Misplaced Pages

:Editor assistance/Requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:03, 21 May 2009 editDrew R. Smith (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,859 edits →33 (Battlestar Galactica)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 06:27, 10 September 2023 edit undoJalenBarks (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Rollbackers103,671 editsm Reverted edit by 37.129.153.200 (talk) to last version by MJLTag: Rollback 
Line 1: Line 1:
<!-- Comment -->__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{help contents back}} __NEWSECTIONLINK__{{help contents back}}
{{Notice|On 31 May 2021, ] concluded that ] should be closed down in an effort to consolidate help venues. New requests for assistance should instead be directed to either the ] (an area specifically for new users) or the ].}}
{{superseded}}
{{/Header}} {{/Header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 26 |counter = 132
|algo = old(100d) |algo = old(1d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
__TOC__ __TOC__


]




== Pre-consensus reverts regarding capitalizing term "Holy Spirit" ==
{{ear|s|<i>''']'''</i> 00:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)}}
{{la|Holy Spirit}}

The article "]" discusses at least three forms of 'holy spirit': the third ''person'' of the Trinity, a godly ''mindset'', and an impersonal '']''. For some time, the ''mindset'' and ''numen'' instances of "holy spirit" had capitalizations/uncapitalizations that were mixed (inconsistent). The inconsistencies ''only for instances of the impersonal forms'' were replaced by the uncapitalized form. Suddently, certain editors reverted and insisted upon universal capitalization of the term "Holy Spirit", with no uncapitalized forms permitted.

All concede that "Holy Spirit" is appropriately capitalized when it refers to a person, such as the third constituent of the ].

The issue is whether "holy spirit" can ''ever'' be uncapitalized.

A ] was begun and then ] regarding whether the term "Holy Spirit" must be capitalized without exception. Certain editors reject completely the idea that "holy spirit" can be spelled without capitals, even if the term relates to something other than a person. Certain editors have explicitly noted that they are uninterested in how other reference works choose to capitalize or uncapitalize the term. Certain editors seem unwilling to wait for a thoughtful consensus to emerge at Talk. One would hate to think that dogmatic theology is influencing their actions.

Experienced editors less influenced by theology are invited to assist in resolving this matter.
--] (]) 20:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
:] edited ] to remove the capitalization from the subject in the article section describing the ] beliefs. His grounds for this was that the Jehovah's Witnesses do not capitalize the term. It was pointed out to him that Misplaced Pages does not follow practices of specific religious groups when writing, even in articles relating to those subjects - e.g. we don't write ''Mohammed (pbuh)'' even in articles about Islam - and that the change of capitalization looks unprofessional. Two other editors agreed with this stance, leaving AuthorityTam as the only editor advocating the JW-specific non-capitalization. Unable to persuade other editors of his case he has come here. ] (]) 21:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
::Well, to be fair to AuthorityTam, the ''right'' step to take is to escalate the dispute through the appropriate ] channels. And this page is one of them. That said, I really don't know how to approach this issue. Have you made any attempts to ask for help at related WikiProjects' talk pages (e.g., ])? Honestly, AuthorityTam, while you may want editors less ''influenced'' by theology, you likely won't find editors interested or experienced in theological topics, especially one like this which (on the surface) appears rather nitpicky. I don't mean to call this a case of nitpicking- I understand how serious this issue can be from a standpoint of religious beliefs. I just think that you'll have better luck trying at related WikiProjects and if necessary starting up a content ]. &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 23:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
::::My apologies if my writing was unclear: I have no objection whatsoever to AuthorityTam requesting additional assistance through these channels. In fact I specifically requested other editors to contribute their opinions on ]. I am completely convinced that a greater number of people taking part in the debate will give a clearer result. I hope it is accepted. ] (]) 02:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
:::"We don't write ''Mohammed (pbuh)''"? ? ] (])
::::Well, we aren't supposed to do so except in cases such as quotes and book or film titles, or if the article is actually discussing the use of such honorifics. See ]. I think a similar approach is appropriate for other topics... provided that is the issue here. &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 12:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::You might like which capitalises very nearly every word in the paragraph ''except'' "pbuh". ] 13:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

== AKM ==
{{ear|r|OP blocked. That was easy! <i>''']'''</i> 00:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)}}
{{la|AKM}}

Article http://en.wikipedia.org/AKM

I corrected mistake about accuracy and post reference to source (Official field manuals).

User Koalorka reverted my edit. He claim that field manuals does not contain such information.

I made page on my blog and post there pages from field manuals to proof my information. I posted link to my blog in article. My blog is in russian. But AKM is russian weapon and all official field manuals are in russian.

User Koalorka still revert my edit.

What i suppose to do? ] (]) 16:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
:] has apparently reported this IP for revert warring to an administrator who had previously blocked it. To be fair, it looks like Koalorka is at 3 reverts himself, and I'm not sure if the IP has broken 3RR.
:As to the content dispute here, yes, non-English sources ''are'' acceptable per ]. That said, as it's a primary source, any primary sources of comparable or better quality or ''any'' secondary sources which disagree with the non-English source means we prefer the English-language source. While this may imply a bias that could culminate in errors, this is a necessary measure to ensure that our readers have a reasonable chance of verifying the contents of our articles. &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 18:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
::] has blocked the IP for edit warring and abuse. When you come back, 69..., please try to discuss your edits if they are reverted once. Simply reverting back and forth along with rude edit summaries will just get you blocked for longer and longer periods. Thanks! --] (]) 21:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
::: Why resolved? ] (]) 06:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


== Chief James Vann ==
{{ear|r|Discussion ongoing on article talk page. <i>''']'''</i> 23:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)}}
{{la|James Vann}}

Recently I added biographical and genealogical substantial informaton about an important Cherokee Indian, James Vann (1768-1808). My new text has twice been removed by someone, but my additional reference sources have survived. My information is well-documented and adds more accurate information than the previous Wikipeda entry. I have spent several decades in researching Cherokee history, working with the Trail of Tears Association as well as both the North Carolina and Oklahoma Cherokee tribes. My experience as an archivist with the National Archives and a registered citizen of the Cherokee Nation should be considered.

In addition, I have new information about Chief James Vann's son Joseph "Rich Joe" Vann and the latter's steamboat "Lucy Walker". I have compiled a documented account of the explosion, fire, and sinking of the "Lucy Walker" on the Ohio River in 1844, which was one of the most deadly maritime disasters in U.S. history.

What must I do to get my contributions accepted by Misplaced Pages? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The editor who reverted your edits, {{contribs|Natty4bumpo}}, didn't use any edit summaries when doing the revert... which makes it extremely difficult to figure out what his particular objection was. My suggestion is, as it doesn't appear it's been attempted, try to kick off a discussion at ] about the content. I'll leave a message at ] asking him to drop in and try to discuss things there as well. &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 21:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

=== Chief James Vann (again) ===

I have added a great deal of documented information about the life and family of Cherokee Chief James Vann (1765-1809). I am an archivist employed by the National Archives and a registered citizen of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. I am a recognized expert in Cherokee history and genealogy. I have also added a number of documentary sources to this page, which have been accepted. The main source of information about Vann and his family is the recently published The Moravian Springplace Mission to the Cherokees, 1805-1821 (University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln,NE, 2007) which were written in the German language. I assisted (along with Jack Baker, Councilor of the Cherokee Nation) the translator and editor, Dr. Rowena McClinton, in identifing the Cherokees mentioned in the Journals. I also compiled and transcribed from Moravian records the List of Students at Spring Place. I have already successfully added accurate information to the Misplaced Pages pages for ], ], and ]. Why not ]? I am not facile with computers, so bear with my efforts. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:This post originally was a separate, new request. I have collapsed it into the original request. &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 16:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
::This is a repeat of the same problem in the above thread; {{contribs|Natty4bumpo}} has not engaged in discussion as requested at the end of the last request, though the editor didn't try to start a discussion either. I will write Natty4bumpo again.
::To the person filing this request, you need to try and discuss this matter with the editor who reverted your contributions. Please go to ], which is a page for discussing changes to that particular article, and start a conversation there. I will copy this message to your user talk page in case you did not see the result to the previous request for assistance. &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 16:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
:::I would also suggest that the IP editor create a user ID - his edits are coming from different IP addresses, and that may be adding to the confusion. ] (]) 16:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
::::No one seems particularly eager to begin a dialogue so I likewise dropped a note with ] urging him to explain his thinking on the article's Talk page. ] (]) 16:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

