Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

→

Archive 85

hi, i have an article, which i wish to be uploaded to Wikipedia. the article is about T10 gully cricket, a event held on the 10 over format of cricket. It has some disitnct features which make the game interesting. It was telecasted live on DD Sports a national channel in India.

i hereby give a brief about T 10 gully Cricket, of which the article is about....

I request you to please help me with the article to appear on wikipedia at its best.

Thanks & Regards, Pratik G —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prx.pratik (talk • contribs) 10:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, your proposed article has several issues. Most glaringly, it is written from a non-neutral point of view and reads somewhat like a promotional advertisement. Second, you provide no sources to show the topic is notable. The article basically has to be completely re-written to address these concerns before it can be added to Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday, I created a page on Autonet Mobile, which provides cellular internet access used by an option on some newer Chrysler vehicles. I believe that a Google search quickly establishes this company's notability, but the page was speedily deleted. I was not online at the right time to object. What can I do?

I have nothing to do with this company, I just noticed a topic that has almost no information on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakane2 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Notability is not established by what may turn up in a Google search of the article subject. Information found in the Google search, and citations referencing where the information came from, need to be inserted into the article. You will need to examine any references you find from the search for appropriateness, reliablity, etc. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:Citing sources for help. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, if you're going to delete my article entitled "Caroline Hagood," is it possible to remove the page that states that it was deleted from the search results? I'm guessing you can't affect google's results, for example, but is there any way you can completely remove it rather than merely flagging it for removal in order to eliminate it all together? Thanks, Max Redman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Redman (talk • contribs) 05:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Logs showing that a page has been deleted are not removed, for purposes of transparency. It will just have to wait until Google un-indexes it. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Can someone please take a look here?: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 23 (search "DePiep" or "Unicode"). It's a Cfm-proposal. My nominators motivation got into it doubled and bolded. Quite intimidating. (maybe someone else already solved it) Anyway, I want the CFM discussion going. -DePiep (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Done -DePiep (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

To Whom it May Concern,

I would like to post a photo for the above article. The photo I have is high reolution was taken by myself and is recent. I am an amateur wldlife photographer and I believe that I havce many to contribute. Please give me the necessary permission and let me know.

Regards, Chrisw27 Chris Whiting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisw27 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You have some different options.

1. You can wait for about 4 days and make 9 more edits. After that happens, you will be autoconfirmed and you will have the ability to upload the image yourself.

2. You can place the image at an accessible location on the internet and then submit a request at Wikipedia:Files for upload. A voluntter will then review the request and if it meets requirements they will upload the file for you.

3. You can login to http://commons.wikimedia.org using the same name and password you use here and upload it there. I do not use that much so I don't know the requirements. If it is uploaded there it will be available here and at all other wikimedia projects.

I hope this helps. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 13:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I added to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colton,_Leeds page but it has been returned to its previous state. It was with factually correct information relating to Colton. I modelled it on Maghull page which has about their cricket team on it. I believe it is relevant.

Domchalk (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The person who removed it said the content was not relevant to the subject, which is the town, not the cricket team. Is the cricket team notable enough for its own article? Diannaa ^TALK 20:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I've retired from editing Wikipedia but notice that the California Coast University seems to need some attention. Today there seems to be large blocks of talk page deleted. Also, the recent article edits have deleted properly sourced info critical of CCU. Some of the edit comments seem misleading and I suspect there may be some wp:SOCK activity involved. Thank you, Bill Huffman (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to edit the encyclopedia it's probably better if you do it yourself, rather than trying to get someone to do it on your behalf. It just doesn't seem right somehow. Diannaa ^TALK 21:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, I'm retired. I no longer edit Wikipedia. I'm just suggesting that someone might want to take a look. Bill Huffman (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I restored the Talk page material and reverted a couple of minor changes to the article itself. I may have done too little to repair things, in case others want to go and check my work - JohnInDC (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Hello.

As the writer of the above article, I'm confused about why it keeps getting marked for being deletion. Specifically, the editors keep questioning its notability or lack there of. I've read the articles on notability and tried to mirror the form of another publication (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Spirit) which has less info and has not been marked for deletion.

Thank you for your time.

Brandon Blatcher (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, that another article is not marked for deletion does not imply it does meet notability standards, it can also mean the article was not noticed by editors tagging articles for deletion

That said, carefully check the notability criteria at Wikipedia:Notability. Looking at the article, I find that the problem may lie with the coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. I.e. you need to show that this journal is discussed in other [secondary] media/articles that are not part of its own (alternative) network [independent] and that these sources are of course reliable. I am not convinced that has been sufficiently taken care of in the current version of the article. Arnoutf (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Could we lock the article for Paul Gray? he died this morning an his article is being bombarded by stupid people putting garbage on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SentchaDNA (talk • contribs) 21:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You can make a request like that at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. For this particular article, there is already a request in place so hopefully it will be acted on soon.--BelovedFreak 21:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Unknown_Lupus (also 67.85.128.232) keeps placing pro-Peruvian POV biased statements and removing references to published sources on the Ceviche and Pisco articles.201.230.90.180 (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, A) Tell me if it has origins in Polynesia, as the link stated, then why is it not a recognized dish from there. Ask anyone who's had the plate and they will tell you their opinion of the origin and will say a country in South America, most likely Peru, Ecuador or Bolivia. B) I haven't edited back since that page has had more than enough edit wars already. Also in other words, you're saying I'm nationalist, let me tell you if I was I would be saying "Go Barcelona" and editing every article against Spain. I don't think that what that link states is correct but either way, no one really is %100 sure where the dish comes from so I liked the fact that you kept it neutral between Polynesia and South America. As a side note I was in a bad mood so I apologize if I seemed an "edit freak" but I just didn't believe what the source said.

Unknown Lupus | ^Talk 19:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I am the daughter of the man who co-found the crash site of Bill Barilko's Hudson wreckage. I have original documentation from the Department of Lands and Forest, original photographs and newpaper articles to back my claim. I have scanned them and provided them to Bashing Mike at http://www.torontomike.com/2008/09/finding_bill_barilko.html. I want the false claims to stop and the honour of my father re-instated once and for all. My father was a humble man who did not seek the lime light. He was a very notable and skilled helicopter pilot who loved what he did. He was also an honourable man and would never take credit for something he did not do. When he discovered the site, my mother collected newspaper articles and scrap booked a lot of highlights from a very distinguished career. He flew dignitaries like Pierre Eliot Trudeau, Bill Davis, Stanfield, Princess Margaret. He has a list of film credits that is extremely impressive. He invented an IMAX camera mount and helicopter door that revolutionized film making. If this medium is to be truthful and honest, then please post only factual and honourable posts. I am so tired of continuing to try and tell the truth about this event. I would be happy to provide whatever proof is necessary. I implore you to ensure that anyone else posting "their version" of the truth also provide proof. Please put an end to this "cyber bullying" of a man who had a very distinguished career that was well-earned. Marlene Pearce Eldest daughter of Ronald M. Boyd May 22, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Honourandtruth (talk • contribs) 14:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's unclear where the cyberbullying of which you speak is occurring, can you provide a link? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it's happening here on Wikipedia, in which case we can do nothing. – ukexpat (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like one of our many childish vandals substituted his own name for Boyd's here, where the discoverer of the wreckage is noted, is that the problem? Another editor changed it back to Ron Boyd two days later. However, article Ron Boyd has been nominated for deletion due to lack of "significant coverage". --CliffC (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

One of the most unrecognized free style hillbilly kung-fu master of this century. Diamond Dave influenced a large part of south- western hemisphere. He appear on a few episodes of Jerry Springer show, where he demonstrated his unique talent not just in kung-fu but also an entertainment. In one episode Dave exhibited superior skills of kung-fu over a fellar in pijamas. He got famous for his judy chop. Dave is also known for his unconventional ninja cape. He has his own instructional video’s and opened Dave’s Ninjy school.

