I suspect there may be such words but I have not yet cross-checked. On the other WP:OR raised by User:Spinningspark I don't think that gun control lobbyists are seeking to prevent the armed overthrow of the government however, though it may be true that some unstable governments are unhappy about the people being armed. I am sure we could incorporate some suitably cautious reading into the text. Finally. the point that the issue of the connection is already made in other articles has been made already and we can and no doubt will link to other articles for readers needing more details. I just argue that we need more than a passing reference to the connection buried low down in a dry academic article based largely on the situation of rights in the United States. It is quite germaine to the article. Sadly we have had two major shootings again today, one in the US and one in Germany and the calls for tigher controls will no doubt follow. The Finnish government today published its proposal for tightening the law following two tragic school shootings http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/news/2009/03/ministry_of_interior_new_age_limits_for_gun_ownership_605768.html. --Hauskalainen (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

as i said before, it's time for this to go to mediation. editor assistance can't render an formal decision on the salient issue of WP:SYN. user spinningspark doesn't understand the nuances involved here. the article is about a right. laws and rights are two different things. rights are elective. gun ownership is elective. drawing a connection from the right, to ownership, to homicides and suicides is drawing a synthetic connection, because there are millions of people around the world who have the right to keep and bear arms yet do not even own guns, so are not capable of committing homicides and suicides using them. i'm exhausted at the number of times this has had to be repeated, yet it falls on deaf ears. hauskalainen has provided no references that bridge that gap, so the material is simply not admissable to the article. mediation is further exhausting, but seems the only solution to this problem. Anastrophe (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

So you just want to keep asking different groups until you get the reply you want? Laws and rights are intricately intertwined. Indeed in some languages the word for law is the same as the word for right. Rights means legal rights. A child or a criminal or an insane person may elect to carry a gun, but in most jurisdictions the law will have been broken. Electiveness does not imply legality. For WP:SYN to apply, I as editor must have connected two things which may or may not be connected. That is not allowed. But if on the other hand other, using WP:RS I can demonstrate that respectable academics and pressure groups clearly have connected these things, then WP:SYN cannot apply and failure to include such material would mean that the article did not reflect all main streams of opinion. My ears are not deaf, but your argument (that inclusion in the article is outside WP guidance) is false. I will add the section back to the article (with amendments to reflect User:Spinningspark's comments. --Hauskalainen (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

you seem to misunderstand what WP:EA is. it is just that - editor assistance. it is not a formal resolution venue. we've had one editor weigh in, and - with all due respect spinningspark - you miss what the issue is, that's evident in suggesting that the article be renamed. the synthesis has been demonstrated clearly, you have simply refused to accept it. your material does not make a direct connection to the article, which is the test of synthesis. obviously POV pushing, synthetic material cannot be allowed to stand in the article. Anastrophe (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Have removed the content in violation of WP:SYN, to reflect Anastrophe's and my comments. Mediation is an appropriate course of action. Yaf (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

And I just added it back! Your accusation of SYN has not been upheld. I have been patient and kept the edit out and not warred with you about this edit on the main page whilst WP:EA was in progress, nor have I formally complained to an admin about your previous 3RR on that page about this section. But if you persist in this I will. Please be respectful and allow the edit to stand now that we have had this response. I have waited about a month for this. Now you can wait. By all means take it to mediation, but please allow the edit to stand until you get a reply. --Hauskalainen (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

And, I have removed it again. There is clear evidence of synthesis, in that the new cites do not mention the right to keep and bear arms, only an attempt to limit gun violence through increasing legislation. It is synthesis to link these legislation changes to the right to keep and bear arms without a cite linking them to the right to keep and bear arms. Respect the consensus to date, and take it to mediation if you feel strongly about it. But, synthesis is clearly evident in the latest POV push. Yaf (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Drawing attention to your edit warring on this board is only going to result in a passing admin blocking both of you, it certainly will not succeed in getting you any help. I suggest you think of a better way to resolve your differences. SpinningSpark 15:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Language issues and references