=== James Vann ===

I have added documented information about Chief James Vann, but it has been eliminated several times (but my additional reference sources have survived. What must I do to get my changes accepted by Misplaced Pages? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Please scroll further up this page to read the advice that other editors have offered. And, please - create a user ID! It is very hard to figure out how to communicate with you given that every time you edit, it is from a different IP address! ] (]) 17:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
::More generally, I would suggest going to ], explaining the edits you propose to make, and showing how your sources support them. Also be prepared to show that your sources are ] ones. ] (]) 17:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
:::I've collapsed this thread into the main one, and dropped a note on this IP editor's talk as well as all the other IP editors' talk pages. &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 17:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Update. The IP editor has posted on ], describing the primary sources serving as the basis for his edits. I've encouraged him to review Misplaced Pages's policies on reliability, verifiability and original research and to tie his edits carefully to the source material. (The sources are contemporaneous diaries, translated into English and published by the University of Nebraska press.) The reverting editor {{contribs|Natty4bumpo}} has not yet commented on the Talk page so it's not clear whether this will sort out or not. ] (]) 21:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

== Washington Huskies football ==
{{la|Washington Huskies football}}

Hi, I came across the ] a few weeks back and noticed inconsistencies in the article. The intro claimed 3 National Championships (NCs), the infobox claimed 4 NCs, while the NCAA (the governing body of college football) says Washington has earned and the also only recognizes one national championship for the Washington Huskies. I believe this is the mainstream view and so I added a sentence in the intro, sourced with the two links above that mention this. I also tagged the article with <nowiki>{{refimprove}}</nowiki> since the article that long should have more than just 5 references centered around one or two sections (which I explained in my edit). However, a user came and reverted both edits (along with several other edits) without any explaination. So, assuming good faith, I opened a dialogue with him in the ] and noted on his user talk page that I was asking him a question. However, he did not respond and after a week of no response, I re-added my previous edits. He just recently reverted my edits again with no explaination and no response to my opened dialogue on the talk page. I don't want to get into an edit war, but I believe the article suffers from NPOV without at least that one statement for a mainstream viewpoint on the subject. I feel like he is trying to supress information and keep it as a fan page. I am unsure of how to proceed at this point, especially since the user refuses (or doesn't know about) to discuss the issue. In a semi-related note, how is that article rated a B-class? Thanks for any help you all can offer. ] (]) 15:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
:I made a minor tweak to the intro and suggested on the Talk page that further revisions be undertaken. Perhaps that will stimulate some discussion. ] (]) 17:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
::Well... it seems the editor in question is not respecting ]... and you've not only attempted to start a discussion at ], but have gone the extra step of informing said user at his/her user talk page. I think you've done all you can to request discussion. I'm going to leave a message on same user talk page strongly recommending that he/she engage in discussion. Another thing you might want to try is dropping a request for interested parties at the College Football WikiProject's talk page (]), which can help get you some more specialized assistance.
::As to the article ratings system... things like "start" and "C" class are very loosely defined, and "B" class not much better defined. There isn't much regulation involved in article ratings below the Good article level. It looks like ] has a special means for requesting reassessment. You need to add <code>|reassess=yes</code> to the {{tlx|WikiProject College football}} template on the talk page. ] explains it in better detail. &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 19:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

== Misplaced Pages article on Kathleen Q. Abernathy ==
{{la|Kathleen Q. Abernathy}}

I noticed a box today at the top of this article which I have been editing on an ongoing basis. The box states that there are "multiple issues" with the article and history shows that it was recently tweaked by a Misplaced Pages editor, David Levy.

I have attempted to address these concerns by adding links to independent, third party websites and sources that verify and confirm the statements made in the article. Also, as suggested, I uploaded a current photo of the subject of this article.

I would greatly appreciate some feedback as to whether I have adequately addressed these concerns, as well as what edits, if any, I should consider making at this point to meet Misplaced Pages's editorial standards for articles of this type.

Thank you very much.

] (]) 17:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Louis Abramovitz

:I have cleaned up the article a little, formatting the references correctly and a few other ] issues. But is does still read like a CV that you would send with a job application, so it's really a matter of tone. I also removed the image and nominated it for deletion as it is clearly a copyright image and does not meet Misplaced Pages's ] guidelines.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 17:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

::I took a whack at it, cutting out 2-3 paragraphs of material that read pretty much like puffery. Generally the principle to bear in mind is whether the language is more suited to an encyclopedia (as Misplaced Pages is) or a biographical blurb to be provided in connection with an appearance at a conference or seminar. Is the information something that the average reader is likely to want to know about this notable person, or is it more in the nature of PR? ] (]) 18:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I note now that the author of this posting has reverted the changes that ] and I made to the page, so that it now reads as badly as it did before. The non-free image has been restored as well. Other editors may wish to view the page and weigh in with their own edits, or here. ] (]) 19:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
:Possible ] noted at user's ] page. ] (]) 20:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
::I reverted back to your last version and left a note for the user.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 20:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
:::It might be worth referring this editor to {{contribs|Mdswbkq}}, who appears to be an associate of the same law firm which employs {{contribs|Louis Abramovitz}}, but has significantly more experience and might be able to help provide some advice. &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 21:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
::::I've now left a message at ] giving him a friendly heads-up about this thread. &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 21:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
::::I'll check the article and talk to Louis. Thanks for the heads-up. ] (]) 22:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::No problem- thanks for dropping in! I should note that I asked you to stop over not as a complaint against Louis- he hasn't done anything that one can't ]- but since you know each other I figure you'd be able to communicate things in a more expedient manner than we could. &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 23:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

== AN/PVS-22 ==
{{ear|unc|More confusing the deeper you go, apparently. <i>''']'''</i> 23:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)}}
{{la|AN/PVS-22}}

I AN ASKING THAT THIS POST BE REVIEWED AND WE HAVE PROOF THE LISTED NSN FOR THE pvs-22 IS KAC'S. Being that no proof other than what is listed under the PVS-22 does not support OSTI being the manufacturer. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Erm, this appears to be a complaint aimed at which removed a sentence saying that a similar device is made by another company.
:However, looking at the article, I suspect the topic fails ]. This is definitely a candidate for redirection most likely, if not outright deletion. &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 19:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
::Found an additional ref that says OSTI manufactures the AN/PVS-22: . However, as there seems to be no article on OSTI itself... I wonder what should be done here. Yes, two substantial news mentions are typically considered sufficient for notability, but really the news mentions are more relevant to the ''company'' than the product. Which suggests there should be an article on the company... though there is not. &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 19:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
:::More interesting- seems there's a bigger dispute at hand. Knights Armament Co. apparently sued Optical Systems Technology Inc. in the past year or two... not sure what it's regarding. &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 19:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

== Reference to my museum ==
{{la|Computer museum}}

Dear Sir / Madam,

I will admit straight away to being somewhat of a 'noob' regarding Misplaced Pages workings, though like most people I am well familiar with Misplaced Pages. I put a reference entitled 'Ireland's first online computer museum' on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Computer_museum

A day or two later, it was gone! I just want to let you know that I am the owner of the museum, and I put the reference there because it is Ireland's first ( and actually, only ) online computer museum. I have no idea who deleted it or why.