http://www.ikigaiway.com/2009/diamond-daves-ninjy-school/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuigcXvcy1A&feature=related Joe Vesal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.56.199 (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this interesting tidbit, but I don't think this person is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. Diannaa ^TALK 02:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This mostly unsourced article reads in part like a promotional piece. I have tagged it with {{advert}} and {{refimrove}} tags. There are WP:SYNTH issues as well. I have spelled out what I see as the major problems on the talk page, and the article's most recent primary editor has made some good-faith attempts to improve it, but doesn't seem to have sufficient Wikipedia experience to understand and address the underlying issues. They have asked me here for assistance. Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to adopt a new user or engage in the back-and-forth that it will probably take to build a decent article about this somewhat controversial Canadian figure. I am requesting additional eyes on the article and some help for the new editor. Thanks, CliffC (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Editor,

I am Bruce Regan Gilbert, producer who is credited in many articles on wikipedia including the movies: The Dollmaker, Nine to Five, On Golden Pond, Rollover, the China Syndrome, Coming Home, By Dawn's Early Light, Jack the Bear, Man Trouble, etc. Not to mention the page for Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Picture for 1981's On Golden Pond, etc.

On wikipedia pages where my name is mentioned as "Bruce Gilbert" they link to another Bruce Gilbert, who is Bruce Clifford Gilbert, a musician who has had no affiliation with any of my films.

There are numerous biographies of me, including on IMDB. Here is a link to that data base.Bruce Gilbert, producer (although this biography incorrectly states that I was born in Del Mar, CA, when I was actually born in Los Angeles, CA.

Please correct the incorrect attributions of credit to Bruce Clifford Gilbert, musician. Please add a correct biography to the wikipedia pages.

Thank you.

Bruce Gilbert (aka Bruce Regan Gilbert)

email: REDACTED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.87.75 (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please make your request for an article to be created at Articles for creation. – ukexpat (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been through all the articles and I think the links are all correct now. Sarah 01:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Teck-Hua Ho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am trying to format this page using the same format as Colin_Camerer or Matthew_Rabin

Can I get some help? I'm mired in confusion around the Template:WPBiography page.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgardner2010 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 25 May 2010

You might find Template:Infobox scientist a little easier. Just use the fields (lines) that are relevant and leave the others blank. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I would like to request two sections of the following Wikipedia article to be entirely deleted. The article is

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

the sections are:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_inflation#CTMU
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_inflation#Philosophy_of_cosmology

Brief description of request:

• This article is about a scientific theory. It should contain scientific material.
• The two sections are not of scientific nature. The material was not accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed cosmology journal. The first section is a blog post; the second section was published in a religious newsletter.
• They seem to suggest a controversy which is inexistent in the scientific literature.

Longer explanatory comments:

The section no. 1 (CTMU) consists of a blog posts. It is not a peer-reviewed paper in a journal. It should not be part of an encyclopedic entry on a scientific article. Moreover, it is not comprised of a mathematical model that can be tested against experiment. The theory at hand (inflation), predicts what is called the power spectrum of cosmological perturbations and is consistent with observed anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background and the galaxy distribution observed by Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF (http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/377228 ; for an accessible account to non-experts, see http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html). An alternative theory to inflation is one that can make these types of predictions, and there are some available in the scientific literature, but we can see from the blog post that it is not a mathematical model to predict cosmological observables. Instead, it is a random combination of jargon that makes little sense.

The same of the above applies to section no. 2. In addition, it was commented in the talk page in detail at least twice, where specific references were given that debunks the paragraph. In fact, the paragraph in question make three claims that: the first one can be seen to be wrong by following a simple textbook reasoning, such as the one of the reference given in the talk section; the second claim is just plain wrong because there are known theorems of the nature the paragraph disputed to exist.

It would be best if this is passed to someone with technical knowledge in Physics and Cosmology.

Thanks 129.170.84.49 (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This has been copied to the articles talk page!...Moxy (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry that I have to come back here. It is one last shot. Let me first say that the issue above was not resolved. My claim is that the section that remains is inadequate to the article. It makes claims such as "the theory is flawed", "the theory cannot be tested" and "the theory does not add anything" and I have done the following: I explained in detail why these claims are not true, I also provided the references. For instance, I provided the references of scientific literature that shows the enterprise of testing the theory. In fact the first test of the theory came already in 2003, and I gave this ref. in the talk page. This ref is also given in the main article. The section that I found incorrect is mostly original material written by a user. There are something like four editors who have demonstrated understanding of the topic that are against the maintenance of this section. But this single user seems to be able to put the section online again, even though no consensus exists that the section is relevant and should be kept. I don't see what else can I do but ask to some sort of "admin" to resolve this issue (for better or worse). I believe that if a section is about mathematics, then even though people are entitled to their opinions, it should not be part of the encyclopedia content paragraphs that say trigonometry is wrong by a standard that is not the mathematical standard of proof. In the same way, in an article about physics, it should contain knowledge that is considered to be part of physics, and not a laymen opinion (or any personal opinion for that matter). The section in question is a personal opinion that is not supported by evidence from experiments, or mathematical reasoning. I don't think this should be in Wikipedia also because there are several other similar opinions out there and I don't see why this particular one should be picked in the article. In my opinion, it is a violation of neutrality of scientific articles. I exposed the case in detail in the talk page and I don't think I can add anything else. I will just wait for a verdict. Thanks.131.215.195.228 (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You might like to file a WP:Request for comment. This will hopefully draw the attention of editors who are prepared to offer an opinion on the content dispute. There are other more formal routes you can take as well if you are unable to get resolution. Diannaa ^TALK 05:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope you can help as my articles keep being removed by an individual named Anma. There is nothing wrong with the articles I am posting or any of the references. The rationale she is using is unjustifiable and contradictory. She has gone in and removed the references then has the articles removed due to lack of references. She is deliberately attacking my articles, I'm not sure if it is just me, or she's on a power trip. I have asked her to stop, but it is ignored. Unfortunately now it is getting to the point where the harassment card can be played, and further action must be taken. What information do you need to help resolve this matter and having her going in and making these unnecessary changes?

The articles she keeps targeting are (the ones I have found):

• Chris Bickford
• Amyas Godfrey
• Matthew Godfrey
• Vanessa Lindores
• You Can't Do That On Television
• Bradley Steven Cooper

Jrfoldes (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC) (Reformatted for readability -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC))

Anma believes that your references are not reliable sources. In that event, the references are essentially worthless in preventing deletion. If you haven't yet done so, you might like to read the policy on reliable sources. You might also like to follow and/or join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jrfoldes Edit Warring and Spamming Fansite/Copyright Violating Link. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I do not see evidence of a Bradley Steven Cooper, but I do see that you have edited Bradley Steven Perry. Is that the article you meant?

I look a look at the deleted copy of Chris Bickford. In my opinion, it did not satisfy the criteria for WP:CSD#A7 since it contained material supporting possible notability. I am therefore restoring it for further review. (This does not imply that I support article retention, just a change in procedure.)

Of the remaining articles you list, I see that several have been marked for "proposed deletion" (see WP:PROD). Unlike CSD nominations, PROD nominations can be removed by anyone, including the article creator, simply by removing the tag and stating a rationale either in the edit summary or on the article's talk page.^{(see below)} Note that although the article is not eligible for another PROD nomination, it can still be nominated as an "article for deletion" (see WP:AfD). However, that process involves a review by multiple other editors to establish a consensus for the action be be taken. Lastly, please review the Wikipedia policies on WP:Notability. Not every public figure or entertainer warrants a Wikipedia article, but that is for an AfD discussion, should it come to that. I hope this helps. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(As correctly noted below, my statement regarding PROD above in not accurate to BLP PRODs. A reliable source that qualifies as outlined in WP:RS is required.) -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Several of the articles are BLP Prods, and cannot just be removed by the creator - not without a reliable source. Also encourage those responding here to read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jrfoldes Edit Warring and Spamming Fansite/Copyright Violating Link before doing responding, as the summary above is completely inaccurate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The AN/I thread is now archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive616#User:Jrfoldes Edit Warring and Spamming Fansite/Copyright Violating Link --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I am in a dispute with user:Steelbeard1 over an edit I made to the Senator Carl Levin Page.