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You could ask at Misplaced Pages:Translation for the Ukranian version of this artcile tio be translate which migh help. Ukrainan bversion at: http://uk.wikipedia.org/%D0%9C%D0%B5%D0%B4 Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Gerald N. Epstein Revision Looking for Comments

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

Revised page in userspace at User:David Hollidays/Gerald Epstein. – ukexpat (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion at Talk:Gerald_Epstein Jezhotwells (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Kimkins diet plan

The information about the Kimkins diet plan is incorrect and nothing but speculation. The allegations against the diet and the founder are not only incorrect but unfounded. Yes there is a lawsuit pertaining to fraud, but the case has not even gone to trial yet. Kimkins is an excellent low carb diet not unlike many others online. We have over 40,000 current members that are very satisfied and because of the actions of a handful of trouble makers we are suffering sales. Misplaced Pages is the primary online source for facts on any subject and for the editors to keep the one sided views posted without opposition is not only unfair but wrong. We have tried to correct the description of Kimkins only to be edited by these "haters" with nothing better to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.75.17 (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Speedy Deleting of a Company's Page and References

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps a good approach would be to create a new page in your userspace, say at User:Merylk/Adenin, and then come back here and ask for some help in making sure it meets standards? No doubt there are other borderline, or even blatantly deletable, entries here, but that's not an argument to allow more such pages. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The article as deleted last (it was also deleted twice previously, including once at AFD was still promotional. It listed out the product modules, customizable apps, clients, included a section on "solutions" that read like marketspeak, and lacked outside reliable sources. I've just searched Google News and find a lot of PR Newswire (and boy does THAT article need to be beaten into shape!) references, but not much outside of that. User:Merylk: as suggested above, you should work on an article in your own space, seek out outside, neutral references, and build the article in a factual manner without going into the details of the great things the company offers. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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

There is a guy that keeps putting two websites (Dollar - Shooting Stars and the David Van Day Online website)are official on the webpages on David Van Day and Dollar (band),and the Thereza Bazar one on your website on the External Links category on those webpages on your website. The reason this guy gives (on his contributions category on his userpage)is that David Van Day supposed to have said on a statement on one of the websites mentioned called Dollar - Shooting Stars that they are both official. Well, they are not official. This guy is accusing me of vandalising (on his contributions category on his userpage)the webpages on David Van Day and Dollar (band), and the Thereza Bazar one on your website.

Well, David Van Day told my husband on the phone (my husband phoned him) that both those websites are unofficial. I have contacted several organisations and associations which are United Kingdom government run(Information Commissioner's Office, Consumer Direct, Nominet, Citizen's Advice Bureau, Amber-Light)and they have told me by email or on their websites or by letter, phonecall both websites Dollar - Shooting Stars and David Van Day Online are unofficial. These organisations/associations also told me that it is misrepresentation to put a website is official when it isn't and they also told me that the Dollar - Shooting Stars website and the David Van Day Online one are both run by a uk individual, also they said an official website has to be run by a company anyway. Even one of David Van Day's cousins told me on the phone a couple of months ago that David Van Day hasn't told my husband lies about those two websites being unofficial. Please could you do something about this because this guy is accusing me of vandalism of the webpage about David Van Day and Dollar (band), and the Thereza Bazar one? This guy (who i have mentioned has accused me of vandalism) has cyberbullied me before on other websites(i have print-outs to prove it).--Righteoussister (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Does WP:EL rule against the addition of links to these particular sites? -- Hoary (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That guy has also not been putting sometimes whether those websites are official or unofficial, is that allowed (e.g. Dollar - Shooting Stars Website)?--Righteoussister (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard about about any need to specify whether a website is or isn't official. And indeed I cannot think of a single article that has a set of external links, each labeled either "official" or "unofficial". One of Misplaced Pages's most carefully guarded articles is Barack Obama, and in its current state it has a set of external links of which just one is labeled "official" and none is labeled "unofficial". -- Hoary (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The official site of the subject of an article is exempted from other WP:EL requirements. SpinningSpark 21:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Your activities on David Van Day and Dollar (band) are bordering on edit warring and you should desist. Why have you come straight here instead of discussing your concerns with the other editors on the talk page? The websites proclaim themselves to be official and there are statements from David Van Day supporting that. If you believe the websites are fraudulent you should provide us with links to reliable sources which verify that claim. A link to the actual official site might do it; an alleged phone call which is entirely unverifiable just doesn't cut it. Sorry. SpinningSpark 21:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Middle Colonies disinformation

