I want to thank you for early input. But I have three questions. 1. How do I put some of the art work of this artist on to the work page so that it may be shown to other readers?

2. I have received permission to use said pictures from the artist's Website. Would this be considered art free use?

And finally, I have sited and referenced with main stream sources -- such as Cornell University and Art in America.

3. After the photos are laid out how do I post the article? Thank you again. Mikusart —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikusart (talk • contribs) 03:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Answering in the wrong order, I guess; posting is addressed below. On points 1 & 2 I'm no expert, but I think the main issue is that anything posted here must be licenced for any further reproduction, so it's not enough that the artist gives you permission; the owner of the copyright has to licence it under a free-use arrangement. You might find this primer on use of images and the image use policy helpful, I think. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Question on posting

Could you share how to post the Eleanore Mikus bio article? It is referenced and sourced with reliable sources such as Art in America and other sources. Mikusart —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikusart (talk • contribs) 14:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I think the best thing would be to copy the code from the user page you've been using and paste it into a new page. Eleanore Mikus is the appropriate title; click on the redlink and you should automatically get an edit window for that page. Don't be surprised if it gets some critical attention quickly; there are people here who monitor new pages as a way of tracking down vandalism etc. There might be some criticism of the references; you've used an unusual (in Wikipedia) style of referencing. Post here again if you need help. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I had a nice long answer, but AndrewHowse beat me to it! I will just add that it might be helpful to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners on how to reference Wikipedia-style. But, otherwise, just go for it & others will start editing & working on it with you.--BelovedFreak 15:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Artist bio and posting work

How long does it take for a short bio to get approved and closed up, be fore posting?

All the sources are valid and correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikusart (talk • contribs) 21:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to get it approved, just post it. --BelovedFreak 21:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Artist bio and posting and jpegs of work.

Wanted to thank every one who has written, but have a question.

• Are photos from the artist' Web site considered fair use?

All the text has been proofed and the references, souces and notes are accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikusart (talk • contribs) 20:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, unless the website identifies them as available for public use. Again, please don't make a new section every time, and please sign your posts. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I am clicking on the sig. button when I sign at the end of the statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikusart (talk • contribs) 01:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be working. Have you tried manually typing "~~~~" on your keyboard, using the ~ key? Then, if you click the "Show Preview" button before you save, you can tell whether or not it has worked. --BelovedFreak 11:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Languages

Moved to regroup, as usual --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The bio history of the artist I am working is almost done, I wonder if I need to cite the different musuems she has shown at. I only wonder that because this artits' work has been shown in Europe and she has been to Asia -- the languages I have added would be useful for other readers. Also, Mary Hilde Ruth Bauermeister bio article has a reference article concerning this artiist and that is in another lang.

Have worked many weeks to make sure of the information and that it is accurate from mainstream sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikusart (talk • contribs) 14:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If an exhibition at a museum is an important part of the article then yes you should mention it along with the appropriate source material.

You have added no languages. You're referring I think to the interwiki links, that begin with a language code? eg. [[fr:Eleanore Mikus]]? That's just a link to an article of the same title on the French language wikipedia - which nobody has written - and so it doesn't exist. Those links do not create translations. There's no point in using them unless you find existing targets on other language versions of wikipedia. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

But since Mary Hilde Ruth Bauermeister's article has a reference article concerning the artiist that is being written about -- would this not be a link too? I was only asking about the musuems because of the languages. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikusart (talk • contribs) 20:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean that the Mary Bauermeister links to an article about her in German? The link on the left hand side of the page, under the search bar and toolbox? That is a link to an article that someone has written on the German Wikipedia. No articles exist in the other language Wikipedias on Eleanore Mikus, so you can't link to them. If you include those links, readers will click on them and be sent to an empty page on a different Wikipedia. If that's not what you're asking, then I'm sorry I don't really understand what you're asking. Why don't you post the article now? You've put a lot of work into it already, and being in the main "live" part of Wikipedia will let more editors see it and help you with it.--BelovedFreak 21:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Eleanore Mikus updates

Added the souces that state the work was unlike other work at that time. And added a categoy that defines the subject the article is based on: Modern Art. Also, thank you for your help. How long will it take to nominate the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikusart (talk • contribs) 20:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Nominate for what? --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to request that the article I have been working on be moved -- the title of the article is Eleanore Mikus -- can you help with this? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikusart (talk • contribs) 04:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You can move it. Simply click Eleanore Mikus to edit the new page. Copy the code from your user page, and paste it into the new one. Then click "save". Also, see your first article. --BelovedFreak 11:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In the webpage for Jesse Helms, under the section entitled "Fourth Senate term (1991–1997)", there is the following statement:

Soon after the Senate vote on the Confederate flag insignia, which opponents saw as an overt symbol of racism - both for the history of racial slavery in the United States and for establishment of Jim Crow laws, Helms ran into Mosely-Braun in an elevator.[43] Helms turned to his friend, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah), and said, "Watch me make her cry. I'm going to make her cry. I'm going to sing 'Dixie' until she cries."[44] He then proceeded to sing the song about "the good life" during slavery to Mosely-Braun.[45][46] Helms later blocked Mosely-Brauns' nomination to be U.S. ambassador to New Zealand.[43]

This was only an alleged incident, as only Mosely-Braun claimed this occurred. In addition, the claim that Senator Helms sang a song about "the good life" during slavery is a complete falsehood taken from an editorial at The Nation. These are not reliable sources, state allegations as established fact, and dishonor the memory of a recently deceased Senator.