Much as I would love to plug my museum, I respect the fact that Misplaced Pages is facts - based. It was on those grounds that I put the reference there. It may well have come accross as spam, so I just wanted to confirm that it isn't.

Many thanks for your time.

Yours sincerely,

Anthony Halpin. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Thanks for posting here. I took a look at the page, and there's no reference to your museum in the article. I don't think there's any reason to add the external link. Further, our ] strongly discourages you from editing topics in which you have a personal stake. --] (]) 03:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
::He's probably referring to . And he's somewhat right- it's not proper for him to just be plugging his museum's web link. ] is Misplaced Pages's external links guideline, which discusses some recommendations for external links to use and not use. I can say right now that computer museum is ''not'' the appropriate place to include that link. &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 09:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

== Dean Cochran ==
{{la|Dean Cochran}}

This is Dean Cochran and I'm horrible with computers. I don't think anyone cares what year I was born but it's weird seeing my age as 40 (didn't matter when there was a 3). I was born in 72 but imdb one time posted 69 because I graduated from high school early. Anyway I sent them my driver's license and birth certificate but they didn't change it. I gave up. I'd love to send whatever info you need so at least it's accurate here. I asked for some help from the guys who seem to monitor it here. Someone I work with had tried to change it back in the past but he just told me he's no longer going to be my internet baby sitter ;o)
Anyway, any help would be terrific
I don't know what it means to sign ] (]) 20:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC) but I'll try dxxx @xxx.com

] (]) 20:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

:You should not really edit pages about yourself as it is considered a ], you can try and discuss the problem at the related talk page ] but failing any response you may want to read ]. ] (]) 20:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
::Actually it is perfectly acceptable to edit ones own page as long as they keep a level head and follow all the other rules and policies of wikipedia. As for your question, any newspaper, ''reliable'' website, magazine article, or any other source that falls under ] would be acceptable. Technically speaking, your drivers license could be used as[REDACTED] doesnt strictly ban the use of primary sources, but I would stay away from that as the logitics of getting it universally accepted by wikipedians astounds me. Not to mention the fact that drivers licenses are easiy faked. which may be why IMDB didn't change it... IDK, I would stay away from primary sources, just because they are nearly impossible for the average wikipedian to verify.]<span style="color:#00a;">rew </span>]<span style="color:#00a;">mith</span>]] 23:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

:::Best way to confirm a birth ''year'' is to find a newspaper article that says something like "Dean Cochran, 37" (or whatever your age was that year). At the very least it can be used as a source to ''not'' support the other birth year. And if there are no reliable sources to establish your birth date/year (and FYI, IMDB is ''not'' considered reliable for Misplaced Pages's purposes), we can just remove the birth date/year, which has been done in the past where the birthdate was very unclear. &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 13:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
::::Actually... I did just that and corrected the birthdate. Well, technically I've just sourced the ''year'' but I'm keeping the month/day on there for the time being. I'm going to try finding a source that gives the actual month/day... but we'll see. &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 13:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::Nothing useful found in LexisNexis, though I can be pretty horrible with that tool. Man I wish there were a better way of sourcing birthdates. &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 14:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::Well, anyway, if this is still a problem for Dean or anyone else, ] would be a good next step. The people there are a lot more experienced in resolving this sort of issue. &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 17:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Actually... I'm removing the birthdate and year entirely pending better reliable sources. The one I have actually suggests Cochran was born between July 21, 1970 and July 20, 1971. ] and all that. This article needs referenced pretty badly, by the way. &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 22:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

== Ashford Police Training Centre request for sanity check ==
{{la|Ashford Police Training Centre}}

I would like a sanity check over a potential edit war concerning ]. I believe that user 217.40.222.106 and possibly user Jonathan.barber have a conflict of interest and are using the page to advertise a project that they are involved with. I have tried to enter into discussion but they will not respond and just roll me back. I would appreciate a heads up on whether I am overreacting on this and advice on how to proceed. --] (]) 10:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
:This doesnt appear to be an edit war '''''yet'''''. The first thing to do is to stop reverting the edits. If they continue to change the article without gaining consensus ask an admin to protect the page, so as to force them into discussion.]<span style="color:#00a;">rew </span>]<span style="color:#00a;">mith</span>]] 11:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. --] (]) 11:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

] created another page, ], containing his version of the article, which I have redirected to ]. ] (]) 11:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
:My first instinct would have been a speedy, but a redirect seems to be a much better solution.]<span style="color:#00a;">rew </span>]<span style="color:#00a;">mith</span>]] 12:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
::It has the additional virtue of me not having to fish up the proper category - ] (]) 12:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

:::It appears to mixing to many ideas, the Police Training Centre article should deal with just the Training Centre and if it is notable Grosvenor House/Bockhanger Hall may be worth an article on its history with most of the Police training bit removed. The speculation could be added to the Grosvenor House/Bockhanger Hall article if it can be reliably sourced! ] (]) 13:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

== Sloppy & uncommunicative editor - suggestions? ==
{{ear|r|Per OP (JohnInDC) and ]. <i>''']'''</i> 19:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|Wow Scotland !}}

] has been pretty busy since s/he established an account a few days ago. See . While some editors are prolific and skilled, this one is not. A good third of his or her edits are, for one reason or another, unsound. (The bulk are not "wrong" as such but on the whole do not seem to improve Misplaced Pages so much as just rejigger the content. About one edit in six makes actual good sense.) I've been following this editor around trying to keep things clean and have posted occasional, and I confess, increasingly terse suggestions to his/her Talk page, ]. (That page also gives a few good flavor of the problematic editing.) The editor is entirely uncommunicative and has continued to edit with no real indication of slowing down. It's not "vandalism"; no edit wars have been spawned either - but the user is not improving the encyclopedia, is a bother to police, and is unresponsive. Suggestions for how to deal with this? ] (]) 13:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
:The user seems to be unwilling to discuss anything. There really are a lot of messages on the talk page. Usually I dont get involved unless both parties have at least spoken to the other. That being said, they really do seem to be sloppy mistakes, and I'd like to assume good faith. I would advise you to keep attempting to establish contact, and if the user still refuses to communicate, seek higher action, maybe at ].]<span style="color:#00a;">rew </span>]<span style="color:#00a;">mith</span>]] 13:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
::I agree with Drew. You've done a great job trying to guide him/her in the right direction, but s/he doesn't seem receptive or communicative at all. Also, I don't think your "increasingly terse suggestions" were inappropriate (or terse, for that matter) at all. As Drew said, give a bit more time, and if the editor doesn't improve, take it to an Admin. Thanks! ] (]) 14:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
:::I guess my internal editor is better at filtering out the annoyance that I realize! I sure *feel* exasperated. But okay. Thanks for the suggestions. I'm happy to keep this up for a bit and escalate to ] if necessary. Sometimes a new editor just needs a bit of a jolt to learn that they can't just edit to suit their own tastes, and this might be one of those cases. ] (]) 14:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Update. We have gotten past "uncommunicative" and are working on substance. Another editor of far greater skill has taken this one under his wing and is making some very good suggestions. This particular entry can be marked "resolved" for now. Thanks all for the help. ] (]) 16:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

== External Link / Reliable Source Question ==
{{ear|r|Per OP. <i>''']'''</i> 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)}}
Patrolling for blog links, and removing them where there is not an apparent exception to ] or ], I removed links to - usually linked to either or blog posting. This morning I was greeted by on my talk page. I am responding to the User's talk page, but they have already the link once. Judging by the ], the editor appears to be the author of the blog in question. I try not to revert other editor's good faith edits, and so am asking for a little input here. Is this a reliable source? The info appears to all be ref'ed to other sources in addition to the blog, so it seems redundant and self-published to me. (I would appreciate if you would please remove the re-inserted link if you agree with my assessment, so that this reversion is by a disinterested editor). Thanks for your time. I have notified the editor in question about this conversation. '''] • '']'' ''' 15:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