The issue is whether I can legitimately state that the chariman of the Senate Armed Services Committee has never served in the military.

The Senator's own biography and every official biography I can find leaves a blank under military service, nor makes any mention of his ever having served in the military.

He claims my citations are not bonafide with no justification other than his opinion.

The one source which is very heavily cited by both sides of the political spectrum is very a very well-respected and often cited source for determining which politicians have served in the military.

Please advise. I am the Botendaddy 01:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There are several problems with the text you're seeking to insert. One, you're casting the fact that he's never served as a value judgment ("...despite never having served...") and that's inappropriate for us to make based on our own opinions, see no original research. Perhaps there is some criticism of him for that, but the sources you're using don't support it. If you want to insert a criticism that he's never served in the military, you need to find such a criticism from a verifiable, reliable source first, at the very least. — e. ripley\^talk 01:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

He's never served in the military, right? So what? It's not like it's required for the job. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The still blocked Botendaddy has stated in his talk page that he will seek arbitration which I think he will lose as no one so far agrees with him. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

In my correction it is true that the coverage is predominantly Basketball and the coverage is biased against Midwest teams. This has been the practice of ESPN for many years. This is a fact. If Piano Gone Troppo ever watched SportsCenter as I have for 25 years, I have filed many complaints to ESPN because of its Anti Midwest Bias and its lack of coverage of the NHL during its season. These are facts that were edited into the article. If any of you ever watched SportsCenter you would understand I posted in a neutral view that the programming is predominantly Basketball coverage. This editor may have all of the awards in the world and he may have created them himself. The truth is the truth and I do believe I am owed an apology by this editor, as I was falsely accused of Vandalism when in fact I was reporting the truth. I was a reporter myself for over 20 years and have covered every story I've ever written fairly and even handed. Before you scold an editor or a user, do a little research before you brazenly scold and you may learn something called the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.37.82 (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you had the opportunity to review some of the pages setting forth basic Wikipedia policies, such as the requirement that any addition to an article be supported by a reliable third party source or the prohibition on expressing particular personal points of view? Also you should know that one of the quickest ways to get yourself blocked for a very long time is to make legal threats. Go see Wikipedia:No legal threats for more on that. After you read some of that material, you'll see that the other editors quite correctly removed the material you added, and did just the right thing by posting warnings on your talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The IP is wrong in their assumptions; but I see no evidence of any legal threat. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the material I removed here earlier today. JohnInDC (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment on that: if you feel the threat was so bad it had to be removed from this page, then it doesn't make sense to call attention to it on this page. Anyway, I looked at the threat (as you advised) and it sounds like it's a threat against the impossible ("using my IP", which I presume means editing under that IP number, or if he means explicitly stating his IP number, this is done automatically, and there's no way he can avoid having his IP revealed if he won't create an ID to post under; that's just the way Wikipedia works.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just reading the main George A Romero page, and someone did a quick edit this week to announce his death from lung cancer May 24. I hadn't heard of his death, have just spent an hour or so looking all over the Web, and can't find corroboration ANYWHERE else. Given that his Wiki page isn't locked, and his new film opens tomorrow (and it's already being pretty universally reviled), doesn't that sound like maybe someone's just... being a jerk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.237.138 (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

ETA May 24, not May 25.

I have reverted the death claim which was added a few hours ago by an unregistered user. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

In the above biographical article the words pewp and chode are used out of context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.116.17 (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks. Damage repaired Diannaa ^TALK 03:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Suddenly this article is a hotbed of vandalism so I have requested page protection for the weekend. Diannaa ^TALK 17:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way how is the word "chode" used in context? I can think of no situation where this word would be used. Just sayin'. -Diannaa ^TALK 03:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I can think of a number of uses that would be in context, just not in this article! – ukexpat (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hindu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I just read the article titled "Hindu" a few minutes back and was shocked and horrified when I read under the section titled "Etymology" that Hindu is derived from the Sanskrit word chor meaning thief ! This is indeed ridiculous and even more so is the fact that such a change was not verified. I edited the article and also provided a reference which is a page of Wikipedia itself.

To read how the article appeared carrying the word thief, please select "view history" and then click on the link (cur | prev) 19:42, 27 May 2010 IFext (talk | contribs) (21,177 bytes) (undo)

Such defamatory information could have had caused major communal tension throughout India, had it been read by a sufficient number of people.

I strongly recommend taking action against the person who edited the article to include the word thief.

117.196.179.2 (talk) 10:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It was probably vandalism, the editor who made the change has been warned. You are right that changes like that shouldn't be made—even in good faith—without a source. Thankyou for changing it back. Just for future reference, we can't use other Wikipedia articles as references as they can be (as you can see!) unreliable.--BelovedFreak 10:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks you for replying. I had a hint that other wikipedia articles cannot be used as reference, but i wasn't absolutely sure. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.176.84 (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Article: Barbara Alby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User OCNative appears to be manipulating content in an effort to disparage a public official and/or influence the outcome of the election. Generally such has been done in a subtle fashion and/or by complaining that the content was NPOV. While content was in the process of being edited to get the article out of stub status and to ensure that content was as neutral as possible, OCNative chose to tag the article as infringing upon a copyright by referencing a link to content which is in the public domain and which is controlled by the individual whom the wikipedia articles is about. OCNative elevated what appeared to be either hyper-sensitivity to NPOV guidelines or a dislike of the subject of the article up to a level which would potentially negatively influence a voter.

In short the editor OCNative appears to be pursuing some type of vendetta against the subject of the article in question and doing so in a manner which enables him to utilize Wikipedia as a weapon.--Sactopolitics (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

User:OCNative has created a version of the page without the copyright violations at Talk:Barbara Alby/Temp. By the way, here at Wikipedia one of our core policies is to assume good faith. The article does seem to be a clear copyright violation. It is inappropriate to speculate about the timing and motives of user OCNative. Diannaa ^TALK 00:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand the concept of assumption of good faith, however, as I stated the subject of the article controls the material that was allegedly copyrighted and gave permission for the posting of such (which ultimately is immaterial as the text is in the public domain). I have received confirmation, however that OCNative is actually an individual who has a personal grudge against the subject of the article. There is still the copyright violation on the page and as nobody has chosen to escalate this or deal with this than I shall make the changes as appropriate. --Sactopolitics (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The copyright material has now been removed by an administrator and a clean version substituted. --Diannaa ^TALK 04:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have additional detailed information on the Veitch Chart Method, an early method for simplifying boolean algebraic expression. It preceded creation of the better known Karnaugh Map, developed a year later. There is a biographical entry for Veitch, an entry for the Karnaugh Map (and one for Karnaugh.) Options are 1) add details on the chart method to the Veitch biographical entry, 2) modify the Karnaugh Map entry, adding the Veitch method, or 3) create a new entry for the Veitch method and update the others with references and links. I am interested to get advice for which option would be best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afveitch (talk • contribs) 03:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You might like to post your inquiry at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics to attract knowledgeable participants to a discussion. Diannaa ^TALK 03:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering the distnict differences in the naming of the Hume Highway in New South Wales, Australia, and Hume Freeway in Victoria; creating a Hume Freeway page for Victoria will remove the disambiguity within the one page. --Rom rulz424 (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

My first inclination was to say we don't create two articles for the same thing. But on the talk page, other and better reasons for two articles are stated: the two sections may be distinct enough to justify a split, and the length of a single article may be a concern. There is also a good case to be made for keeping it on one page, so that wasn't an endorsement. You are doing fine in discussing it at the article's talk page. The only criticism is that a second page shouldn't have been created while the discussion is going on, unless it's a user page created to demonstrate a proposal. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hume Freeway, Victoria is presently just a redirect but it could be home for the new article if that is what ends up happening. Rom rulz, please wait for the discussion to take its course before proceeding any further with the split. At least a week is recommended. Diannaa ^TALK 17:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Correction requested. Please correct Henri Rene's article as follows: Mother French, Father German. I am a relative of Henri Rene.Very Cordially Yours, Rebecca Brier —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.131.211 (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I copied this section to Talk:Henri René#Henri Rene. This should be addressed by editors who are familiar with that article. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________________________

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

How would I go about getting my Sequencer Software Listed on the page Above?