Therefore, please change the above language to read as follows:

Soon after the Senate vote on the Confederate flag insignia, which opponents saw as an overt symbol of racism - both for the history of racial slavery in the United States and for establishment of Jim Crow laws, Helms ran into Mosely-Braun in an elevator.[43] Accoring to Mosely-Braun, Helms turned to his friend, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah), and allegedly said, "Watch me make her cry. I'm going to make her cry. I'm going to sing 'Dixie' until she cries."[44] Helms later blocked Mosely-Brauns' nomination to be U.S. ambassador to New Zealand.[43] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Assassins4 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for posting here. Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", so feel free to be bold and make changes yourself. What might be even better, since this article is being edited by many different people, would be to post your suggestion at Talk:Jesse Helms to see what others think. In my opinion, if you do add the above, you don't need the word "allegedly" as you already have "According to Mosely-Brown". Anyway, happy editing! --BelovedFreak 13:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As someone getting back into the groove of Wikipedia after being gone for 2 years I have a problem. There are a lot of rules. Good rules, but still a lot of rules. Are there any printable "cheat sheets" that are available?--mboverload@ 22:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:PILLAR --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 16:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I was recently accused of "vandalism" in editing an article on "Eastern Mediterranean University" in Northern Cyprus. I find that this is an unfair accusation in my case. The information that I appended to the article is true, well documented, and relevant to the topic of "Eastern Mediterranean University."

Since this is an "encyclopedia" and our interest is supposed to be in knowledge, then not only positive and glorifying information should be appended to a subject, but all relevant information. That is, if the item about the small undistinguished university at Northern Cyprus is truly an item of scholarly interest, and not a self-promoting subliminal advertisement (which the institution has possibly paid for?).

Certainly, when such serious criteria are applied to the article, it becomes immediately obvious that Eastern Mediterranean University is truly not in item worth an entry in an encyclopedia. What's to distinguish it from hundreds of small universities in the region (other than the information that I provide)? But if the editor insists that this is an item worthy of scholarly distinction, then s/he should allow all relevant points of view, including the well documented accusations of racism, mobbing, bullying and anti-Semitism that have been laid against the institution.

I am very angry that the editor called my well measured and relevant contribution "vandalism," when s/he is in-fact guilty of intellectual vandalism, silencing opposing voices, and promoting a racist and corrupt institution in a one-sided intellectually dishonest fashion.

My best opinion is that the article about "Eastern Mediterranean University" should be removed altogether, as the one-sided presentation of the school bears no scholarly significance. But if the article is to remain, the discussion should allow for opposing voices in regards to this very controversial institution.

2knowledgeable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2knowledgeable (talk • contribs) 05:40, 16 July 2008

As you have also posted to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-16 Eastern Mediterranean University, it's probably best that no further discussion takes place here until that is resolved. It's best to keep discussions in one place to avoid editors concerned "missing out" on what is said elsewhere. That can be confusing. In the mean time, please only use one account to edit. Using more than one could be considered sockpuppetry, which is not allowed here. Also, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end. Thanks, --BelovedFreak 11:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I know the title is very provocative but I fear it may be factual accurate. There is a locked Wikipedia article on "ethnic Macedonians" that only references Macedonians from the Republic of Macedonia / FYROM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonians_(ethnic_group)

Unfortunately there are TWO distinct groups that claim an ethnic Macedonian identity.

1. Roughly 2 million in Republic of Macedonia/FYROM (Slavic) 3/4 of the total population of RoM/FYROM

2. Roughly 2.5 million ethnic Macedonians in Greece (Greek) 1/4 of the total population of Greece

Even the Prime Minister of Greece is quoted as saying

"I myself am a Macedonian, and another two and a half million Greeks are Macedonians."

There is no way for me to address this distortion of the facts because the article states "The article renaming poll of June 2005 (now closed) is archived at Talk:Macedonian Slavs/Poll. (See also Archive 2 for many comments arising from this poll"

I understand some people in Fyrom find the name "Slavic" Macedonian offensive (which is not my intent) but I would also make note that millions of Greeks find it equally offensive they suddenly have to qualify their own ethnic Macedonian identity (which has been around a great deal longer) simply because of the naming dispute that started with the break up of Yugoslavia in 1992.

Please be aware. I am not accusing anyone at Wikipedia of intentionally trying to do harm. Believe me when I say I completely appreciate Wikipedia's democratic processes and don't wish to silence or censor anyone. However, I don't believe it is appropriate for Wikipedia to participate in wiping out the cultural identity of 2.5 million ethnic Macedonians (Greek) based on a small poll. Because of the lock out at the moment they have no way to identify themselves.

I therefore request the article be unlocked, and at the very least the two distinct ethnic Macedonian groups be acknowledged until the naming dispute with Greece is resolved.

Thank-you for taking the time to review my concerns. --99.235.72.222 (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for posting here. I think the best thing might be to review Macedonia (terminology) first. After that, I can only point out that in Wikipedia's terms, the primary name Macedonia is deliberately assigned to neither of the modern-day groups, nor yet the ancient people. Rather, editors took great pains, documented at the archived talk pages, to find terms that would be neutral and inoffensive to describe each group. You'll also find hatnotes, those short italic sentences, at the top of each article to identify that other groups also lay claim to the title Macedonian.

I hope this explanation helps. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

B4U (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

the article space B4U used to redirect to a section Dance Dance Revolution 4thMix that discussed a prominent song in the series called "B4U". A few weeks ago User:Bleaney wrote two pages B4U Movies and B4U Music, about Bollywood TV stations, turned B4U into a disambiguation page because he felt the general term shouldn't go directly to the article about the song. After discussing this with him I returned the article space B4U to the DDR article and created a separate disambiguation page B4U (disambiguation) and put a Tophat link on the DDR article sending readers to that page where they could search other meanings of the term. He didn't like this idea and reverted my efforts shortly after making them. His argument was that because B4U was in the title of the two stations that the general term no longer belonged to the song which was only ever known as "B4U". I held back further edits citing that policy wouldn't support his decision.

I went to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games after looking through the policy articles on the matter. Policy didn't support what he did but it didn't give me a clear definition of what to do. I posed the question on the talk page to which the response was that the two articles didn't really possess any notability and could be brought up for AfD. I decided not to be that drastic, but I tagged the pages for my watch list. Sure enough, a week or so later some IP tagged them both, and I saw no attempt to further the articles. So I attempted to do the change again, as I was preparing a full blown rewrite of the information about the song "B4U" and the studio album it first appeared on. Before I could upload the new articles he reverted everything again. This time he created an article right on the B4U space. My problem, and the reason why I'm asking for assistance, is that looking through the references he provided and the official site I can see where "B4U" is a shortened term for the company in question but it would seem that's not the actual name. It's either B4U TV, B4U Networks, Bollywood For You, or B4U Worldwide. I did some digging and couldn't pin a single name as the company's actual name. Perhaps Bleaney knows?