:.
:I am responding here, to get insight from other editors about the policy question. That is, is your blog a reliable source, exempt from the general principle about ]? I apologize if my comment about the link being "tagged on" was offensive - that was certainly not my intent. However, the comment in my edit summary was based on the observation that the link was at the end of a citation to a print reference ecerytime it appeared. The print source is, by itself, an adequate reference. Not all references need to be online. There are a significant sources in the ] article, which leads me to believe that there are plenty of ] out there - they just may not happen to be online.
:To further the issue, according to your user page, the blog in question is written by you. That causes me to think there is a little bit of self-promotion involved. I have a hard time believing that yours is the only research being done on this topic, and if so - that your research hasn't been published in book or article form somewhere. '''] • '']'' ''' 16:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so deeply sincere for finaly realizing your compleatly false accusations and the lie it was built upon, maybe we should belive it was an unintentional lie, well... be more careful next time with your false accusations

My ''self intetrest'' in the thing was to make the history of ADHD more well knownd, do you find a better and more well written history part with al the references and it all, use it! As simple as that.

Maybe its the history is not so good or whatever, it took me months to write and please don give me that crappy lies that it was just for the poor links sake. Just find a better one, and if you would like to comment it please be shure you know what you are talking about. you erased more than one link and did not bring in anything better.

I can right now give you 1 book relying on unverifiable "truths" and sweet lies.
http://books.google.com/books?id=q9Rje9qX9W0C&pg=PA30&dq=adhd+history+hippocrates&ei=TccNSqnWMZTMyQS3wdCoCw&hl=sv

Next time please be more careful with you unintentional lies and false accusations. If you find any person in europe who has written more about the adhd history than me please gimme a call. Yes its on a blog that true, and the reason for that is very simple because we are writing more history and updating it regulary. Isen't that ok with[REDACTED] fine erase it al, and whynot al the history that is written by me. My intrerest in the thing is to write verifiable history on the subject not to be chatting with involountary liars.
] (]) 20:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
::] doesn't apply to sources. From what I know about ] is that were this link would not be appropriate. Since its being used as a reference it has to pass ] instead, which is iffy in the case of blogs, especially in foreign languages. You might want to crosspost this at ] for further input if nobody here can answer it. My gut is that this isn't reliable unless the blog's author is an authority on the subject matter. ''']]]''' 17:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

:::Thanks for your input, themfromspace. I really was thinking of ], more specifically ], rather than ]. To avoid cross-posting, I'll leave this here for a while and see if anyone else weighs in. I don't see any indication of the expertise of the blog author, but I could be wrong. '''] • '']'' ''' 21:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

::::], what you have written is not, by[REDACTED] standards, verifiable history - please see the[REDACTED] ]. In the meantime, please calm down and refrain from ]. I did not lie, I merely described the position of the link within the references. I did not make a any sort of statement about you. And yes, I did remove multiple instances of your link - because it does not appear to be a reliable source. '''] • '']'' ''' 21:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


'''someone apparently tagged their blog onto a bunch of existing refs''' We both know its a lie, so please dont make any more lies and personal attacks. If it was unintentional then it was an involuntary lie. but it's still a lie and you know it. ] (]) 21:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

:For anyone else who's having trouble figuring out what the problem is, is the diff that P-O is concentrating on. It does indeed seem that the reference that P-O added is a blog and was placed after another reference in one case, though not in others. The two diffs prior to that are removals by Athanasius of similar references which were (for want of a better phrase) tacked onto existing references. On that basis, it's safe to say that while Athanasius may not have been strctly accurate with the edit comment for that third removal, they should certainly not be called a liar. ] - which is ''required'' - this was not an intentional deception. The important part of the comment - and the reason for removal of the reference - was that the source does not meet our standards for ]. P-O, please don't make any more personal attacks against Athanasius, please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, and please do not insert references to self-published material unless the author is recognised as an expert in a relevant field. Thank you. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 21:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

ppl from the blog wrote the whole section, as anyone easily can see. It is not in any way "tagged onto a bunch of existing references" we added the complete history and wrote most part of the adhd history from 1798 and the article about Crichton and so on. And it's easy to see, whynot just look in the history of the article? it is not to hard.

But yes its a blog and we have never pretended its not, its for shure reliable and verifiable, even with photos from the original sources dating back in 1798.
If you can find a better and more reliable source i will be happy to know where.

] (]) 22:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
:Please read ] and explain why it qualifies as a reliable source. Thanks. ] (]) 15:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
::I have the link once more from ]. To avoid editwarring over this, I am going to unwatch all related articles. Thanks for your help. '''] • '']'' ''' 11:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Thank you all for your input. This is resolved as far as I am concerned - but you may want to see if there is any further response from the other involved editor. '''] • '']'' ''' 16:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==
{{ear|m|An RfC has been started, please take the discussion about this situation to it: ]. &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 16:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)}}
{{la|Noah's Ark}}

I need some help at the Noahs ark talk page. Apparently the general consesnus is that the literal belief in the ark is a "fringe" view, and has labeled it "mythology". I think I could have gotten the ] taken out, however I let my personal beliefs get in the way. That was my mistake, and I have rephrased my posts to merely asking that the POV words be removed, however the editors always return to my previous posts and continue to "dwell on the past". Not to invent any ] that weren't already there, but it appears that a group of self proclaimed atheists are controlling the article. I may be reading to much into this, and perhaps my judgement is still clouded by personal beliefs. However I do not believe this to be the case.]<span style="color:#00a;">rew </span>]<span style="color:#00a;">mith</span>]]

:Odd, I could find no evidence of anybody on ] 'proclaiming' themselves to be atheists. Where did these proclamations take place? Also please elucidate on how ] fails to meet the definition of ]. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub><sup>''(''']''')</sup></font> 14:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
::''perhaps my judgement is still clouded by personal beliefs'' ← this. ] (]) 15:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