Loop Maker

http://sourceforge.net/projects/loopmaker/

_________________________________________________________________________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.3.194 (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

To begin with you have a conflict of interest. People with a conflict of interest are discouraged from editing articles that concern themselves, their products or companies. In most instances the product should have an article about it prior to adding it to another article. This way the notability is already established. Even though it is possible for you to create an account and create the article yourself, I would suggest going to articles for creation and posting there if the product meets the general notability guidelines. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 22:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The certification is diamond and up to date has sold 10 million 489 thousand copies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.142.57 (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. If you can provide a reliable source, the updated information can be added to the article. Diannaa ^TALK 01:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

hello! good day. i had been editing an article about Joe "Emajoenation/Punkee" Larot and you guys keep on deleting it. can you pls help me edit it??? And save it w/out fail. thank you soo much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jley23 (talk • contribs)

The article has been deleted six times. Four times it was deleted for "not notable enough for an article" and twice for "unambiguous advertising" so I am pretty sure there will be no article at this time. Please have a look at your talk page for further information. In particular, you should read the warnings about the fact that you could be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you continue to add this article and the inppropriate external links they warned you about. Sorry. Diannaa ^TALK 20:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Mister World 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The IP 82.124.180.207 has repeatedly changed the name of the 2nd runner-up in this article. I have found weak citations (online magazines) for the original name (and I added them to the article)) and no citations at all for the changed name. From the article talk page I gather this has been a contentious issue in the past. I have warned the other editor (User talk:82.124.180.207} and asked them to discuss it on the article talk page where I posted my thoughts about the issue (Talk:Mister World 2010#2nd runner up.. The only response I got was that the other editor changed the name again and removed the citations I added. I can't tell if the other editor disputes the original content or is vandalizing. I am too much of a newbie to know if my own behavior is appropriate or constitutes edit warring. What's the appropriate action to take in a situation like this? Thanks. --Susfele (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The IP editor has posted a link to http://www.bestmodel.fr/ as justification for the change. The manner in which this link was posted was unacceptable, as it falsely claimed that it was a link to the Mister World official site, and it removed a genuine link to that official site. I have not been able to find any evidence that www.bestmodel.fr is a reliable source. It does not seem to have much (if any) external recognition. The site contains very little, and many of its pages merely show notes to the effect that the page has not been written. All in all it seems to me that the IP editor is, as you say, removing sourced information, adding information which has no reliable sources, and failing to engage in discussion. I have found other sources for the name originally given, in addition to the ones you have given, and have added a reference to one of them. I shall post one more message on the IP editor's talk page inviting co-operation, and mentioning this thread. If after that the IP continues to edit in this way then we will have to think about what step to take next. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. --Susfele (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Kenneth Okolie's name was again replaced with the name of Mohammed Al Maiman as 2nd runner-up. The three citations appended to Okolie's name were removed. No source was included for Al Maiman, nor was there any discussion on the talk page. A different I.P. made the disputed edit. This time it is 82.124.142.48. Yet another I.P. changed the name back to Okolie, but left off the citations, which I have restored. I also left a note at User Talk:82.124.142.48 pointing to the discussion here and on the article talk page. Susfele (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you have incorrectly placed Taumata as the longest place name in the world, it is in fact the SECOND longest place name in the world, this is the longest Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch, it is in Wales and takes up the whole of the railway platform at the station of said place on it's sign, I am from New Zealand wish Taumata was the longest but unfortunately it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.24.242 (talk) 09:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That depends what you mean by "place name". The name of the relevant Welsh village is Llanfairpwllgwyngyll (Alternatively spelled Llanfair Pwllgwyngyll). Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch was a name given by a railway company to a (now defunct) railway station as a publicity stunt. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

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

After making changes to the 2nd paragraph of "The Raid" in the article on the Doolittle Raid, all reference to "the escort ships" between ref. 4 and 5

The escort ships — Salt Lake City, Northampton, Vincennes, Balch, Fanning, Benham, Ellet, Gwin, Meredith, Grayson, Monssen, Cimarron and Sabine</ref> — then proceeded in radio silence.

disappeared from the article although still visible in the Editing window.

Likewise information at the top of the 3rd paragraph between "attack warning to Japan" and "Doolittle and Hornet skipper"

No. 3 Nittō Maru was a 70-ton patrol craft captained by a chief petty officer who committed suicide rather than be captured. Five of the eleven crew survived when they were picked up by the cruiser USS Nashville. Glines 1998 p. 71.</ref> Although the boat was fatally damaged by gunfire from the Nashville,^[1]

appears in the Editing window but does not display on the article page. Redbone360619 (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This was caused because someone place <ref> All the ships</ref> around the text marked by you. Thus the text appears in the reference section instead of in the main text. I have fixed this, so it should look better now. . Arnoutf (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, "Thanks just all ta peeces!" Arnoutf, I'm not only a newbie at editing/cleanup in this Wikipedia but even more [less?] so have any experience with the delicate intricacies of html. I will have to scrutinize things even more carefully hence to avoid any more Bermuda Trianglesque horrors like that. Peace love & soul to you! Redbone360619 (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Oopsy, I didn't inspect things close enough, should've waited 'til after work [or after lunch at least!], there's still these two lines [bold] not showing, with attendant ^[2]

and

Although the boat was fatally damaged by gunfire from the Nashville,</ref> according to Glines 1998, p. 70, the order to the Nashville did not go out until 07:52. Heavy seas made hitting the picket boat difficult even with rapid fire, and it was not sunk until 08:23.</ref>

Redbone360619 (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Same problem. All text positioned between the opening <ref> and the closing </ref> code (note the important difference being the slash between opening and closing code) will be rendered as a footnote/reference and will thus create a number in the text (here it was [18]) and put the text at the <references> position. : I do realise the edit screen tends to be a bit confusing with all the <ref></ref><ref> stuff, but if this happens again try to figure out where the latest <ref> was not closed by a </ref> code. Good luck Arnoutf (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help, Arnoutf, I had been trying to maneuver through/around the html doohickeys like tapdancing in a field of Fabergé eggs, but lesson learned the hard way - now I always do Show Preview before saving anything. Thanks again & "may the Lords of Kobol bless you!" 174.150.72.115 (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

user:Sunset99/Construction Imaging Systems

I am having trouble editing the above article to make it an acceptable Wikipedia article. The article is admittedly about a company. The feedback I am getting is very general in nature and is not helping me to construct a proper article.

I have looked at other articles and tried to somewhat pattern this article after those but seem to be missing the mark somewhere. Do you think I should try the mentor route, can you perhaps suggest better company articles to use as a pattern, or some other course of action?

Sunset99 (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with the comments it reads like an advertisement. To give examples the listing in para 1 of the lead (Its content management products includes document imaging and management , accounts payable document workflow and approval, email management , document retention , file archiving and various information capture products including OCR and electronic forms.) is hardly top importance but is very adlike. Additionally the last two para's of the lede are also more about showing how good the company is instead of a neutral account (Construction Imaging Systems released new versions of its Invoice Router Version 3.3 Release 2[1] and Construction Document Manager Version 3.3[2] in 2009, In 2010 it released a new versions of its Chameleon Software Version 2.7[3].