Bleaney also seems to have slyly pulled the notability tags off the original two articles, while doing little if anything to them. In fact his edits to B4U Music seemed solely to avoid bot detection. Doing additional reverts will probably start a war, but it would seem that the page needs to be moved and B4U either given back to the song or made a neutral disambiguation or redirect to the disambiguation. Could I get a new set of eyes on this problem? I'm trying to be as unbiased as possible but he seems to simply want to squat that name space. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 10:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, it always helps to discuss things before making potentially controversial changes. Correct me if I'm wrong but you said above that "After discussing this with him [you] returned the article space B4U to the DDR article and created a separate disambiguation page". You reverted Bleaney's change and then discussed it. Not a big deal, but there's no point coming here & misreperesenting how it happened. Discussion & trying to reach consensus really is the best way to go about things if possible. Anyway, personally I would have B4U as a disambiguation page. I'm not familiar with the company, the networks or the song. Actually I'm not even familiar with the video game. So I can't comment on the specific notability of the items. However, I don't think it's ridiculous to suggest that a television network could be as notable as a song from a video game. Anyway, there's now an article entitled B4U, so it would make sense for that to remain there and have B4U (disambiguation) as the disambiguation page. If and when an article is written about the song, I would suggest having B4U back as the disambiguation page as there would then be two articles with that exact title. As it stands, B4U should have hatnotes directing to the other possible articles. --BelovedFreak 10:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be very good practice to have a redirect at B4U and create another disambig page. In this instance, put the link to the DDR page in the disambig. It's been converted into an article now, anyway, so it should be fine as-is. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I am being attacked by user Geniac on my talk page, being accused of being a sockpuppet for user LesleyAnnWarren. This accusations is baseless, since the user account LesleyAnnWarren has been deleted. Sockpuppetry, as I understand it, is (1) using multiple accounts to (2) create the impression of support from third parties. Here, an old account was deleted, for sufficient reasons, and there never was an instance of the postings of one account being used to support the postings of the other. Geniac, however, is in violation of wikipedia policies by not assuming good faith, and by making reckless and insupportable accusations. I have a right to expect a retraction.DampToeFungus (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think sockpuppets are defined a little more broadly than that; WP:SOCK says it's an alternative account used deceptively. Of course, 'deceptively' isn't defined, but if one human edits the same page using 2 accounts, without identifying that there's only one person involved, then that would at best run the risk of being confusing or misinterpreted. I haven't compared the contribs of DTF and LAW (if you'll permit me to abbreviate), so I don't know if there's any overlap. But your second sentence seems to imply you've either renamed, or retired one account and opened another. As long as DTF doesn't carry on LAW's efforts in a way that implies they 'both' support a particular argument, then I don't think that's really sockpuppetry. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

btw, I'm not sure that usernames can be deleted. They can be made inactive, but that mostly requires their owners to stop using them. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"I don't know if there's any overlap"---a three day gap between last of one and first of another. "As long as DTF doesn't carry on LAW's efforts in a way that implies they 'both' support a particular argument, then I don't think that's really sockpuppetry"---that is about exactly what I meant by "create the impression of support from third parties," and that is exactly what is NOT going on here. I would have expected a retraction by now from Geniac. I've stopped holding my breath.DampToeFungus (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Why, out of curiosity, didn't you simply change your username? --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There's my question. If not technically sockpuppetry, it's still pretty damn deceptive practice. --Geniac (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

On your sea otter page:

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

twice now I've added a link to the organization I work for: Defenders of Wildlife and our saveseaotters.org website. Someone keeps deleting this link and I'm not sure why. Can someone from the public go in and delete a link? If so, I have a suspicion of who might be doing that.

Please help me with this issue and why my link keeps disappearing.

Thanks,

Jim Curland Marine Program Associate Defenders of Wildlife - —Preceding unsigned comment added by JMCurland (talk • contribs) 19:18, 14 July 2008

Well I'm not too familiar wth that article, but I can tell you that Wikipedia is not a collection or directory of links and the link was probably removed for not meeting the guideline for external links. The editor was User:Clayoquot so you could clarify their reason at their talkpage. Given that you work for the organisation in question, you have a conflict of interest. If you really think the link can add something to the article, you should post a message at the article talkpage and see what other editors who edit that article think. --BelovedFreak 19:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Request review of the information I added under the heading "Dollar." The information is factual and based directly upon the Coinage Act of 1792 -- an irrefutable fact. Also, the quote I included from the Silver Certificate is factual. It repeats exactly the words written on the Silver Certificate. The changes are soundely based, reasonable, and will improve people's knowledge if they read it. A corresponding website that contains the Coinage Act of 1792 is.... http://landru.i-link-2.net/monques/coinageact.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by SturmTiger42 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, why don't you try discussing the changes you want to make on the article talkpage (Talk:Dollar). That way, you can get the input of other editors working on that article. Also, you could post a message to the editor who reverted your edits at User talk:Cretog8 and start a discussion there. Information that you add to articles does not just need to be factual, it needs to be verifiable and neutral. You can always post here again, but it's worth a try talking to other people involved in that article.--BelovedFreak 21:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That's sound advice. I'll also offer this: as User:Cretog8 noted in his edit summary, your contributions would be appropriate for the history of the US dollar, and indeed some of the content was already there. It's also mentioned at United States dollar#History. But the term dollar is used in other countries, and its meaning has evolved over time, and the introduction to a general article needs to reflect that. On the whole, I agree with Cretog8's considered reversion of your edits.

Btw, you didn't ask this, but it seems to me that the website you mention above would not be considered a reliable source, so, if you were considering this, please think twice before you try to add a link to it. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, per the city of manhattan beach website, and as a resident, please correct two errors:

1 - Current Mayor is Richard P. Montgomery, sworn in on May 20, 2008.