]<span style="color:#00a;">rew </span>]<span style="color:#00a;">mith</span>]] Has stated that "Every christian in the world believes in creationism, and nearly half the world is christian!" I'd like to see some references for this. The literal belief in the ark is most definitely a "fringe" view. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''<font color="Black">]</font>'''<font color="silver">]</font></span>] 16:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
:This guy clearly isn't well informed about the beliefs of Christians in general let alone at seeing the bigger picture. ] (]) 20:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a really tough issue. Part of the problem appears to be the POV connotations of the word "mythology" in the layperson's lexicon- it implies something anachronistic, something that no modern, civilized human believes in, and moreover something explicitly ''fictional'' (note I'm not saying anyone here is expressing those thoughts). This is contrasted pretty strongly to the anthropological definition of mythology, which in my experience refers to ''any'' cultural/folk story that deals with the supernatural, a creation story or otherwise didactic tale which is used to ] the people in a society. Libraries pretty much all keep their books on mythology and religion in the non-fiction section. By the academic definition, the story of Noah's Ark is absolutely mythological. Consider also the connection with all the other ]s. I am, however, reminded of an episode of '']'' ("]"), in which the ship's computer discusses a "mytho-historical hunter"- implying the character has mythological stories attributed to him, but is also a historical figure. And for the record, I'm Roman Catholic. &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 20:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
:The "mythology" aspect of it has been discussed at length on the page, in RFCs, and there was even an attempt to get ArbCom involved to try to prevent its use, which went nowhere. There's a well-established consensus that in an academic encyclopedia that we can use academic terms and not have to worry. The term also has a convenient wiki link there so if anyone is confused about the academic usage they can merely click it and read all about it at the appropriate article. The complaint is similar to people not knowing the correct definitions of word like ], ], and so forth being offended when their incorrect definition confuses them into thinking the article says something otehr than what it really does and, again, can't be bothered to click the link to educate themselves. The person complaining above is a fine example of rampant ignorance, with bizarre ideas about the definition, what Christians as a whole believe, and so forth. He's a prime example of someone who should be ''reading'' an encyclopedia instead of trying to ''edit'' one. ] (]) 20:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
::"story that deals with the supernatural, a creation story". Noahs ark is neither. Noahs ark is neither supernatural, nor is it a creation story. Thus "myth" cannot be applied.]<span style="color:#00a;">rew </span>]<span style="color:#00a;">mith</span>]] 21:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Are you even seriously making that argument? The whole thing is a supernatural story. Big supernatural being in the sky threatens rain to wipe out all humans because he's a big old meanie, supernaturally talks someone into building a boat, supernaturally directs two of every animal in the world to come running from all over to go to the boat, supernaturally prevents the animals from eating each other or Noah, supernaturally causes it to rain so much mountains are covered and so forth and so on. And it's also a creation story as it suggests the origin of the rainbow and tribes of humanity and so forth. Please stop wasting everyone's time and make some effort to educate yourself. ] (]) 22:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
::::Is the article called worldwide flood? No. Is the article called Noah? No. Is the article called God puts animals in the ark? No. The article is called Noahs ark, Noah being a possessive noun. So the article is about a big boat. Nothing supernatural, or creation centric there.]<span style="color:#00a;">rew </span>]<span style="color:#00a;">mith</span>]] 08:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
:::P.S. I love the mature way you are discussing this. You must be commended for you ability to avoid ]. You truly are the model of civility.]<span style="color:#00a;">rew </span>]<span style="color:#00a;">mith</span>]] 21:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
::::Yeah, ] applies here. ] (]) 22:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::Give me one example of when I was immature, when I ] anyone, or when I was ]. Can you give me any instances?]<span style="color:#00a;">rew </span>]<span style="color:#00a;">mith</span>]] 08:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::Gentlemen, please; arguing over who did what is not going to solve this ''content'' dispute. To Drew, if you feel you may be acting based upon belief rather than Misplaced Pages's own rules, I would suggest you take the time to solicit help from related WikiProjects, possibly ]. If you feel it necessary, you can certainly stand down at any time without capitulating your position. &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 11:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
::::{{ec}} Well, I think we can agree to disagree on the supernatural nature of the Noah's Ark story, but there's no point in going too deeply into my own feelings. I will say that the anthropology community in general do consider it a ]. Anyhow, like I said, the words "myth" and "mythology" are in themselves rather loaded. This might be an issue for ], honestly- it wouldn't surprise me if this issue has come up before in relation to other topics. ] might be another source of insight from religion-neutral parties who may have hit this issue before. ] is another good place to look. Also, if it becomes clear a wider-reaching consensus is needed, ] might be a good place to grab attention. &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 22:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::This is one of those perennial arguments. Every so often, someone who deeply believes in a ] and is ignorant of the meaning of myth complains, under the wrong impression that myth in this context infers "false", which it does not. They then loudly complain - although I have to say they are usually not so blatant as the complain that "the article is controlled by atheists" and we have several days/weeks of discussion, after which the complainant is either better informed about the meaning of the word, or else they remain obstinately clinging to their personal misconception, and are instead told NPOV and OR and get over it, or variations of the same, usually with a dose of CON. Must we waste such time again?
:::::Another issue here is that the complainant, Drew Smith, has made several strong statements on the article talk page, and my only interaction with this until now has been to ask for sources, per V. He has ignored me. Now, having failed to provide sources, he is here complaining that it is the Evil Atheist Cabal opposing him - need I say more about this? ]<sup>]</sup> 13:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
<---I ignored it and moved on because you were right, those first few claims where based more on my personal beliefs (BTW, I am an agnostic who rebelled from the church as a young adult. <s>I know my stuff, and I know most of it is BS</s>) than on policy. So I switched tactic and addressed the use of terms like myth, minority, and fringe. All which, in the laymans dictionary, have negative connotations. As I said above, if the accepted defenition of myth is "dealing with the supernatural, or a creation story" Noahs ark doesnt fit, as the article's title suggests that the article is about the boat built by Noah. The article on Noah himself can claim myth, the article on the ark cannot. Also, why should we use scientific defenitions vs common defenitions, when in other fields we are told to use common names over scientific names? If jesus had a scientific name, say, ''Jesusi christae'', would the article be titled ''Jesusi christae'' or Jesus Christ?]<span style="color:#00a;">rew </span>]<span style="color:#00a;">mith</span>]] 13:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
:Here is Helpful Hint One: Try very hard to edit as though you had no personal beliefs whatsoever. I have been accused of being a Bible thumper and an atheist, a Palin worshiper and an Obama drone, and I consider that a Very Good Thing, something I am proud of. And Helpful Hint Two: Ignore anyone elses' personal beliefs, whether "self proclaimed" or not. '''Comment on the content, not the contributor'''. Your charge that the article is controlled by a cabal of atheists is not only not helpful, it is disruptive and can not possibly help improve the article. Cease these attacks and personal comments. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
::I know that. I've been around long enough to know that personal beliefs are just asking for trouble, but this one really set me off. '''''IN MY OBSERVATIONS''''' believing that the ark was a literal object is definitly not fringe. My approach was bad, but my intent was to get a more neutral term.]<span style="color:#00a;">rew </span>]<span style="color:#00a;">mith</span>]] 13:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The real problem here is a flawed premise, contained in the phrase "academic encyclopedia". Misplaced Pages is ''not'' an "academic encyclopedia". It's an encyclopedia written by and for "the masses", and "the masses" understand that "myth" and "mythology" are synonyms for "fairy tale". Meanwhile, the assertion that all Christians literally believe in the Noah's Ark story is based on nothing. That's as much of a "myth" as the Noah's Ark story itself. In short: You've ''all'' got it wrong. :) ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 14:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
:Did I say all? Or did I say most?]<span style="color:#00a;">rew </span>]<span style="color:#00a;">mith</span>]] 14:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
::Be it "all" or "most", either way you would need to cite that claim by providing a valid source for it. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 14:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
:::XD... And round and round we go. Please read all related material before posting as you merely repeated what others have already said.]<span style="color:#00a;">rew </span>]<span style="color:#00a;">mith</span>]] 14:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
::::So where's your citation? Did I overlook it? And while you're at it, find out how many ''Jews'' believe it, since they are the ones who ''wrote the story''. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 14:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::(edit conflict)Just read the stuff. You really are wearing my patience thin.]<span style="color:#00a;">rew </span>]<span style="color:#00a;">mith</span>]] 14:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::Since you can't post (or repost) a simple citation right here, I assume ''there is none''. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 14:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Jesus Christ man, read the fucking page! Up there/\ see it? No? Further up there/\! Keep going, did you find it? Good numbnuts, now lets come back down here and have an intelligent conversation without backtracking.]<span style="color:#00a;">rew </span>]<span style="color:#00a;">mith</span>]] 14:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::::I am not Jesus Christ, but thanks for the vote of confidence. And since you can't restate the alleged citation here, I assume there isn't one. In fact, any statistical claim of "all" or "none" is patently absurd because it only takes one exception to dismiss it. I know people who are Christians and who believe in Darwinian evolution. And in fact I'm one of them. So your basic premise is gone. Now, if you can find some stats as to what ''percentage'' of Christians (and also Jews and Muslims while you're at it) literally believe in Creationism and/or the Noah's Ark story, then you might have something. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 14:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::"moved on because you were right, those first few claims where based more on my personal beliefs, than on policy." If you want to read the rest of it, it is only a few paragraphs above this. Of course you probably won't even look, and just assume the worst about me, which is what you have been doing all along.]<span style="color:#00a;">rew </span>]<span style="color:#00a;">mith</span>]] 14:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::Except it was chronologically ''after'' that "moved on" statement that you denied having said "all" in the first place. So my answer was, "Yes, you did say 'all'." By now, it's becoming unclear just what it is you want here. You accuse others of incivility, yet you resort to it yourself. You make bogus arguments and then gripe that they aren't taken seriously. You would be well advised to find another topic to work on - as I did, when I realized that they weren't budging on the "mythology" question. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 15:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