Construction Imaging Systems was named by Constructech Magazine’s as one of its “50 Hottest Companies” in 2007[4], 2008[5], and 2009[6] and several products receive Constructech Magazine’s “Commercial Top Products” awards in 2008[7], 2009[8], and 2010[9].).

Additionally, the sourcing of this company is basically based on 2 sources; its own website and Constructech magazine (the construction industry advocate). Neither of which is likely to qualify as a reliable secondary source (although the second might just make the cut if it is actually well known), thus the article may actually not show notability of the company.

There are 2 options. (1) Try to find better sources and get a more neutral tone in the article before creating the article in mainspace. (2) Go for it, set it up on main space, and hope other editors will pithc in and help you out, but in that case please accept the possibility that the article is deleted for notability. Arnoutf (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm really sorry but I'm new and joined because I have come across an article that has been vandalised. I myself do not know anything about the subject, or how to fix it so thought I would alert you here. The article is A child called "It" (sorry, I don't know how to hyperlink!) The plot section needs a clean up and the discussion page may have been vandalised too. Sorry if this is not the correct place to post this. BeckyPhoenix36 (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have repaired the talk page. I see you did some fixes on the article; it seems we have repaired it. Thank you for reporting this. Diannaa ^TALK 21:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This page needs editing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Yao

it is lacking a lot. please link stuff. i will post more pages that i think need editing later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.172.61 (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother posting more. EN WP has about 3, 310, 247 pages. Of those approximately 3, 310, 247 need editing. If you have suggestions, post them of the relevant talk pages. raseaC^{talk to me} 00:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with raseaC, but thanks for posting anyway. This page is for general questions and requests for help. To get help on a certain article or topic, you need to be in contact with people who know about the subject, so the article's talk page is the best place. You also need to be more specific about what's lacking, what could be added, what kinds of links (references?) you are looking for, etc. You can use citation tags to illustrate where more references are needed. In terms of quantity, the article currently has many references, 17 in fact, although they are not inline citations. Making them inline would be an improvement. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, but I don't know how to make those inline citations and the links within the article to different articles. Can one please explain, or do them as an example! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.172.61 (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

See WP:CITE for help with citations. To link to another article on en Wikipedia, put the title in double square brackets, eg [[United States]] renders as United States. But note that you cannot use other Wikipedia articles as references. – ukexpat (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

good day,

i just want to view this article but a download dialog box appears. i followed the instruction which says "add a ?action=purge at the end of the link" but still doesnt work.

my guess is that the ._Worrell in the www.wikipedia.org/Ernest_P._Worrell was interpreted as a file given that ._Worrell is an extension name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.67.147 (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. The article is actually at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_P._Worrell. Try clicking on that link, or on this one: Ernest P. Worrell. Works for me! --Diannaa ^TALK 03:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the quick response. =) i tried for both links you posted, but still not working for me. must be the browser. anyway, thanks for the help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.67.147 (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds strange. What browser are you using, and what exactly is your browser trying to download when this happens? Actually, it sounds very suspicious (like there might be a virus involved), and I hope you didn't agree to download anything! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. User:Amadscientist has taken a sudden interest, since 31 May, in the Calfornia elections. I object to a person being able to edit this article about Meg Whitman down to nothing and to say "all edits are in good faith" (which they certainly could be). I used up my two reverts. Now what? Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look at these diffs which shows how the article has progressed since Amadscientist did his first edit. As far as I can tell the only things missing are the stuff about Fortune Magazine, and a listing of endorsements by Mitt Romney et al. Could you be more specific about your concerns? I do not see you adding any comments to the talk page. Might I suggest you get involved in the discussions there? --Diannaa ^TALK 06:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, Diannaa. My first contribution to the talk page was in November 2007. So I'm not sure you're on the same page. Since writing, someone else restored 1) a photo of Whitman, and 2) a long list of her political positions. Because Amadscientist did not revert their inclusion, I am closing this request for assistance. Thank you for your time. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that at some intermediate points there was a lot of content missing, but it was not necessarily removed by the mad scientist; I did not have time to check every diff. There were issues with the photos; when I checked in the Commons last night there were few that were not slated for deletion, due to incorrect/no permissions. The one that was in place has been checked by an administrator and is definitely correctly licensed nominated for deletion as is does not have correct licensing in place. --Diannaa ^TALK 19:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Community,

I just finished my first Wikipedia article. It can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fhambrecht

I would appreciate feedback as I want to make sure that I am adhering to all Wikipedia guidelines before I post.

Thanks for the help.

Fhambrecht (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your userpage is supposed to be about you, not a place where an article is composed. I have moved that draft to Gary Farrell, since it seemed ready to be moved. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I and others would like to reopen an effort of moving technical content out from a broad article to its own article. Previously it was decided (in 2008) that the topic was narrow and belonged under a broader article.

What is the best way and process to revisit this topic of discussion based on new information? That is, can I use the previous dialogue that was closed found still under Articles Marked for Deletion?

Furthermore, is it best to use the same article name proposed in the previous attempt, or start from scratch with a new name?

Thank you.

--Markf129 (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you take a look at Wikipedia:Splitting? – ukexpat (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, this helps with my first question. I can do the split and also refer to the other discussion page in the template provided. Is it best to use the same article name of the previous attempt or start from scratch?

--Markf129 (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Two articles cannot have the same name so you will have to come up with a new name for the split article. If you tell us more about the article and suggested split, we can suggest an appropriate name. – ukexpat (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I understand. The question was around a previous split attempt. We gave it a new, unique name for the split, and the split attempt failed due to not enough referenced support. So we can reference that same name (under articles for deletion - never posted), or come up with another unique name. Either name is not currently on Wikipedia, so either would be unique. I was just concerned if we used the previous split name, it may get confused when seen under 'articles for deletion'. Perhaps it is irrelevant. --Markf129 (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No matter what source I use, my edits are being deleted within minutes from making changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JVansen (talk • contribs) 23:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Check out WP:RS. I had a quick look at some of your contributions and it does appear that you're not using reliable sources, although it would help if you made your original post a little more detailed. raseaC^{talk to me} 00:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

ok I posted the start of an article and it got deleted. So I am trying to get it set up off line so it is more factual. Using an online paper and gov documents ect to show it is history in the making. A Government watch dog group. It is coming along fine and I have alot of proof ect...which is what I was told was wrong with the article. But as I am trying to be a good wiki adder, I just notice that external links are not good. So the question is, are news articles and government doc's include in that? if so how do I post the referring info? (format?) And also is there a place to create the article before it is up for review so I can make sure that the format I am using is working?? I don't want to put it up only to be bit by a delete brownie point editor.--Happypixie (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, those external documents are essential as references, to show notability as well as to support the statements in the article. See WP:CITE for details on how to cite those reference documents. You can create the article in your "userspace", at, for example, User:Happypixie/Article_under_development. Feel free to come back here and ask for some constructive criticism. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have much experience with images, and no Wikimedia account to work from. From the discussion on my talk , I think a speedy deletion is warranted. --Ronz (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The place to report this is at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. Diannaa ^TALK 01:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how I can follow the instructions there without an Wikimedia account, hence I'm asking someone else who has such an account to look into it. --Ronz (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You have a Wikipedia account. You don't need a Wikimedia account to post at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. – ukexpat (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't figured out how to follow the first step in the instructions there, "Edit the file page." From what I've tried, it seems to require a Wikimedia account, hence my comments here. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The image is on Commons at commons:File:Joshua Pellicer.jpg, so it would have to be reviewed in accordance with Commons' policies and procedures. However, if the file was originally published on Flickr with a Commons compatible license (and we no evidence to suggest that it was not) the license cannot be retracted and it therefore still complies with Commons' licensing requirements. – ukexpat (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, My name is Tom McCarthy and I am a newly self-published author. My book "Get Naked: Stripping 101" was two years in the creation and contains observations of over nine years of work as a strip club DJ. The goal of the book is two-fold: 1) help newcomers to the world of exotic dancing understand what they are getting into before they take the plunge. And 2) Help strippers morph into professional exotic dancers. The book entered publication in May of 2010 and is in it's first printing. R.R. Bowker issued the official ISBN-9780615365855.