2 - Official City website is WWW. CITYMB.INFO

02:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmont1 (talk • contribs)

Hello, thanks for posting here. Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", so feel free to be bold and make changes yourself. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm..doesn't this article strike anyone else as, basically, an attack page ? It may well be well referenced, but purely from a a negative point of view.... CultureDrone (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's an attack page, but I'm not sure what notability there is. I would suggest taking it to WP:AFD.--BelovedFreak 11:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have a slightly naive teenage girl in the guise of User:Rafael lover. She put far, far too much personal info on her user page which concerns me greatly. She also seems to be a bit clueless regarding what this site is; I think that she thinks it's like Facebook or Myspace. Anyway, would someone please delete the userpage immediately? Thanks. Back to my break...--PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please advise how to post a request for semi-protection on an article page that is being repeatedly and increasingly vandalized by various users? I've read the instructions, but am not sure how to post the request to the TOP of the protection section. (19121*DN (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC))

It appears you have made the request and it was declined. In future click the [Edit] button right next to the Current requests for protection section heading. --BelovedFreak 10:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Flagged for speedy deletion. I am confused on how to respond. I have conteste the deletion but do not know what to do next. The page is Todd Meagher. Mr. Meagher is the CEO of yourStore, LLC and all information in the article is verifiable with a simle Google search. How do I get this reviewed and approved?

MyStore —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystore (talk • contribs) 08:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the page was tagged for speed deletion because an editor did not feel that subject asserted notability, that is the article didn't say why the person is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. You should not have removed the speedy deletion tag, but added {{hangon}} below the tag. By your user name, it is safe to assume that you have a conflict of interest. Whether you are Todd Meagher yourself, or work for him, or know him, you should not create articles about subjects you are closely involved in. You should wait for others to create the article. I'm not going to replace the speedy deletion tag for now, because I think that the article just about asserts notability, and there are some possible sources. Someone else may tag it again, but in the mean time, you really need to show us why Todd Meagher needs an article at Wikipedia. You need to add references to independent, third party reliable sources. In future though, please don't start articles about yourself or people you know. --BelovedFreak 10:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Placement of this article on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Lara Logan got no response. To meet it seems open and shut that as Lara Logan herself named Joseph Burkett as the person she plans to marry in the Washington Post, this belongs in the biographical article, making the question of privacy moot. An editor insists that his name be excluded from the article on the grounds of privacy, according to WP:BLP. patsw (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion on the talk page seems to include strands of privacy and notability. I have no experience in debates over privacy, but you make a good point about the Washington Post. However, I don't think anyone's made a convincing argument about notability. In other words, how does inclusion of the gentleman's name enhance an encyclopaedic article about the subject, rather than simply stating that she has said she plans to marry? --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, who one marries is significant and it enhances the article to include the name. How many articles in reliable sources which mention Lara Logan's interview and her disclosure of her marriage plans omit Burkett's name? patsw (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And that's exactly what we need to weigh against his right to privacy. You say "of course ... it enhances the article" but other editors aren't convinced. I think that's the case you need to make. If he had his own page here then the argument would be much easier, but he doesn't, so notability can't be assumed, nor does he acquire it by marriage. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There is only one other editor engaged. I am not suggesting that Joseph Burkett merits his own Wikipedia article or that editors should not have a regard for his privacy or Logan's privacy. The dispute is only around the mere inclusion of his name -- which appears in over a hundred articles in reliable sources, as well as 7,000 Google hits elsewhere. I don't need to make a specific case for Lara Logan, the general case applies: (1) the subject stated her marriage plans in a reliable source (2) the name of a spouse or intended spouse is always relevant to a biography. patsw (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• How can Lara Logan's plans to marry Joseph Burkett be considered private when she herself gave them in an interview in the Washington Post on July 9?
• How is the name of a spouse or intended spouse not relevant to subject's Wikipedia biographical article? patsw (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think those are rhetorical. I've tried to direct you towards the question of notability, which is quite different from privacy, since that seems to me to be the crux of the issue you brought here. If that was helpful, then I've achieved my objective; if it wasn't, then I'm sorry and you're free to go. Your argument is not with me, it's with anyone else who shows up at Talk:Lara Logan. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability is the wrong test to apply here. This is not a new proposed article. The correct tests are relevance and reliability. I will bring this up in WT:BLP as the general case. patsw (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:9/11_Truth_Movement

This certainly would seem to fit into at least one of those categories. I do not know how to view the page history of a talk page, so I can't be certain that my comments were deleted. However, the general conduct does seem to be abusive.

category heading: a proposal to the editors for greater objectivity

You deleted my reply. This a usage violation.

'Mainstream opinion' is not the same thing as fact. 'Mainstream opinion' once held that blacks and women were inferior, that blood did not circulate, and that the Earth was flat.

The news media tell the same story as the U.S. government, because they are telling the U.S. government's story. The story was provided to them by the U.S. government. This, as Wittgenstein said, is like reading a second copy of the same newspaper, to verify that the story you read in the first copy was correct.

In any event, your objections have no bearing on my argument.

Please do not delete my remarks again.

Lycodont (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't report "facts" we report what reliable sources say. If you're not happy with that then maybe this isn't the place for you. RxS (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC) I don't see any evidence that one of "your" replies was ever deleted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Nor do I RxS (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Do either of you purport to be editors, or to represent Wikipedia? Interesting that you should say that Wikipedia has no interest in facts.

Lycodont (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Who said we weren't interested in facts? Check out WP:RS for details. RxS (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Lycodont (talk) 11:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand that this is a deeply hard area to work in (I mediated (unsuccessfully) a request to move 9/11 conspiracy theories to 9/11 conspiracy something else a while back). Despite some incivility on all parties, is true: we don't - can't, infact - report facts; we only report what reliable sources say, as RxS said (minus the part about "this isn't the place for you" ;-). Many of the reliable sources will not present "The Truth", as we know so well in any event.

So please bear in mind that only cited information from reliable sources are included in Wikipedia, especially in a heated article (although, ideally, everywhere). I hope this helps somewhat... please don't regard this as bowing to their pressure - they could have easily described the situation with verifiability and reliable sources in a more constructive manner (i.e., not so abusive, which is the closest term).