::::Here's where you said "Every Christian in the world believes in Creationism" and that is a patently false statement. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 14:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::So, are we talking about noahs ark or creation? And again, we've already covered this ground.]<span style="color:#00a;">rew </span>]<span style="color:#00a;">mith</span>]] 14:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::It's all part of the "mythology" of the 5 books of Moses. You can't separate them out. You don't hear Biblical literalists talk much about Noah's Ark itself, compared with Creationism, because Creationism is the foundation, as it were. Without that, the entire mythology breaks down and much of the Old Testament becomes fairy tales rather than being part of a logical (and literally true) continuum. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ]
<-----<big>'''''The article is about Noahs Ark! Hence the title!'''''</big>]<span style="color:#00a;">rew </span>]<span style="color:#00a;">mith</span>]] 14:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

<big> Summarize your concerns concisely and neutrally. </big> Whats going here!! Stop arguing! This is not going anywhere so why don't you all take a break, and leave this discussion for a while? ]<sup> ]</sup> | <sub> ]</sub> 14:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
:I have to concur with Gaia here. There are two issues being conflated here, the content issue, and the civility issue. Whichever issue is truly relevant should find the proper venue. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font> ] 14:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
::So what is the proper fucking venue? I've moved this thing around, and searched all over wikipedia. It seems to me that EAR for content, and ANI for civility, '''''IS''''' the proper venue!]<span style="color:#00a;">rew </span>]<span style="color:#00a;">mith</span>]] 14:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
:::I've never been to EAR before, to be honest, but I get the feeling it's more for quick one-off advice here and there. ] or ] would be better for content. ] would be better for civility. ] is for situations that require immediate administrator action. For what it's worth, I'm sure you would experience less incivility (perceived or otherwise) from the folks you are complaining about if you would provide citations to back up your claims. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font> ] 14:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
::::Oh my God! Another person who doesn't take the time to read the pertinent information. Up there, is a section where I say I was wrong and those claims were based on my personal beliefs. Don't Say It! I know what[REDACTED] is not.]<span style="color:#00a;">rew </span>]<span style="color:#00a;">mith</span>]] 15:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::Then I'm not sure what more is required here. If you are willing to discuss changes to the articles based upon reliable sourcing, I'm sure those about whom you are complaining are willing to work with you in a rational manner. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font> ] 15:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
<---- Therein lies the problem. Everyone keeps coming back to those first claims.]<span style="color:#00a;">rew </span>]<span style="color:#00a;">mith</span>]] 15:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
:Again, I believe the problem lies in your failure to provide 3rd party reliable sourcing to back up the changes you wish to make to articles. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font> ] 15:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
::Again, I believe the problem lies in your (and everyone elses) failure to read '''''all''''' pertinent information. I made the argument that the term myth does not apply to Noahs Ark, using the definition medaliv provided. My arguments were promptly ignored. All I want is for the article to use a more NPOV terminology.]<span style="color:#00a;">rew </span>]<span style="color:#00a;">mith</span>]] 15:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

:::Then file an RFC. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font> ] 15:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
::::Done]<span style="color:#00a;">rew </span>]<span style="color:#00a;">mith</span>]] 15:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

::::Drew's followed your advice (sort of) -- but the RFC is alternatively specified as "I was told by Xeno to take the issue to RFC" (inside the RFC template) and "I was told by Xeno to take this issue to RFC. All pertinent info can be found at EAR, and ANI" (outside). I don't think that this is a particularly ''concise'' articulation of the dispute, nor one that is likely to elicit comments from those not already involved. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub><sup>''(''']''')</sup></font> 15:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

:::::I've the RFC heading. The RFC should focus on the content dispute. If Drew still wants to pursue the NPA angle, WQA is the right venue. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font> ] 16:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

== Conflict resolution regarding the 'Moksha' article ==
{{la|Moksha}}

Hello Sir/Madam,

I am facing some issues editing the article under the heading 'Moksha', because one of the active content providers keeps reversing my changes, while providing little or no explanation for his/her actions. The user in question here goes by the name of 'Mitsube'. Given below are the links to the article and the usertalk page. You can call me Dandekar.

]
]

I perform minor/english edits to Misplaced Pages, and do not possess the skills or ability to argue with the active content providers, who most definitely know more than I do. I focus mostly on the language and readability of the articles I edit. These days, with every article that I try to edit, I am faced with people trying to push their thoughts onto Misplaced Pages, providing little or no facts, and arguing vehemently with 'noobs' such as myself for little reason. This results in newcomers shying away from Misplaced Pages altogether. And my episode with 'Mitsube' is a very good example of this very behavior that has tainted Misplaced Pages. I hope some action is taken in this regard.

--] (]) 16:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

:The material is (excessively) well-sourced. This user's characterization of the situation is inaccurate. ] (]) 18:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
::Although there are references in the '''Origins''' section there are only two other in the rest of the article. Reference #1 is not clear as to the full title of the book being referenced. I can see no evidence of ]'s edits. ] (]) 20:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

==Anael Article ==
{{lu|Usagi Jeshika/Sandbox}}

I have been rewriting this article, and it is now nearing completion (AGAIN). I would appreciate someone taking a look at it and leaving me notes as to all the things that are wrong with it. I cannot for the life of me figure out how to leave a link to my own sandbox, but that's where the article resides at this moment. Thank you.

] (]) 16:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

:The page in question is at ]. When you ], you were advised of the notability standards ] and ]. Which criterion for notability do you believe is met by Anael? I didn't see any claim of notability, but I might have missed it. --] (]) 21:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
::I'm sorry, but from an ] perspective, your userspace draft is completely unacceptable. &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 12:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

== Postdoctoral research: onset of an edit war ==
{{ear|r|Advised, and other editor self-reverted. Requesting editor considers this resolved. &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)}}
{{La|Postdoctoral research}}

I have substantially edited this article over a period of several weeks, with occasional support from others. The previous version of the article appeared low in quality, representing a personal point of view, inappropriate use of language, and unsubstantiated claims (e.g. "lore of postdoc". This was pointed out in discussions prior to my efforts to improve this article.

Although this article is not perfect, it appeared some progress was made through the series of edits that I had undertaken with support of other. Subsequently the article was reverted twice to a several month old version, thereby destroying recent improvements.

In order to stop this seemingly beginning edit war, could some pls assist and mediate. Many thanks. ] (]) 22:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
:Before advancing through the ] process, you need to at least attempt to talk things out with the editor reverting your edits. Judging from ] and the editor's user talk page (a redlink), you haven't tried this. &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 12:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
::The other editor in question appears to have shown reason and reverted own questionable edits back to original version. I consider the issues resolved. ] (]) 16:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

== Site promotion and questionable content ==
{{userlinks|mamamobile}}

{{la|International Mobile Equipment Identity}}

{{la|Reporting Body Identifier}}

{{la|AAAGSM}}

User mamamobile has been repeatedly:
# Trying to insert references to trackimei.com (page, then trackimei article that was speedily deleted).
# Trying to insert somewhat random references to AAAGSM.com (speculation: domain owner is MAMA BHANJA COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD. which has some linkage to their username)
# Repeatedly reverting edits from myself and another (IP) user to remove these. In fact, trying to obscure these changes and make them hard to revert by spreading across 10+ edits.
# Creation of ], not dissimilar to their earlier ] attempt
# TYPING IN ALL CAPS. Okay, so that's not (yet) an offense. :-)

I'm trying not to editwar, and have requested protection for ] and labourously reverted it (annoyingly to a state which includes trackimei.com linkspam, and reverting my minor edits). I've also put up AAAGSM for speedy deletion.