Because I have self-published my book based on my almost decade of experience in exotic dancing, does this preclude the viability of my information and therefore preclude my book from qualifying for an article in Wikipedia?

Tom McCarthy Author/Publisher Get Naked: Stripping 101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragbike81 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, You have a couple of challenges to address here. First, is the book notable? By which we mean, here, does it meet our criteria for inclusion? Click on the link to read our criteria. Second, you have a conflict of interest as you suggest, so it would be best if you didn't write about your book. If you think it meets the notability criteria, then you could request that the article be written, at WP:RA, and list your sources for notability. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

--Izady (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Wiki is steadily becoming a platform for anti-Shia religious bigotry. This is unbecoming and dangerous. In the name of harmony and mutual understanding between various religious I have tried to remove these racist/bigoted comments, but your editors-cum-bigots immediately restore the old jars. A case in point is my addition to the article on the Imam Malik ibn Anas. Using the same material in the article itself, I demonstrate that the ascribing anti-Shia feelings to him are wrong and illogical. Malik was a long time student of the Shiites' 6th Imam and the law giver, Ja'far al-Sadiq. How could he have called the Shias "the liars" and yet studied under their law giver for most of his student life time? And yet, your editor-- "Supertouch"-- thinks the anti-Shia nonsense he has placed there to fan the fuel of animosity between the Sunni and the Shia is justified and ought to be kept! As I argued with him, one could produce much PRINTED literature from the famous people, like Adolph Hitler, that the Jews are "evil" people. But would any sane or fair-minded person buy that, just because it is printed somewhere? Izady (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think most of this should be solved on the relevant talk pages.

Printed matter (even by a famous person) is not necessarily a reliable source. Only reliable sources should be used. Note that this is a two-edged argument, as the other editor may demand you to provide reliable sources following the Wikipedia requirements for such sources. Arnoutf (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This is regarding the entry about me, "Leslie T. Chang." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_T._Chang

Someone has apparently posted a lot of frivolous challenges to the entry, attaching "citation needed" to basic statements of fact (such as a brief summary of my book's content or the fact of who I am married to). I request that these "citation needed" requests be removed. I have not been able to find directions on the site for removing the "citation needed" requests myself, or I would do so. Thank you.

98.127.146.189 (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Tags now resolved and removed, the only one remaining is {{Wikify}}, which I will address later today. This request can be marked resolved. --CliffC (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Monty_Roberts

Hi, I have just read your info on Monty Roberts... it seems a little short, are you able to add to it please.

Yes, a horse newspaper of generally accepted quality can be a reliable source for horse related topics.

No, not somebody should out here to authenticate things; the editor proposing to add information is also the person who has to do the authentification. Basically Wikipedia works as follows: If you think information is missing, you are the one who should add it, and authenticate it. That is what is meant with "Free encyclopedia that everyone can edit". There is no system of delegation (apart from volunteers stepping in). Arnoutf (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Cherrypicker were formed in 1994 with the founder members being Allan Martin (bass), Sandy Robertson (guitar), Scott Angus (guitar), George Fyfe (vocals) and Raymie Masson (drums). With only 1 month to prepare for their first gig at the Vic on the 1st of April they rehearsed non stop until they had 9 cover songs to blow the minds of the 500 strong crowd. The set list is as follows; Animal by Pearl Jam, Plush by Stone Temple Pilots, Screamager by Therapy, State of love and trust by Pearl Jam, Nearly Lost You by The Screaming Trees, Jeremy by Pearl Jam, Would? by Alice and Chains, Better days by Gun, and Porch by Pearl Jam. The band proved a big hit and developed a big following that would watch them play at various venues in the Moray area. Allan Martin left the band later that year to be replaced by roadie David MacDonald (Luggy). The band had a break before returning in 1995 with a new sound, well, they turned the volume down a wee bit. So it is now 2010, where are they now you may ask? They have recently got together for a jam and are rehearsing at every opportunity with a view to playing later this year. Watch this space. SandyRobertson (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

--MT (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I feel like my 3rd Bombay European Regiment sounds slightly biased to the British troops. Can you check if it's neutral in POV? Also, feel free to give any other bothers a run by me....I'm kinda new. Also, I would like to know where I can find images of the regiment in the public domain. I just can't seem to find such images.

Quantum field theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, could someone please help in editting the history section of the Quantum Field Theory page? It is too long and is swamping the article. Plus, it's extremely confusing to read. Thanks Wttp0609 (talk) 01:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, someone has placed a Copy edit tag on the section. An experienced editor will get to it soon, I hope. It is an intimidating impenetrable wall of text right now. Diannaa ^TALK 04:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I am a new contributor to Wikipedia and have contributed an article Bonghan system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) As soon as I linked this article to the related topics of acupuncture and acupuncture meridians an editor gutted the original article and replaced it with a shortened and biased article that includes this sentence: Believers in Bonghan structures propose they underly the notion of meridians and acupuncture points.

Is this how Wikipedia is supposed to work? A new article is gutted and replaced by weasel words from an editor who can not spell underlie properly?

I reverted the article to start a discussion but I don’t understand this editor’s reply. If this is a medical article under WP:MDRS rules how can he justify gutting the article and leaving it with the same lack of secondary references?

In his comments this editor reveals his ignorance of the subject by asserting that the references in the original article are not indexed in PubMed which is not true. He also states that ancient Chinese did not dissect their dead. This does not seem relevant to the discussion and it misrepresents Chinese history. Ideas like this have turned the acupuncture and acupuncture meridians articles into a subsidiary of quackwatch. Is there hope for reason here or should I stop contributing to Wikipedia like many others who have left their discussion comments on the acupuncture discussion page? DavidWis (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I think the opposing editor was a bit harsh, BUT the text as promoted by you is not very satisfactory because it does not read as an encyclopedic text, but rather as a promotion for the method. So that would make your version of the article not very neutral (WP:NPOV).

Content wise the evidence cited is not very strong, primary ad much of it not shown on humans; which does indeed make it problematic in terms of reliable source medicine (WP:MEDRS). In the light of the extraordinary claims made the evidence needs to be of extraordinary quality, and should openly address secondary critiques. The lack of such is a typical sign of fringe theories and therefore the article as it is should make clear why it is not in trouble with WP:FRINGE. Finally, even accepting that Bonghan may have some value, it is not clearly stated through reliable and secondary sources that this specific system is notable on its own and needs an article on its own (WP:NOTABLE).

So in my view the longer version has serious problems. As it is Wikipedia standard to only allow texts in if these are supported sufficiently, trimming the text to a neutral version (as done by WLU) is perfectly OK within Wikipedia (and a typo or lack of native English typing skills has no relevance to that). It is up to the supporter of the longer text to defend each bit of that text. Arnoutf (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the second time in 2 days that factual information on William C Rader's Wiki page has been changed and deleted. I contacted the noticeboard yesterday and the problem was resolved. However, someone continues to remove factual information replacing it with information to promote William C Rader, who has been proven to be a fraudulent stem cell profiteer. His Wiki page is being used as a manipulative advertising sales ploy to recruit patients.This is a common practice that his affliates have used in the past and continue to use. I don't know how this can be stopped but please look into this. Dr. Rader is under investigation by the FBI and FDA. He has been exposed by the BBC in their Panorama investigative program, "The Truth about Medra." He has been exposed by CBS's 60 minutes, " 21st Century Snake Oil." He was been cited by the California Medical Board for Misleading and False Advertising. The list goes on. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fraudattorney (talk • contribs) 20:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing on the article William C. Rader has changed since June 4, 2010. Right now, everything looks fine. Is there something I'm not getting? Netalarm^talk 04:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Factsupdate reverted to a version he favors a few hours after you posted. He claims that the well-cited information he removed is 'libelous'. I reverted him and also reverted two sets of extensive changes he had made to other users' comments on the talk page. --CliffC (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

User has now posted this on my talk page; I reverted it and told him to "please post at Talk:William C. Rader where all those with an interest can see" before I read it through. The post seems to include a legal threat. --CliffC (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Currently on William C. Rader page, CliffC - June 7 revision, there is libelous and untrue information. Also, some of the refrences link to dead pages.