Please straighten this out. There are some ludicrous assertions and throwing the book around to cover them up. Check the talk page for the lack of progress. I have been nothing but rational and my patience is at its end. Too many situations like this. Perhaps somebody can take over for me. 68.231.163.38 (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Does anyone focus on fulfilling "Copy to Wikisource"?

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

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

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

OR, Plot Descriptions, and Dispute

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

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

Hi I am 2 days old here and already in trouble :)

It seems I am engaged in an 'edit war' and have been subjected to 3RR warnings, I would like someone to assist me finding out how to resolve this constructively and amicably. Thank you.

The dispute in question can be seen at the bottom of http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Aspartame_controversy

Unomi (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It does appear a bit heated and certainly at least one editor is not particularly interested in debate, merely contemptuous responses. Might I suggest referring this to WP:Wikiquette alerts Jezhotwells (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It is true that Unomi is being treated with less than model courtesy. However, I do not think that is the root of the problem. There are several established editors opposing Unomi and the reason is clearly stated higher up the talk page - that Unomi's sources are from the political world and are not suitable reliable sources for a medical article. Unomi, you have made many arguments to your opponents but you have not addressed the claim that your sources are counter to WP:MEDRS. I note that immediately after making a post here you returned to the article and made another contentious edit. You need to slow down - there is little point asking for advice if you are not going to stop long enough to listen to it. The first thing you need to do is read the guideline indicated and digest it. If you agree that your edits are counter to it, there is nothing to be gained by continuing to try to insert material in the article. It is possible to change guidelines, but the article is not the right place to do that (try here). On the other hand, if you think you do have solid medical references, then explain on the article talk page. Likewise if you think source guidelines other than WP:MEDRS apply then you should state them and make your case on the talk page. There is possibly some debate here: Aspartame is clearly a chemical/medical article and should rely on good quality scientific sources; Aspartame controversy goes beyond the sphere of science, but the article still needs to be factual and it is wrong to blindly quote unfounded opinions from unqualified sources, even if they have been published. SpinningSpark 17:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

this 3rr report by Unomi is also relevant. SpinningSpark 15:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you censoring Obama's entry

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

Here is a recent article on the bias you are showing.

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.125.95 (talk) (talk • contribs) 02:46, 9 March 2009

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

Unjustified Deletions to "Gideon Koren" Page - Help Sought

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

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

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

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

my edits are being ruthlessy deleted out by a user

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

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

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

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

You should discuss these changes with the user in question on the article's talk page. Algebraist 14:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In accordance with WP:V, WP:RS, WP:Fringe, WP:OR and probably WP:COI

ALR (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, please note the links in the welcome message from User:ALR on your talk page. Material you add to a page needs to be verifiable and to have reliable sources. So, for example, quoting correspondence received isn't good practice because it's not verifiable by other editors. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Politically motivated attacks on Obama's web page.