But always remember to assume good faith! I can't stress this enough. It may look abusive, but with all the stress running about those articles, and what with vested interests, it's easy for things to A) get heated, or B) get misinterpreted as heated. My advice: add a smiley to the end of everything you say; if it doesn't look like the preceding sentence could possibly work with a smiley, you gotta revise the sentence :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Never underestimate the power of the smiley. Anyway: yes, WP doesn't report the truth, it reports... what's been reported. It can cause sticky situations in articles such as these. Hope this all helps :-)

By the way, you can view the history of any page just by clicking on the tab at the very top which says "history". If you are already on the talkpage, this shows the editing history of the talkpage, not the article. Or, you can see that particular page history here.--BelovedFreak 12:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Couple of points here. No comments were deleted or archived, not sure why he thinks someone deleted something. And take a look for yourself on that talk page (the only one besides this page he's ever edited) and consider what his goals might possibly be here. RxS (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that the comments came very close together, I wonder if one of Lycodent's edits might have been the victim of an edit conflict? Lycodent, if someone saves an edit while you're writing another edit, the Wiki software tends to reject your edit in order to preserve the one just saved. It does flag that onscreen, but it's not desperately obvious and it's confused me fairly regularly. Anyway, nobody deleted anything that you had posted. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ooh Lycodont- editing other people's comments is not okay! Please don't do that any more. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I already warned the user about that. They seem to have not contributed since. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Stepshep has listed multiple images of mine for deletion. He's only going after mine. It is just a grudge he appears to have because I listed some articles he likes for an AfD. You can find the images in question on SS's contib page. How are my images any different than the one found on the 2008 U.S. Open Golf Championship for example? They are clearly under used under fair use like that one. If someone can respond to this that would be great. Articles have since been deleted by User:David. Can someone get the images back until discussion resolves itself. Thanks! --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 19:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for coming here. Can you link to some of the images and/or articles that are in question here, please? Otherwise I'd have to guess at what you're asking about, and I might guess wrongly! Thanks. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This deleted image in the infobox would be an example. Image:1986OpenLogo.jpg through Image:2006OpenLogo.jpg with the exception of 2000 all had logos courtesy of my uploads. Then, PGA Championships such as Image:1989PGALogo.jpg through Image:2004PGALogo.jpg with the exception of 1990 and 1992 all had logos uploaded by me. I was very busy this week and filling out the necessary free-use rationale boxes take a lot of time. But clearly other golf tournaments have their logos, so mine were not wrong to upload. Thanks for your help! --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 20:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The images were deleted for not having a fair use rationale, which they really need to have in order to be used under fair use. Why don't you upload them again and add a rationale. I imagine that the one at Image:2008OpenLogo.gif would work, adapted for each of the ones you upload. You could just copy and past the rationale onto the upload form, making sure you change it in the right places. Just make sure you have the rationale ready straight away so they don't risk getting deleted again.--BelovedFreak 21:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to reinstate them? I deleted them of my computer after uploading. If they can be reinstated at least for 24 hours I can save them to my computer, re-size them and upload them individually with proper rationale. Just leave a note on my talk page if this is possible. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 06:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You could try posting a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review, explaining what you have here.--BelovedFreak 11:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello;

I'm trying to get a bio for a noteworthy artist published, and so far I believe I've got the info formatted correctly. I've been through your help and question guides, and I'm wondering if there's something I missed or if I must simply be patient. Thank you for your help.

~C —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyybird (talk • contribs) 21:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, You mean Jacki Randall, that you've put on your user page? There's nobody to publish that for you. You need to put in article-space. In this case, if you think it's notable and well-referenced, then edit Jacki Randall and add your page code.

The message below the edit window, that says

Please note:

• If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.
• Only public domain resources can be copied without permission—this does not include most web pages or images.
• See our policies and guidelines for more information on editing.

is for real. Don't publish if you don't want other people to edit! Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've encountered someone who is repeatedly deleting the proper toponym "Berkeley Hills" from at least two articles and gives no authority for the deletion. On the other hand, the name is supported by the USGS GNIS, and appears on virtually all maps, which I've posted in support of the usage. I'm at my wits end with this editor. I'm not sure how to proceed. Some assistance would be welcome. Tmangray (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the editing history of East Bay Regional Park District and Robert Sibley Volcanic Regional Preserve ([1]), you and User:Fizbin are engaged in an edit war, and you need to stop reverting each other's edits until the matter is resolved. You have both broken the three revert rule which you can be blocked for. Not only that, but it you carry on, the pages may well be protected to prevent anyone from editing them. I'm glad you have tried to discuss it on the talkpage, but it doesn't look like you have reached a consensus. I would recommend making a request for comment which will bring the issue to a wider audience, hopefully including people that are familiar with the topic. Other than that, give it some time. It looks like this disagreement began within the last 24 hours, so give it time for others to get involved. There is no deadline. But please, stop reverting User:Fizbin's edits now or you may be blocked. --BelovedFreak 12:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I have just warned User:Fizbin for potentially breaking the three revert rule, so I thought it only fair that I left a formal warning for you too. You have done the right thing, both of you, in trying to talk about it, but edit warring is taken seriously.--BelovedFreak 12:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I wasn't aware of this rule, so I apologize for that. I'm exasperated and intend to step back for the time being to cool down. But I would like some guidance on how to resolve this. Tmangray (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The request for comment that User:Belovedfreak recommended is likely to bring the best results. More editors' attention will help to show the best path forward. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem with the cease and desist - I'll work with the request for comment as it takes its course. I did add a little dig in there about pedants that someone might want to edit out.--Fizbin (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Fast Web Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can you please help me write our company page so it does not have the advertsiment warning on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpwinfield (talk • contribs) 14:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, If you work for the company then you can't write the page. It's a conflict of interest. Don't worry, somebody else will eventually write it if the company is sufficiently notable. If you know of some reliable sources that have covered the company in away that would help to demonstrate its notability, then it would be appropriate to note them on the talk page so that neutral editors can consider including them. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think they are allowed as WP:COI doesn't forbid it. They should avoid doing so though as it is very complicated to write something like that from a NPOV. As for rewriting it I'll do some searches and stuff to verify whether you are notable according to our policies and guidelines and if you are then I'll gladly have ago at reworking the article.I make no promises that you, the company, or other wikipedia editors will approve of my input though. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link to the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki I do not know how to edit the page and remove the vandalism because it is semi protected. Hope someone reads this and can fix it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.104.14 (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've read the article to which you refer. There is currently no vandalism on that page. I'm assuming it was a template that was vandalized because the page appears to have mostly not changed. Can you be more specific about the vandalism you saw? Thanks for helping. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 06:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I had submitted an article titled Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela, on 13th July 08. I found that the same was deleted due to certain technical reasons.