AAAGSM may be a legit organisation, it is hard to tell. It is certainly not a good enough page yet though.

Please help.

] (]) 02:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

:Following your request for protection, ] has been blocked for a little while. I'm thinking of tagging that username for closer attention too; seems to be rather focussed on the one issue.
:btw, you don't need to unplug each edit by hand; you can simply revert to a previous version ( but you still need to be sure that's the right move, of course.) --] (]) 03:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
::Well, AAAGSM got deleted per ]. Nice research on the username, Bwooce- AndrewHorse may be right that this is a spamname. Though keep in mind, a spamname block does not preclude the user coming back with another username. &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 12:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
::: Cheers everyone. It is mostly resolved then, except an IP user came back and re-added the link to trackimei.com again to {{la|International Mobile Equipment Identity}} . Actually there are two links there now, since I undid my original edits and didn't want to inflame things further. The article does need some TLC, if only for the, random, commas, in places.
::: Andrew, I'm not clear how to revert 10 sequential edits other than manually? Undo'ing each in turn? It just felt like I was repeating the original tactic doing that and polluting the change history.
::: Thanks again, ] (]) 20:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
::::] may be of help, but here are some ways you can revert multiple edits in one go:
::::Go in the page history, click on the date/timestamp for the revision you want to restore, then in the page that comes up, click "edit". You should get a warning that you're "editing an old version" of the page. If your aim is to just restore an old version, type an edit summary indicating what you're doing, and then save.
::::Also, if you notice the radio buttons in the page history, you can create diffs between two noncontinguous revisions. If you choose your first as the version immediately before the edits you want to revert, and the second revision as the last edit you want to revert, then click "compare selected revisions", you will see an "UNDO" button in the page that comes up. This doesn't always work, however.
::::Finally, you can just edit the page to remove the objectionable content, and simply note in the edit summary that you're removing objectionable links, and why. No matter which method you choose, the edit summary is essential, as without one, your edits may be labeled as vandalism. &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 21:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::What he said, plus my favourite, ], which allows you to hover over the time stamp in the history and choose Actions/Revert. --] (]) 21:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

== About the reliability of the quality control and genetic algorithms article. ==

{{La|Quality control and genetic algorithms}}

I am concerned about the responses of the senior editor Marcel Douwe Dekker, who during our discussion about a possible conflict of interest issue regarding the article "Genetic algorithms and quality control" escalated his actions after each disagreement.] (]) 22:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
:The article itself is beyond my level of comprehension. However, the medal on MDD's user page is a reference to edit counts. It does not convey seniority. As for conflict of interest, if your articles have been published prior to wikipedia, they are acceptable to use. However, if[REDACTED] is the first place these articles have been presented, they need to be removed.]rew ]] 22:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
::It's good that you've been using the ]. I added a comment there and I'll try to keep an eye on the conversation. '''~a''' (] • ] • ]) 22:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for that. The[REDACTED] article is a version of an article posted in our site I believe since 1997, presenting our published work on that subject. There have not been any financial projects related to that research, therefore there is not any financial conflict of interest. On the other hand, I am proud that this is the first published application of the genetic algorithms in the field of the quality control, as you can easily verify searching any scientific database. The Clinical Chemistry, the journal I first published the research on the QC and GAs in 1993, is the journal with the highest impact factor in the field of the clinical chemistry. The Impact Factor is a measure of the frequency with which the “average article” in a journal has been cited in a particular year. Regarding the importance of the subject, a search for ("genetic algorithms" AND "quality control") of the Scopus scientific database gives 347 articles published in scientific journals. A search in Google gives 16500 pages and in Google Scholar 3900 pages.
I will post part of this response at the discussion page of the article.] (]) 14:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Marcel Douwe Dekker wrote: Google scholar and Google books give no hits on the topic "quality control and genetic algorithms".

This is misleading. As a matter of fact Google Books gives 638 books for ("quality control" and "genetic algorithms"). Some of them are referencing my article. And as I have written before a Google Scholar search for the same terms gives 3900 articles. Some of them are referencing my article as well.

Then escalating his "edit war" he posted the deletion tag. I am just astonished! ] (]) 20:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
:It ''sounds'' like you are right in this case. However, take a look at ] and ] before doing anything else. If the edits you want do not compromise '''''any''''' section of '''''either''''' policy, try one more time to reason with the editor. If he/she still refuses to cooperate, take it to ].]rew ]] 23:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
::If the admins at ANI don't take your side on this, I implore you to keep a level head, and accept their "ruling". The biggest mistake people make is thinking getting angry will help. If you lose your cool, you may end up blocked from the site. And I can't stress enough how important it is to make absolutely sure your edits comply with the above policies, or the admins at ANI will "gut you like a fish".]rew ]] 23:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

:Maybe an other editor can explain Aristides Hatjimihail, I have no problems with the content of the article. I just think it doesn't have to stay in this isolated article. Better to move the content in a more appropriate context. Aristides Hatjimihail (or an other anon) has been referting the wikification, see , and afterwards opposing every suggestion I made. The deletion nomination is simply the last option to let the Misplaced Pages communicty decide wheter the article should stay, be merged, or deleted, since Aristides Hatjimihail is unable to respond to any suggestion I made. -- ] (]) 00:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

:And I am not looking for any conflict and am not delivering any false information. If I search for the term even in Google, see the googlerate is 2.280, but I can'not find more the 19 actual links to the combined subject, see . These 19 hits all seem to relate to this one[REDACTED] article. -- ] (]) 00:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
::The proper way to suggest a merge is through a merge template, not an AfD template.]rew ]] 00:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

:::I did add that template. I even added two. But Aristides Hatjimihail didn't respond to this procedure. So I started a new procedure which he could not ignor. -- ] (]) 00:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
::::You didnt try talking to him at his talk page about it.]rew ]] 00:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

== An attempt is being made to tag Nazi Crimes in Poland as communist propaganda ==
{{ear|m|There is an ongoing discussion at]}}
I ask you to read the following ], I believe this guideline is relevant right here and now see].] put a Communist Hammer & Sickel over documented material on Nazi war crimes in the article ] An attempt is being made to tag Nazi Crimes in Poland as communist propaganda. I want people at the top level here to be aware of what is going on.--] (]) 22:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
:One, we're not the top level here. EAR is the bottom level of dispute resolution. Two, I'm not really sure where the actual conflict is, or what exactly you need us for. The admins at the AfD are the ones you need to take your concerns too as they are bound to be more involved than we are.]rew ]] 23:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
::AfD Whats that?--] (]) 23:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Sorry, I thought the link you posted said ''articles'' for deletion instead of ''templates'' for deletion. However, the admins at the templates for deletion should be the ones to take your concerns to. AfD is an acronym(sp?) for Articles for Deletion. ]rew ]] 23:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
::::The complaint here is more about the user of the template rather than the template itself, I would think. I wouldn't call its use ] however. &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 23:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
:: ] is attempting to discredit documented Nazi crimes in Poland by claiming the source as unreliable because it was published in Poland before 1990. The sources cited are by well known and respected Polish scholars. Gaming the system is relevant here, Misplaced Pages is not about whitewashing Nazi crimes. Check this out please--] (]) 23:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
:::I still don't see how this is gaming the system. If the editor in question has genuine concerns about the reliability of such sources, then ] may be the right venue to get the advice of experienced editors. As may ] if it's sufficiently rooted in ethno-cultural issues. Please ] that the editor in question isn't trying to "whitewash Nazi crimes". &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 00:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