It has lately become some sort of political debate about what to include on the American President's wikipedia article. Most of the controversy seems to center around some sort of citizenship claim. Now, I don't know much about politics, or whether this is some sort of last-ditch republican effort or if it is a real concern. I don't know much about politics, or really care much about politics. What I care about are facts. And if some sort of pro-obama club is stopping all mention of this dispute, that is just as much of a concern to me as some sort of anti-obama club making the dispute the centerfold to the American president's Misplaced Pages page. Now, as much as I hate politics, I've done some fact checking, and it looks like a lot of people, either rightly or wrongly, are concerned about this. (see http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 )

Now, I don't want wikipedia to become a political battleground. If a major dispute exists, we should not blacklist it. We should show both sides of it. We need, as an objective, fact based web site, to allow properly cited posts so long as they are devoid of bias. I think perhaps we should charge a pro-obama member with writing something acknowledging this dispute... something that basically says a lot of people are concerned, and here's why they claim to be concerned, and that many people think this is a political ploy, although those who claim to be concerned say it is a legitimate concern. ... or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.101.140.10 (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Bias in article on Obama - (which there is not in article on Bush) !!

You have a huge problem of bias in the article on Obama. The fact that his place of birth is an issue (hundreds of thousands have signed a petition to see the actual birth certificate which he can not produce), and he has only produced a cert that anyone can get in Hawaii. His family says he was born in Africa. Some of your "volunteers" keep deleting that info, and I'm just about to sue Misplaced Pages and involve Alan Dershowitz or another top lawyer in it. Get back to me on why you are allowing this. And when people tried to ask you why, you had no answer on why they kept the controversial issues that happened during Bush's presidency, but keep scrubbing O-Bomb-Us. Give me an answer and it better not be a canned email.70.172.205.97 (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC) And what's with the 4 tildas???????????? 70.172.205.97 (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read the other posts along similar lines, a little further up the page. If you then have questions about process, please come back here. IF you'd like to discuss the contents of a page, then click on the discussion tab at the top of that page and discuss it there; that's what that discussion tab is for. The tildes are simply a shorthand to create a signature that allows the software we use to show who posted (or your IP address, if you're not using an account) and when. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:No legal threats. You can give Alan Dershowitz as much of your money as you like, and my guess is he will tell you what any person of modest intelligence could figure out: Misplaced Pages is a Web site owned by the Wikimedia Foundation and can publish anything it wants, within the limits of the law. How do you suppose Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter respond when someone threatens to sue them? Do Rush and Ann instantly knuckle under and recant everything they have said? Do you imagine you are the first person to make such threats? If you want influence on Misplaced Pages, you have to earn it like anyone else. Consider upholding the traditional conservative values of hard work and ingenuity, rather than imagining you are entitled to a welfare handout, by reading Misplaced Pages: The Missing Manual and learning how things work here. You might want to modify that chain e-mail your fellow right-wing dittoheads are spamming to each other so it includes instructions on how not to make yourself sound foolish when you come to Misplaced Pages looking for a free lunch. --Teratornis (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Before you instruct Dershowitz, or other "top lawyer" please read locus standi, because you don't have it! – ukexpat (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

New Editor Asking For Help

Hi, I am a relatively new editor here at Misplaced Pages. I have been having some issues with User:Tennis expert, though I will attempt to keep my complaints strictly related to the article at hand. I have attempted to approach changes I believe work with what I have learned of WP:BRD, WP:Consensus and "Good Faith". This user has 'followed' my edits and has routinely 'blind reverted' them. I started an article (Williams Sisters rivalry) which he (seemingly in bad faith) nominated for deletion without discussion. The article was, except for the aforementioned user, unanimously voted to 'Keep'. He has now repeatedly edited and changed the Williams Sisters rivalry article, in the process (to me at least) ignoring any notion of 'Consensus' or WP:BRD. I would ask for a review of the article I have linked to, or at least a brief message on my talk page explaining how I can proceed with a user who I believe to be working not in good faith and solely to 'punish'. Thanks. Alonsornunez (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How about a third opinion? --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I have tried '3O' in the past, but the user has said 'Three doesn't make a consensus' (more or less). Being new, I just want to make sure also that I am understanding 'BRD' and how compromise works here. Alonsornunez (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps WP:RFC might be the next step, or you could ask for other interested editors at WP:TENNIS. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Baptism#Didache_and_immersion