At the outset, kindly note that I am not yet fully familiar with the existing system of submitting articles for Wikipedia, giving references, etc. I may be excused for that. But the fact that a self-sustaining voluntary consumer organisation, serving the community free of charges and still taking up some important issues and resolving them needs to be recorded in a prestigious on-line encyclopedia, is my humble opinion.

Hence when the article was deleted, I had given the perspective in which the whole thing needs consideration.

Then, as I understood, that the article will not be considered without proper references, I gave a list of references.

Still, I find that the undeletion is not taking place and I was advised to refer to WP:DR. From that page I found that requesting Editor's Assitance may be a way of resolving the present issue.

Please try to help me. Shall be obliged.(Firstindyan (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

Hi, I think you should have been directed to WP:DRV, which is where deletions can be reviewed. Another option would be to draft a new article in your userspace, perhaps at User:Firstindyan/sandbox and make sure you include some good references to establish that the council is notable. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

We are seeing a notice on the Mu Dynamics wiki page that requests improvements -- and I think I have made them. Here is the note:

The introduction to this article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject.
Please help improve the article with a good introductory style.

Now that I think I have addressed these concerns, how can we get the notice removed? Are further changes needed?? I'm just trying to get along here.

Thanks! Tmaufer (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)tom

Hi, thanks for posting here. I've read the article twice, and I don't know what the company makes. I think it needs to be much more simple and more straightforward. Something like "Mu Dynamics was founded in 19xx by Mr. Y and Mr. Z. The company makes widgets and sprockets, and is developing a line of services to advise buyers on how best to use them. The company had revenues of $N million in 2007." I was going to edit the page but I realised I couldn't figure out what to write. Perhaps you could try to simplify it, and I'll keep an eye on it and offer some suggestions? Make sure to cite reliable sources. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Scott mutter was found dead on Mar 8 08 at his park ridge home. as a personal friend of his I have some info to add to his page once I learn how. In the meantime however changing categories is beyond me, if you would oblige, his obit appeared in the Chicago Tribune Mar 11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcochronos (talk • contribs) 05:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. To start with, have a read of Wikipedia:Tutorial, Wikipedia:How to edit a page and Wikipedia:Your first article which should help you with the basics. Bear in mind that as a friend of Scott Mutter, you have a conflict of interest. You can still edit the article but just make sure that everything is from a neutral point of view and has references to reliable sources. I can't find the article you mentioned online, so if you have access to it, please do amend the details accordingly. Make sure you include the details of the source you are using and don't worry if it's not perfect, we can help you afterwards. For the categories, at the bottom of the page you would delete [[Category:Living people]] and put [[Category:2008 deaths]]. If the date of birth is unknown, you would put [[Category:Year of birth missing]]. Come back here if you have problems. --BelovedFreak 12:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

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

I have today tried to post a photo taken by family, i.e., no copywrite issues, only to find the site is protected. I don't understand this as I am the originator of his entry. What are the guidelines for protecting a site? Judith Marren —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmarren (talk • contribs) 18:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, could you give more details on what happened? The article doesn't appear to be protected. Did you try to upload a picture? Occasionally the database is locked as the database catches up with itself. (Or something.... not sure on the technical details...) This stops anyone from editing but doesn't usually last very long. Why don't you try again? --BelovedFreak 19:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) In trying to figure out what exactly it is you encountered that you refer to as "protected" (which has a very specific meaning here): the article Edward Wilkerson is not and has never been protected; your account is not and has never been blocked; you are autoconfirmed; and your previous image upload of File:Edward Wilkerson Jr.jpg was deleted in November 2007 under CSD I7, but has not been protected against re-creation. Given this, I hope you will return here and describe exactly what it is you encountered, what page or what action triggered the event you refer to to protected, and what it said. If you are referring to the image deletion, well, you can re-create the image but it will only be deleted again if you do not supply a valid license; release under a free license such as the GFDL or a valid fair use rationale. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently

I'm requesting assistance with User:Sbuxlover4 on repeated disruptive edits to SouthPark Mall (Charlotte, North Carolina), but more importantly for inappropriate behavior towards other editors (namely me). I already know about Request comment on users but I'm the only other editor involved so far so at very least I'd appreciate somebody else chiming in on the subject so it can go further if needed.

The basic overview can be found on the editor's talk page and on the article's talk page. For the shorter version...
1) Removing properly cited facts and replacing with alternate unsourced claim.
2) Then trying to cite a source than made no mention of the claim.
3) Then trying to cite a source that used the same wikipedia article as its source.
4) I politely explained the situation to Sbuxlover4 in private on their talk page.
5) My private explanation was ignored so I addressed the issue politely on the article's talk page too.
6) Sbuxlover4 has three times deleted half of the entire article. I admit this seems to be by accident due to bad editing. I explained how to preveiw (or at least checking what you did before leaving) and provided links to how to use ref tags, but again and again I was ignored.
7) Now it's getting to be personal attacks with him falsely accusing me of vandalism - twice - and on the article's public talk page rather than making such accusations in private on either my talk page or replying to my existing comments on his own talk page.
8) And after all this, today he edited the article AGAIN without citing a source. The changed facts may or may not be correct but we'll never know without sources.