For over a year, Dr William C. Rader has been the target of a vicious smear campaign. They have used wikipedia and other posts to publish defamatory comments, impersonate Dr William C. Rader, and publish deceptive and misleading statements. The statements published on CliffC - June 7 revision contain numerous misrepresentations of fact that are provably false relating to Medra's business and Dr. Rader's trade and profession.

The revision posted by, 99.160.165.171 on May 20 2010, has correct information backed up by a published book (Blocked In The USA: The Stem Cell Miracle) by William C. Rader and other references.

William C. Rader page keeps being reverted back to the libelous information. Spreading falsities regarding the profession of another is injurious in the eyes of the law and constitutes actionable defamation, among other torts. In order to avoid further harm to Dr William C. Rader, can you please correct this problem.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsupdate (talk • contribs)

On "link[s] to dead pages" in the June 7 version — I checked all 21 citations; two of them did have gone-dead links. These have been replaced with good links to other sources and now all citation links are operational. A dead link is not a valid reason to remove a citation (or all citations); simply append a {{dead link}} tag to it or mention it on the talk page so it can be addressed. --CliffC (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been making extensive use of Wikipedia recently, mostly for information on certain properties of covariance matrices. A recurring theme I have encountered is that the material takes every opportunity to disappear out of "the real world" and end up in, for example, some multi-dimensional complex number space in which spotted dogs could be transformed to into slime-breathing inside-out pan-dimensional cats of arbitrary colour with a mere introduction of an asterisk. OK, so I exagerate, but I feel strongly that technical articles like this would benefit from a consistent editorial policy in which there is a "What This Means" section, with sub-headings to make clear the implications in common cases. For example, very often there are only 2 or 3 dimensions involved, and/or only real numbers involved. Explicit simplification of the principles of such articles down to these common cases would be very, very useful, and help to keep the information in Wikipedia accessible. Other very common cases in matrix mathematics are square matrices and symmetric matrices.

Constructive suggestion: assuming that most Wikipedia readers are seeking "real world" answers, perhaps the number of hits a page gets (and how many other pages are searched prior to returning to a given page) could be a useful guide to Wikipedia editors/bots as to how grounded a page needs to be (and how grounded it actually is), and drive automated editorial requests (ie "! This page needs better grounding in the real world. Please edit the What This Means section").

Another example: all the material I have read on Linear Algebra (you'd think: the Algebra of Lines) makes no mention of lines anywhere I can find. Yet is this not the real world origin of Linear Algebra - an algebra in which (I believe, but it would be handy to have it explicitly stated) lines are preserved - no matter what linear transformation is applied to a line, it remains a line? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.62.103 (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I have struggled to find where this suggestion should be posted - please consider it resolved in my own mind by simply expressing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.62.103 (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Might start at wp:Village pump (policy), or at Wikiproject_mathematics. that kind of thing is hard to organize, however. --Ludwigs2 15:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If I might make a suggestion on this, I would push more for a series of related articles for existing mathematical topics describing the practical applications of a given set of mathematical theories. Sort of like you see in articles on large topics like a country, you could then have a small paragraph to introduce a general idea and then a link to a main article that fully explains, for example, the application of linear algebra to geometry. I would not push for inclusion of any "What this means" section in articles, since those kinds of sections will become very unwieldy very very fast. To stick with your example of linear algebra, linear algebra is the study of vectors and vector spaces (as stated in the article). A geometric line is certainly one interpretation of a vector, but there are many others. Trying to describe all of the "practical" interpretations of a vector would make the article on linear algebra VERY long. -- BenTels (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Clear and Present Danger (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I understand that a large amount of unsourced information should be removed, however I feel that the following edit was over-zealous. 02:19, 6 June 2010 Doniago (talk | contribs) (10,982 bytes) (→Differences between the book and film: rm OR/unsourced list with no explanations for changes)

It removed a massive list of differences between the book and the movie, all of which were correct but no page numbers were given. I'm not sure how to even source things like major plot differences. This information should remain in the article, it is in fact what I came to Wikipedia to find tonight. I would like to see it restored, but I am not sure how to do that.

Aithnen (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The person who removed it is an experienced editor in the movie field. The material shows no sources and some of it is WP:original research. It is unlikely that it will be restored unless reliable sources are found. Even then, the massive amount of material included in the section was overwhelminlgly out of proportion to the size of the article and thus is probably inappropriate. Diannaa ^TALK 05:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Doug Anthony (edit | [[Talk:talk:Doug Anthony|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user Bidgee insists on deleting my legitimate article suggestions made under the title "popular culture" on the discussion page of the article Doug Anthony

Bidgee:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bidgee

Mjspe1 (talk) 04:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you also complained on the user's talk page. That was a good idea and hopefully they will stop now. Other people's talk page comments should not be removed except under extraordinary circumstances as shown here. Diannaa ^TALK 05:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Fact is the above user was using the article talk page as a soapbox rather then a valid discussion, I removed the comment per WP:TALKNO. Bidgee (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The material they are trying to post also includes copyright song lyrics and under the non-free content policy they can only be used cautiously and with very good reason in articles and not outside article space at all. Their general comments could be left on the talk page but the song lyrics have to go. Given the fact that the material Bidgee was removing from the page was copyright and unsourced commentary about a living person, the contents of which seems to be mocking the subject and which I don't think complies with BLP, I don't find his removal of the edits at all inappropriate. Mjspe1 has been reverted by multiple users who feel this content is inappropriate, not just Bidgee, and frankly, he's going to be looking at a block of his account and IP if he keeps it up. In fact, I'm going to have to take another look at his edits as it looks like he's violated 3RR between reversions he's done with his IP and his account. Sarah 10:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the further clarification. I did not think of the copyright issue when I made my reply. Diannaa ^TALK 00:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Hi,

I was editing the article Gaza flotilla raid, and added some information that I believe is critical to the event to the lead. Some other editors dispute this, and they reverted. I reverted back, and started a discussion on the talk page. However, one of the editors started a new thread about the same subject, and within about three hours reverted my edit without having reached a consensus. I (and some other editors) still believe that the information in question is critical to the conflict, and should go in the lead. I went ahead and restored the information in the lead while also continuing the discussion. I want, however, to make sure that I am not doing anything wrong. Is it okay that I reverted the edit made without giving me/other editors sufficient time to see the new thread and discuss?

I know that they should not have reverted without waiting for at least a day to give time for all parties to respond. What I am not sure is whether it is okay that I reverted after they violated this principle. ManasShaikh (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Usually on volatile articles about current events there are plenty of edits in a short time frame in an attempt to get the best possible article up in the quickest time. For example, since your reversion, there have been about 125 further edits to the article! A portion of the information you wanted to include still appears in the lead. I don't think you have to be concerned about your behavior at this point as both the discussion page and the article are incredibly active and your contributions seem welcome. You will note there is a 1RR rule in place on this article so please be more careful in the future. Diannaa ^TALK 00:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Editor:

I am writing to challenge misleading information that we believe has intentionally been placed into the Wikipedia pages of the American Association of Physician Specialists, Inc. (AAPS), and its certifying affiliate, the American board of Physician Specialties (ABPS). This information is intended to cause confusion among individuals and groups interested in physician board certification. Further, this information will mislead the reader to believe that AAPS/ABPS is “unique” and differs from the standards and qualifications of the other the four organizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_of_Physician_Specialists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Board_of_Physician_Specialties

The current information states that ABPS will grant board certification in a particular specialty to a physician who has NOT completed residency training in that specialty. We have 17 boards of certification and all but one require an approved residency in that specific specialty. The only exceptions is emergency medicine because it involves other critical medical disciplines.