A sentence in this section reads 'It indicates a preference for baptizing'. The English word 'baptizing' here is ambiguous. I found four reliable sources which said that the 'baptizing' referred to here in the Didache is specifically 'immersion'. I amended the text to reflect this, and quoted the sources. Two other editors disagreed, and have refused to allow the text to be changed or to have the reliable sources quoted in the article. I have met their successive requests for additional reliable sources relevant to the subject, and have now provided over a dozen. They still insist these sources should not be used, and the text should be unaltered. The discussion starts here. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at Douglas Coupland; am I off the mark?

I'm reluctantly involved in an edit war with a new user (who may not be so new judging from their knowledge of WP policy terminology) about some particularly (to me; obviously) questionable lead material that I do not believe is supported by the source used. Over the past week or so the article has see-sawed between versions that include / exclude this material, but despite repeated talkpage requests the other participant has not tried to support the material with a more appropriate (to my eyes) source. Anyway, before I try other avenues to resolve this problem I thought that I'd best calibrate my assessment of the source via a third party. Hence this request.

Essentially, the material added to the lead is a rather lionising assessment of the author Coupland that compares him to other more well-known luminaries. I've no in principle problem with this (though the tone is rather fawning), but the current source appears to point to a guest lecture that Coupland himself gave at a university. Additionally, as the source is not accessible (there's no web link, and I can't find a trace of it via Google) I'm unable to check the lecture's content or even that it took place. For these reasons, I believe that the source is completely inappropriate as support for the material added (especially given this is a BLP).

Anyway, that's just my POV. I'd be grateful if someone could find the time to have a look for me. Currently, the article is in the "include" phase of the edit war, so the "offending" material is in the lead.

Thanks in advance for any assistance that you can offer. Best regards, --PLUMBAGO 09:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

People Discrimination

Several electronic and acoustic engineers of Argentina, Colombia, Peru and other countries of Lation America are involved i a discussion with two editors: Binksternet and Oli Filth in several pages. Please see MP3, FM Broadcast, Room Acoustics, Audio amplifiers, etc I am the last of them to join the goup This editors are erasing all pages with the Bonello´s name (he is a well known argentine researcher) Mr Robert Tanzi explains well this situation at MP3 discussion page. I will copy it for you:

People Discrimination is not legal and against Misplaced Pages rules I noticed that some editors (see at History of this page) discriminates Latin American engineers and researchers. Frequently Oscar Bonello of Argentina is discriminated although he is a Fellow member of AES, New York. He is probably the most respected researcher in Audio Engineering and Acoustics in Latin America. He teaches at several universities with thousand of graduated engineers or doctorate students. If you are not convinced, please do a test. Go to the AES website (www.aes.org >> awards) and get a list of Fellow members. Take a few names, of well known researchers (all with the same FELLOW degree). Then go to Misplaced Pages using the “Google search option” and search for names between quotes; you will find:

Leo Beranek He has 265 entries in Misplaced Pages James Moir He has 98 entries Robert Moog He has 166 entries Ray Dolby He has 45 entries Oscar Bonello He only has 15 entries

Then when an editor erases any contribution of Bonello as “promotion” please note that he lies; it is a simple act of discrimination, that is unfair and privates the Misplaced Pages readers of knowing his important contributions. I ask to his many past students to edit articles to help that the Latin American Science and Engineering will be known at the level it deserves. RobertTanzi RobertTanzi (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC

My question is: how I can stop this discrimination ? Please note that one of the editors destroy entirely the " Room Acoustics" article This attitud of intolerance discourages the goodwill of ne editors, like myself Regards Rodolfo Mita —Preceding unsigned comment added by RodolfoMita (talk • contribs) 20:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears that you have discussed this on other talk pages. I applaud you for attempting to discuss this on the talk page. My suggestion to you is to continue to argue your point there. You obviously believe that Bonello should be discussed on some of these articles. Sadly, we can not accept anything but notable and unbiased content that is adequately sourced. Your claims of discrimination are also taken seriously, but please comment on the content and especially avoid ad hominem arguments. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. All the articles that Oli erased are "Peer Reviewed" because are articles published at AES Journal and in the best text books of Acoustic. Either way, I will intent again to get agreement between editors. Rodolfo Mita —Preceding unsigned comment added by RodolfoMita (talk • contribs) 21:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles Nominated For Deletion Question

I recently started an article entitled Oracene Price. The article was rather quickly nominated for deletion. I don't mind defending the article. My question is that I looked at the requirements for Deletion, and while I understand that they're not 'strict requirements', it seems to me like none of the guidelines listed really fit. In addition there were no messages on the Talk page or and tags on the page to recommend it be edited or fixed. Is there a more 'discussion oriented' way that this can happen? Or is there a quick way to request someone look at the article's lack of editing/suggestions for improvement to have it removed from the list of Proposed Deletion? Thanks in advance for looking at this question. Alonsornunez (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The deletion discussion is here although nobody has yet commented. Editors can raise concerns first on the article talk page or directly with you. However, since this editor has chosen to take it straight to a formal AfD you will now be expected to make a comment there in defence of the article. The reason given for deletion is that the subject is not notable in her own right, merely related to someone notable. This is based on the idea that notability is not inherited. To counter this you need to put in the article multiple reliable sources which give non-trivial coverage to the subject and don't just mention her as the mother of the Williams' sisters. I have not checked your sources to see if they already do that, I leave that to you. SpinningSpark 09:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Brendan Austin

A soap character yet to appear - I've redirected to the list of characters, the author keeps changing it back. Can someone else have a look ? Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted back to a redirect and left the user a talk page message. – ukexpat (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :-) CultureDrone (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi i need to edit my OWN biography and i cannot

Hi, This is Rosalind Wisemans assistant and I need to update her bio because the non profit she ran is no longer in exsistance, and when people get her bio off of here and introduce her to speak everyone gets confused. I have been trying to edit her content but have not been allowed to. All i want to do is cut and paste a new bio on her wiki page, can you please please help me? thanks ever so much Zoe Nightingale —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpwinc (talk • contribs) 18:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You cannot cut and paste a new bio in from elsewhere as that will be a copyright violation unless the material you are copying is released under a compatible license like GFDL. What you need to do, as you have a conflict of interest in the situation, is to explain on article talk who you are and which bits of the article are incorrect and why, providing sources to back any new information. Then wait for other editors to discuss the matter and if no one disagrees make the corrections and if it is any way controversial let someone else uninvolved make the correction to avoid it being reverted. If you are making any edits you will have to comply with our policies on verifiability and neutrality. Mfield (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I join in the suggestion of Mfield that you use the article's Talk page. The big problem with this article is that it lacks references, so it is vulnerable to deletion. If you have access to press coverage about Rosalind, you may be able to help with this. (Supply references that back up what is in the article). EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that there is a similar discussion on the Help Desk: Misplaced Pages:Help desk#I need to edit my own wiki account. Let's pick one place to discuss it. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

RPW Inc. is Wiseman's corporation; this account has been blocked as a spamusername violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

And see Misplaced Pages:FAQ/Organizations. --Teratornis (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Chaldean Christians

User:Simonsaysabc123 seems to be making questionable ethnicity related edits. These are pretty extensive in Chaldean Christians and similarly on Family name in relation to Maltese surnames. Nothing is ever sourced, always sweeping, always pushing the same pov (the user has made other, similar, contribs). If this isn't the place to raise this type of issue, I have no idea where else to take it. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be considered discussion on Talk:Chaldean_Christians#Recent edits contradicting sources? which is where you should air your concerns. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oregon Coast conflict resolution

Article: Oregon Coast

Conflict: One member has put a considerable amount of time reorganizing the site, but is resistant about suggestions about other changes.