He ignores all warnings, and now he's just flaming others (me) in public. Please help. I'm tired of dealing with this ____. Fife Club (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for posting here. I took a look at the edit history, and also at your talk pages, and it seems like you and Sbuxlover4 have straightened this out between you, which is of course the best possible outcome. For what it's worth, it seems likely that Sbuxlover4 just made a couple of mistakes. The account only has 50-odd edits, and the edits that "deleted half the article" seemed to have some messed-up ref tags. Annoying? Sure. Could have been avoided? Absolutely. Worth a big fuss? Depends on your point of view, I suppose. Thanks for showing sbuxlover4 some tips on refs and such. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

btw, you can create numbered bullets by starting each line with #. Happy editing, --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It does appear to be settling down now. Thanks. Fife Club (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been editing the University of San Francisco article a bit. Another user: Usfcastudent and I have a disagreement about how the article opening paragraph should read. I have outlined my position on the article's discussion page, written him on his discussion page. Requested comment from others, and finally tagged the article with the disputed label. Each time he reverts the article to his point of view without offering explanation on the page. This time he reverted away my dispute tag. What should I do? I don't want to escalate this into too much of a fight, but I am unclear about the correct step for proceeding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitamarine (talk • contribs) 01:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they've stopped editing now. There looks to be a conflict of interest with that other user based on their name. Dispute resolution is definitely the way to go; if they continue to refuse discussing, you might need to ask for help at WP:AN/I. Opening a case at the Mediation Cabal would be a good next step, though it won't be productive if they keep refusing to talk. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Hello,

My husband tried to add a website to the Rickmansworth information page, but it was deleted by the administrator as it was cited as an act of vandalism. The website www.rickmansworthweb.co.uk is a news and information website which gives local community news and provides news from the police force, the local council and local businesses. The site has been a handy resource for us, as it has restaurant reviews, information on local sports clubs and schools, plus for young mothers the ability to find out about local classes in the area.

We are surprised why it has been cited as vandalism, as it is a very important resource for those of us who have found it.

If it could be reinstated we think a lot of other people would find it's information helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.101.7 (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, It does seem a little harsh to label that vandalism. I'll try re-adding it and we'll see if anyone challenges it. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Guessing that because of the site address someone may have mistaken it for "spam" and labelled it wrong. I've had a look and it looks okay to me (just in case you wanted a second opinion). Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I quried the Wikipedia article about the Kent town of Whitstable.

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

I found the page to have been rendered unintelligible by some sort of vandlism or graffiti. I do not know how to repair it. Please assist.

(email removed per policy)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.204.230 (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I took a look and it seems OK now. Vandalism is usually fixed quickly. If you're still seeing a problem then please post again. Thanks, --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Editor:

I seek assistance with a messgage left on my talk page. I have been watching and editing the article on the band Blessid Union of Souls for a little while. I was made aware by another user in April that two founders of the band each had a group using the same name, both with an online presence. In April 2008 we reached a comprimise edit that mentioned both group's claim. I have since been keeping both claims in tact on the artcile as various parties tried to assert one groups claim over the other. In light of no real vailidation to either side's claim I thought it best to mention both groups, which claim in separate websites to be touring as Blessid Union of Souls.

On July 23rd, 2008 I recieved an unsigned comment stating the following:

"NeuGye,

First off, would you be so kind as to please provide your full name.

Secondly, I/We appreciate your patronage and your attempts to document a profile of the band's (Blessid Union of Souls) history as you perceive it. However, you, as well as Mr. Jeff Pence, now find yourselves in violation of Federal Service Marks, as well as Federal Trademark, agreements. You asked for 1 reason, however, I can give you many reasons ($15,000) why you should not involve yourself in this present lawsuit. If you feel obligated to continue, then we will have no choice but to also file suit against you.

As far as we are concerned, there is nothing further to discuss. We changed our Wikipedia site to tell the truth and to not slander anyone. If you would like to go further with this, then be assured that this will be handled swiftly and strongly.

buosmgnt"

I now wish to seek assistance in how to procede. I am simply editing a wikipedia article to keep a neutral tone in light of no evidence to settle the dispute. I have posted comments at various points to this effect and have added comments on the talk page. Assuming my talk page was not vandalized by some fifteen year old in Ohio, I wish to ask someone else to get involved or at least be made aware of the situation. Thank you NeuGye (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The policy says "Legal threats should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or an administrator." Make sure you include a link to his diff and your diff that instigated the threat in your report assuming those are the right links. There is no need to copy the text of the threat into the noticeboard as the diff links should be sufficient. If you don't get a reasonable response, please come back here for help. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, cool. Now that you've made your report, continue to discuss any contentious changes with the other editors on the talk page to come to a consensus with all involved parties. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 06:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please could some other people have a look at Pushkin House. I'm in the middle of a content dispute which comes down to me placing a notability tag (more than once) and another user repeatedly removing it. I may very well be in the wrong and just not be reading the article properly but, I don't want to edit war or end up with WP:OWN accusations. I'm not planning on going back to the article again until a 3rd opinion can be obtained. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else think this article is somewhat pointless and probably unmaintainable ? CultureDrone (talk) 08:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment I agree that unless it is a list of notable shopping malls and that information is referenced properly that you are probably correct. Although bringing up more specific concerns on the talkpage of the article might be better (why you feel it is "somewhat pointless and probably unmaintainable" for example. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• NOTE: The page has been proposed for deletion. Fleetflame 00:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

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

I'm working on references for the Controversy section of the page for Greg Land, and a user keeps deleting the section. I don't want to break the 3 reverts rule, but he is not using the talk page so I can't even have a basic conversation with him (he wrote an argument against the section existing on the page itself rather than the talk page).