Here are some ways that ABPS does itself apart from the other nationally recognized bodies: (1) The first to incorporate public members into its boards of certification; (2) Only certifying body to require a full day of non remedial medical ethics course as a condition for recertification; (3) Never has provided lifetime certification; (4) Limits the number of certification and recertification attempts; (5) Requires non restricted medical licensure as a condition of annual certification. (6) Annual MOL Attestation of Full Unrestricted Medical License as a recurring condition for board certification (7) No membership prerequisite required

Please inform us on the next step of the process to correct the record on the information related to ABPS board certifications.

James G. Marzano Director of Public Relations & Marketing American Association of Physician Specialists, Inc. (redacted personal info Sarah 01:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC))—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.77.202.170 (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have copied this to WP:ANI. Diannaa ^TALK 04:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced additions to these two articles has now been removed. Diannaa ^TALK 04:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

James, Thank you for contacting us about this issue. I have reverted the changes to those articles. The material was added to Wikipedia by a new and inexperienced editor. They don't seem to have done it maliciously, but they have cited no sources and seem to have made the edits on the basis of their personal knowledge/opinion. This is why we require editors cite sources for their information but unfortunately these changes slipped through the volunteers who review changes to articles. If you have further comments to make about the articles, you may use the discussion pages for the articles, which you will find by clicking on the "discussion" tab at the very top of the article. If you leave your comments there, the editors working on those articles will be more likely to see them. You can also alert us to concerns with Wikipedia content by emailing us at info-en-qwikimedia.org and one of our volunteer support team members will assist you. You can find more advice for representatives of organisations who are concerned about factual errors in Wikipedia articles on the Factual error page. Thanks for letting us know about these problems and my apologies for any inconvenience and concerns this has caused. Regards, Sarah 04:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a technical question. It has already been placed on a "Talk:" page, at Talk:Elizabeth_Gilbert#default_state_for_the_.22Influences.22_field_of_the_.7B.7BInfobox_Writer.7D.7D. I'd appreciate any advice about how to find the answer to it. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 08:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied over there. You're in luck, as I happen to be in the process of requesting a code update to that template and I've added the support which was missing for this request. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)For a while now I have been trying to work out a disagreement with User:Hauskalainen at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Unfortunately there are many pages of discussion and edit war back and forth, which you may not have the patience to read. Boiling it down to the essence: this is a disagreement over WP:NPOV policy. I believe that we must include each of the significant points of view, and Hauskalainen believes that we must include just "the right" point of view. To this argument, he relies largely on his original research and also points to commentary written in a recent Supreme Court opinion as proof that what he believes is settled fact. I disagree, and see that there is still disagreement published in reliable sourcing about these events that happened hundreds of years ago. I am hoping that a neutral third party editor might come around to that talk page and help us sort out how to comply with WP:NPOV policy in this dispute. Thanks in advance for the help, this is hard work! SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be better to set up a third opinion request or an RfC (contents). Also you should phrase your disagreement in a more neutral tone. Obviously NPOV and NOR should be followed, but does Hauskalainen say otherwise or does he interpret it differently? Decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court do not become the correct interpretation of the Amendment, but merely establish how the Amendment will be interpreted by the courts in the future. TFD (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to fix the sharia article after one user, "Jagged 85" introduced a lot of questionable material into this and many other articles. I've been trying to clean up and improve the spaminated law related articles (mostly the Sharia article) since then, with varying degrees of success. On frequent occasions another user, Aquib american muslim has objected to my changes, and has deleted material he found "controversial" in the lead, on grounds that controversial material should not be in the lead. Some time later, after reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) which states that: "The lead should ... define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies," I reinserted this material (fourth paragraph of the Sharia article), and he has again started to redelete, this time claiming that the material is uncited, poorly cited, misleading, misrepresentation of sources, etc. (along with some more jeremiads about how I had perpetrated a "detestable hack job" and how my edits were an "Orwellian nightmare"). I've asked him repeatedly to point out specifically what is wrong on the talk page, and he has avoided doing so, even though I specifically used publicly available sources just for this reason, and have addressed his objections repeatedly on the talk page.

I'm not really keen on having the page protected or having anybody blocked, and I really think Aquib is for the most part just inexperienced, ignorant, clumsy, or more concerned with his missionary vocation than with the writing of an encyclopedia article. Nevertheless, I don't think that Wikipedia policy or the sources favor him in this dispute, and would appreciate the advice of another editor as to whether I am right on this. I will be happy to move this to Third Opinion or RFC or wherever it's most appropriate if necessary. Thanks!Jayzames (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think filing a WP:RFC is the best approach at this point. The fact that you and Aquib have recently been the only two editors working on this important page has not helped the situation. Maybe a request for comment will attract some additional knowledgeable editors not only to comment but to stay a while and help develop the article. --Diannaa ^TALK 14:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Please delete Techtunes. We have explained why at Talk:Techtunes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Techtunes. Heymid (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Article was deleted yesterday. --Diannaa ^TALK 16:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I already knew that, thanks to my speedy delete template that I put on the article page. Heymid (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's a sentence appearing in the article 'Babylon', under the heading "Persia Captures Babylon":

"Metal gates at the river's in-flow and out-flow prevented underwater intruders, if one could hold one's breath to reach them."

It's just a bad sentence. I don't know anything about Babylon; I can't edit it because I don't know what it's supposed to mean, but somebody ought to. How do I make it happen? This is only one of several similar cases I've run into. Thanks. 76.2.23.34 (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, someone is just parroting someone who was waxing poetic. The phrase simply means that (under normal circumstances) the river Euphrates (which apparently ran through the center of the city of Babylon) was not an easy access point, because no one could swim well enough enough to reach the gates that had been thrown across the river to keep people out. Cyrus the great supposedly diverted the river, dropping the water level enough to allow his troops to walk to the river gates and breach them. that apparently allowed him to conquer enough of the outlying regions of babylon that (so I assume) the rest of the city fell to siege. --Ludwigs2 09:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

In two different articles I have editors who will not stop soapboxing, even though I've left WP:Soapbox several times. (They rarely leave any WP:RS or just vent on and on about one or two existing WP:RS that supports their SOAPBOX.) Their goals are to change a longstanding consensus in one and to bully other editors through guilt by association in another. And of course it's easy to get sucked into their soapbox, which wastes time and contributes to the problem. What is the quick solution? (Ie not mediation.) The policy page doesn't say and couldn't find any specific suggestion. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Depends. if the people in questions are basically reasonable but passionate (which doesn't sound to be the case) then you just need to be patient and they will eventually get it. If they are ideologues, however, then the only path of civilized resolution is to acknowledge and accept their beliefs while calmly and quietly destroying their reasoning. Basically an "I understand why you might feel that way, but you have to admit that the reasoning doesn't wash, because of..." approach. It won't change their minds (and will probably inflame them to greater efforts in the short term) but once they realize that they cannot counter what you are saying through determined rhetoric they will give up (sour-grapes style), or at least shift tactics and start tempering their responses. That's a difficult path, though. --Ludwigs2 15:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's a policy not to use it that way and there is a continuing violation of policy, it seems like one needs stronger measures. Hopefully the weekdays will provide more answers. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)