It has been generally agreed that the Oregon Coast has three distinct geological areas: North, Central, and South. I live on the south coast and have expressed interest in expanding information about the south coast since that is where I am most knowledgeable.

While "Geology" was divided into the three areas, when it was suggested that "Tourism" be also divided into those three same areas. This was met with resistance from the editor who has made comments like, "Simple fact is, there actually is more to do up north.", "However, you have to remember that I've lived in the state for my entire life.", "As I've stated, I've been the length of the coast. Many times. I've also stated that the Oregon Coast is not just the South Coast. Obviously you favor the south coast." These comments are argumentative and are not leading to an agreement.

I am looking for resolution to this conflict. I would like to expand the coverage of the coast in a manner similar to the way the Geology was covered.

Thank you for your help.Lhammer610 (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Having read the talk page might I suggest that you consider taking this to Misplaced Pages:Third opinion Jezhotwells (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem with article "Married and maiden names"

Married and maiden names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Redirect link Fleetflame 21:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Further discussion here. Fleetflame 00:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm not really sure what to do about this article, so I thought I'd ask for help.

Basically, a user named Redaloes keeps adding a paragraph to this article every day or two. He never cites anything, and it's not written from a neutral point of view. Essentially he feels very strongly that women should change their names after marriage, and that this is important for society, especially in India.

Other users have posted about this on his talk page and have deleted the paragraphs, as I have, but he doesn't seem to get that he needs to cite rather than giving his opinion. I've looked around to try to find citations for him, so that we could have a sentence in the article like "Some feel that X is very important...," but all I've found so far are articles from sites like AskMen.com, personal blogs, and comments on articles (rather than an article itself) - none of which seem like reliable sources.

It's a drag constantly fixing the page, but I don't want to let opinion just sit there. Also, at first I thought Redaloes was a troll, but I'm not sure - maybe English is not his first language and he just doesn't understand what people have been saying to him. Please, can you give me any advice? Ricardiana (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit tricky when it's such a slow-motion battle. I'll watchlist the page and if it happens again I'll leave some more messages on his (or her) talk page. Hang in there, this kind of thing usually peters out eventually. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, AndrewHowse - I appreciate it! Ricardiana (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

reverse needed

A disruptive editor moved List of Hungarian Americans to List of Americans of Hungarian descent. This was done without discussion or notice and was done in the face of previous reversions of all such work by this editor several months ago. If this change were to stand, then this article would be named different from, and contain contents different from, all the others in Category:Lists of American people by ethnic or national origin.

Upon finding this, I attempted to get the article/talk page and history back to what is was prior to his editing. I know I did an incomplete job and it needs admin help to fix things back to their status prior to today. Help please. Thanks in advance. Hmains (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It's taken care of. A few things you should know. We do not cut and paste content to new titles. This destroys the article's page history. Instead, we retitle articles by moving them to new names. When the user moved the article to the new name (which also moved all of its page history there), you could have simply moved it and its history back. However. Once you made edits to the moved page name, cutting and pasting in the old content without GFDL attribution, you needed an administrator to perform the move for you since only administrators can move pages that have any page history other than a redirect. So if you find an out of process page move in the future, you can move it back, and if you can't for whatever reason, you can ask an adminsitrator to move it back, but don't try to paste the content. Also, please note how to revert a page to a prior version. You apparently were laboriously unding the edits of the user by hand, when two clicks was all that you needed to do:-) Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Greg Glienna Vandalism!