I've shortened the section and I want to add more references to be sure the point is well-established, but I've already had a lot of edits in the last 2 days so I'm trying to avoid breaking rules about reverts and/or ending up in an edit war with 'scottfavor', what is the appropriate process? Jack Fool (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for coming here. Sometimes, it helps to allow a little time to pass. Once the heat of the moment has gone, things are a little clearer. I think you're familiar with WP:3RR, and reliable sources are always important. You might try posting a message at the other editor's talk page, too. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

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

The entry for 'High Lane' ssays the village is on the Peak Forest canal. It isn't. It isits on the Macclesfield Canal (the Peak Forest canal is a few miles away). I've tried to edit the page but it is protected and I just go round in circles trying to work out how to correct the entry. Help ! Henry Keswick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry Keswick (talk • contribs) 14:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm guessing that you're referring to High Lane? It's not protected, in the sense used here which means that only admins can edit it. I don't see any edits to it under your user name, although you might have edited it without logging in. Perhaps you could come back here with a bit more information about what you tried to do and what happened? --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I created a stub for this music artist several months ago and added two clear references to show verifiability. The current edit does not follow wiki guidelines (references were deleted, there is no internal linking, and material added is not attributed). Not exactly a sockpuppet edit, and unfortunately the edit was made by an anonymous user, but I am concerned that someone with a vested interest in the band may have edited the page. What's best to do in this case? Altlusa (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe you're referring to this edit. This is a clear copyright violation of their myspace page (http://www.myspace.com/ysga). I undid that copyright violation and added a warning to their user talk page. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see Darwin Frank. The history of this article is confusing and looks like a lot of nonsense, but I'm not sure how to get it deleted, if that's what should happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.143.10 (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Please help this article achieve some sort of NPOV and stability; just go through the recent edits to get an understand of the kind of sanitization going on. I am having difficulties with philscirel (talk · contribs) and 76.181.224.82 (talk) Could someone check for sockpuppets? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 15:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, you can file a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. --BelovedFreak 11:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually the problem is very much ongoing. NPOV issues are widespread. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 19:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A number of editors and I have been trying to post information to the Virginia Military Institute page. The information we are trying to post is from a neutral source, the US News and World Report college rankings for 2008. This information was first posted on 7 February 2008 by user:Pikepk1 with appropriate and full citations. In the intervening 166 days, it has been reverted 41 times. 38 of these times has been by user:Rillian who claims it is POV and who has bounced it against the WP:PRESTIGE guideline. On two separate occasions, user:Rillian has also violated WP:3RR in this edit war, first at 14:41, 19 February 2008 and then again at 16:46, 22 April 2008.

Obviously, we disagree. The current state of argument/discussion/dispute is posted on an administator's talk page at: User_talk:El_C#Virginia_Military_Institute and on the Talk page Talk:Virginia Military Institute. The former link has some history on the dispute, including a reversion history. Talk:Virginia Military Institute/Archive 4#Rankings has some archived historical discussion on this topic between two of the parties. The administrator user:El_C has fully protected the Virginia Military Institute page and asked the parties to go back to the Talk:Virginia Military Institute for further discussion. Since this has not worked in the past, I would like to move up the dispute resolution ladder of WP:DR and ask for Editor Assistance in this dispute.

Thank you.

98.204.199.179 (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for posting here. Looks like you did the right thing by stating your position at the talk page. I'd suggest you allow a couple of days at least for any other interested parties to express an opinion. Who knows, some discussion might lead to a mutually agreed outcome. I realise you'd like to make this happen quickly, but there is no deadline! I'll add the page to my watchlist. Let's revisit it in a few days' time. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam,

I created the article title “IAPsolutions (former DCI)” including company information and this was deleted. However, I have seen very similar articles (e.g. “Buongiorno”) in the Wikipedia, and I don’t really understand the difference between these two articles and why mine was deleted.

Could you please clarify this ?

Best regards --Qswi3021 (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for posting here. It looks like IAPsolutions (former DCI) was deleted twice, once for being advertising and once for making no assertion of notability. I can't see the deleted content, so I'm going to guess that it didn't make clear why the company is notable, and perhaps didn't have sufficient reliable sources. Please read the guidelines linked, if you haven't already, and then decide if the topic really is sufficiently notable to be included. If you think it is, then try to modify the content so that it meets the guidelines and then post it again. Feel free to leave another message here if you need help. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that there are a number of articles in Wikipedia tagged as needing copying to Wiktionary (i.e. those in Category:Copy to Wiktionary. There seems to be a backlog, which is where I'm confused. I know there is a manual process to move articles (Help:Transwiki), but I thought the tag initiated some sort of automatic move, and didn't require further intervention (other than cleaning up/deleting the transwikied articles). Have I misunderstood the process, or is there a problem with the Wikipedia -> Wiktionary transwiki ? CultureDrone (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought as well. After all, the template says "automated". Template talk:Copy to Wiktionary seems to suggest that User:CopyToWiktionaryBot does this. It sure does look broken- no contributions from it since 6 May 2008. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've taken this to the Administrators noticeboard for further action. CultureDrone (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Moshe David Tendler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have a long running feud with someone who is likely a Tendler student or family member. My opponent seeks to canonize him and continually deletes my request for sources (Which, had his claim regarding Tendler receiving ordination [smichah] from some of the great sages of the past generation been true, it would have been stated in an abundance of places.) Instead of posting a source, he deletes my request for a citation. He continually post the content of particular Tendler responsa was is not germane to the profile, and is in fact a commercial for hods.org which has no place in the biography. This person wishes to paint Dr. Tendler as the sucessor to his father in law and continually deletes this fact as well as my 2 references to Igros Moshe, where Reb Moshe forbids the translation of his responsa. I posted a link to a website, that link gets deleted as well. If you look in the history, you'll see that I have commented on the modus operandi of this editor who has a serious aversion to the truth. He cannot be banned because he signs on a single time, edits Tendler, than deletes his profile. I have documented all of my statements, all I want is the truth to be told. Wikipedia is not supposed to be science fiction.pikipiki (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And neither is it supposed to provide you, or anyone else, with a soap box. If you want to call the subject of an article a liar, you're probably better off not editing the article at all. Also refrain from characterizing your opponent as seeking to canonize the article subject, and stop making tendentious speeches (such as this) on the article's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have edited User:Pikipiki's post above to remove unsourced contentious material per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Please read that policy before making any other statements about living people. As for the article, you might want to try a request for comment to get other editors involved who may have knowledge in the field. Or the talkpages of relevant Wikiprojects such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism.--BelovedFreak 12:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)