They keep making this great actor of our time 8 years old when he graduated high school! Please help me stop this senseless vandalism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptuminaro (talk • contribs) 04:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverted and issued final warning to the IP making the changes. If it happens again, report the IP to WP:AIV. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 05:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

And reported. Shouldn't be a problem anymore. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 06:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Editor abusing his admin status in personal vendetta, knowingly supporting misinformation

According to WP:LINKSTOAVOID article 2: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" cannot be included in wikipedia. Andrewa has purposefully breached this policy in his continuing personal vendetta against me. Here is the proof:

After repeatedly being warned by myself against the misleading and factually inaccurate material presented on an external webpage Janet Marlow's site admin Andrewa still intentionally linked to this misinformative page in the following edit:

Andrewa has since made the statement: "there is no misinformation on the particular page to which I linked. Both sides are describing the same eight notes being provided by the same four resonant strings. Whether that is four "resonances" or eight is a non-issue." ]

Not only is Andrewa mistaken in claiming that there is no misinformation on the page, or that the two sides in the argument are describing the same thing, he has clearly been abusing his status as an administrator. Let us first consider the contents of this argument:

The page to which Andrewa linked makes the following claims:

"Therefore, there are four missing sympathetic resonances on the six string guitar. If you play a C, Bb, Ab, and Gb on the first string E, there will be less sustain from these notes than the others because there are no sympathetic resonant strings. This was Maestro Yepes’ primary reason for conceiving the ten-string guitar. By adding these pitches in four extra bass strings, now provides each half step with the sympathetic resonance making a more physically completed instrument." (Janet Marlow Janet Marlow's site)

Now, in western classical music there are 12 notes in the octave: C, C#, D, D#, E, F, F#, G, G#, A, A#, B. If it is claimed (as above) that four of these notes lack resonances, then logically/mathematically, this means that the other eight out of the twelve do not lack resonances. Marlow lists the four missing resonances as C, Bb (=A#), Ab (=G#), and Gb (=F#) and states that "there will be less sustain from these notes than the others". Any person who is a competent speaker of the English language will understand this as meaning that these four listed notes have more sustain (more resonance) than the other notes, the "other notes" being C#, D, D#, E, F, G, A, B. In other words, Marlow is claiming four notes don't have resonance and eight do.

However, Narciso Yepes (who invented the modern 10-string guitar) always, ubiquitously and verifiably talked about eight missing sympathetic resonances on the guitar, not four as claimed by Marlow. Yepes lists the eight missing resonances as C, C# (=Db), D# (=Eb), F, F# (=Gb), G, G# (=Ab), A# (=Bb). He lists the other four notes that do have resonance as D, A, E, and B. Yepes's quotes from numerous articles/interviews can be read here with references to follow them up. There is also further information on my site www.tenstringguitar.INFO about the resonance, the science behind Yepes's statements.

Janet Marlow (and Andrewa) are clearly, in fact, not saying the same thing as Narciso Yepes (and Viktor van Niekerk). Both sides are certainly not "describing the same eight notes being provided by the same four resonant strings", as Andrewa is falsely claiming. If they were describing the same thing, Marlow would have to speak of eight missing resonances (C, Db, Eb, F, Gb, G, Ab, Bb) not only four (C, Bb, Ab, Gb).

Andrewa only goes on to claim that "Whether that is four "resonances" or eight is a non-issue" ] because to admit the truth - that it is very much an issue and a source of misinformation - would reveal his involvement in not only deliberately promoting misinformation on wikipedia (going against WP:LINKSTOAVOID article 2), but also misusing his status as an administrator to abuse me in his ongoing personal vendetta over an edit disagreement. This defamatory conduct includes, but is hardly limited to his claim ] that Janet Marlow "is a more authoritative figure than Viktor", despite the fact that Marlow has been proven to publish misinformation while my website www.tenstringguitar.INFO is presently the only online resource that faithfully represents Narciso Yepes's statements about his invention as well as a scholarly explanation of the science informing those statements.

Viktor van Niekerk tenstringguitar.INFO Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This has previously been brought to this board (archive discussion here). SpinningSpark 17:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages help forums