::Assume good faith OK, but he put a communist Hammer & Sickel over a documented account of Nazi crimes in Poland, this is going too far.
::we need to look at what the intent is here.--] (]) 00:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
:::I see no hammer and sickel tag on the article in question. Please provide links, and if it as been removed, diffs.]rew ]] 00:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

::We took it down, but ] is pushing to restore it ]. The intent is to discredit an account of Nazi crimes because the source was published in Poland before 1990. Gaming the system in my opinion.--] (]) 00:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

::Drew here is the link with the Hammer & Sickel ] --] (]) 00:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

::I have been on Misplaced Pages for almost four years and have never seen such an outrage.--] (]) 00:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
:::There is an ongoing discussion at Templates for deletion. Concerns should be brought up there.]rew ]] 00:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


== Edit War ==

At {{La|Vicarius Filii Dei}}

I am new at this, and am having problems with another editor, Farsight001, who absolutely refuses to let me post anything at all. First he reverted the entire page, then in my last post 02:45, 19 May 2009 I added nothing but hard facts, thouroughly documented, that are relevant to the topic. This was reverted too. I request assistance regarding proper procedure for dealing with this.

] (]) 03:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
:I'm sorry if you came here looking for an advocate, but even your well sourced edits introduced a POV tone. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be neutral to any POV. Therefore is a keyword to look out for. You cant take something said in an article and use it to bolster your own beliefs using therefore. This introduces original research, which also isn't allowed.]rew ]] 05:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how one side can claim that certain facts don't exist, and never existed, and the other side is prevented from citing and presenting those ''very'' facts, because that supports a POV. How is perpetuating a falsehood on this site by refusing to allow relevant facts a neutral POV? ] (]) 09:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
:Try reintroducing the facts in a neutral way, and using sources that '''''clearly''''' support the fact.]rew ]] 10:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

==Rehoboth Carpenter family==
], alias ] and ] has repeatedly and frequently reverted to old formats. He violates 3RR and refuses any discussion despite the efforts of several editors. See his talk page and the talk page for ].
While primarily focused on ] his behavior has spread to ], ], and ]. ANY help to get him to communicate or to get him blocked as needed would be appreciated. ] (]) 08:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
:Seems to me that '''''many''''' attempts have been made to communicate, and he has ignored every one of them. Perhaps you should post this at ], and see what the admins think. Should be a fairly swift block to me.]rew ]] 09:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
::If there's a clear 3RR violation, ] is your venue. Be sure to report it pretty soon after it happens. You can also report the editor to that board if they're just barely skirting the limit in a blatantly obvious manner. Or even if they're just generally edit warring (though this requires a more thorough description). &mdash;/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 14:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

== Declan Ganley ==

{{la|Declan Ganley}} - article in question.

This is a biography of a living person. There has been a fairly NPOV article in place for some time, until a major revert to an old version was made this morning by an unregistered user using an ] IP (the Oireachtas is the Irish parliament). I reverted to the previous version after that but since then there have been reverts by other users. Please advise to avoid an edit war! Thank you in advance. ] (]) 12:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

:If I'm reading the history correctly, it seems like a one-time event. is the major revert you mentioned? It appears that the article has returned to it's smaller version; I'll keep an eye on it.
--] (]) 17:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
:PS Just in case, this might be relevant too: ]. --] (]) 17:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

::Thanks. There were a couple of reverts throughout the day but the discussion on the talk page seems to be getting somewhere now. If it's not inappropriate, I would be grateful for your view on whether the current version or the reverted version is more suitable – my feeling is that the current, pared-down one is more conservative, but there are others who disagree. If you have the time your views would be really appreciated. ] (]) 18:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

== Islamic terrorism ==

{{La|Islamic terrorism}}
User:Jimmy Hugh has been reverting several changes I've made to the article. While he offers certain explanations in comment, his explanations are faulty, and require depth which cannot be handled in comment. He has not expressed anything on the talk, where I've now laid out several issues points. -]] 14:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
:This whole subject area is often prone to edit wars, I am afraid. All I can suggest at present is keep talking, be mindful of the 3 revert rule. I don't think that the matter requires further escalation at present. It may be one step forward, two steps back and vice versa for some time. Perhaps you could seek a peer review from ] ] (]) 20:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

== Content I created is still blocked by false copyright concerns ==

{{La|VT_iDirect}}

Hello. I created an entry titled "idirect" and received a possible copyright issue error. I've posted on the discussion page for "idirect" that nothing violates copyright law and I posted an email from the company stating it was okay under GFDL to post the material. Yet, the copyright issue still displays and I don't understand why.

Thank you.

] (])Photoguy11579 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 14:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I think that's somewhat moot. The content you posted is promotional and would be subject to speedy deletion. Perhaps a better approach would be to post a new page at ] and then come back here and ask for some constructive criticism. Remember to include references to ] ] in order to ]. You'll probably find these tips on ] helpful too. --] (]) 15:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

== Royal Society for the Protection of Birds ==
{{la|Royal Society for the Protection of Birds}}

hi

Apparently I was blocked for adding comments that were in the public domain from sources such as the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) and the United Kingdom based broadsheet newspaper ‘The Observer’, to an article, which throws doubt on the published credentials of that organisation. I was contacted saying the report was resolved but the comments have not been replaced, nether can I find the reply.

Is it now that Facts and Reports from internationally recognised unbiased sources that throw doubt and may challenge the perceived stance of an organisation, are not allowed on that / their page?

If that is the case then pages concerning, for example a ‘Flat Earth’ cannot be challenged on that page.

– — … ‘ “ ’ ” ° ″ ′ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:It's not the nature of your edits that got you blocked, it's the way you went about making them - you broke the ]. Once it was apparent that your edits were controversial, maybe after they were reverted twice, you should have discussed them on the article's talk page, which is where content disputes should be dealt with, at least to start with.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 21:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

::Yeah, you were blocked for violating the 3 revert rule. No edit wars please.--] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 21:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Also the way you introduced your material was un-encyclopaedic, Please read up on how to ] to articles, especially the way to go about ]. ] (]) 22:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

::::This editor seems to have a bit of a problem with the RSPB. See ] and also the block (in '''''May 2008''''') noted on his/her talk page. I've no doubt it's a sincerely-held concern, but this might not be the right place to express it. --] (]) 02:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

== IS this cruft? ==

{{la|Martial arts film}}
Before I get any further down the path I'm on, would one of you mind taking a look please and letting me know if you agree with my claim of cruft on this page? TIA. --] (]) 02:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:The article is far from perfect, but there are a few hundred pages that link to it inline as an overview of that film genre, so it may be hard to say it is interest only to a limited audience. &nbsp;<span style="padding:2px;background: #cccccc; color: #0000cc; BORDER-RIGHT: #6699cc 3px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #6699cc 3px solid;">]</span><sup>&nbsp;]|&nbsp;]|</sup>&nbsp;&nbsp; 04:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:No, the article is not cruft right now, the subject is encyclopedic. Yes, the content was mostly cruft before you cleaned it out. ''']]]''' 05:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

== 33 (Battlestar Galactica) ==
{{la|33 (Battlestar Galactica)}}

I've been involved in a slow-motion ] with an administrator at ].

At the heart of the issue are three characters of information; {{admin|Edokter}} has been insistent on including a "production code" of "<tt>101</tt>" in the article's infobox without any ] of that fact. To comply with "the letter of the law" of ], I have&mdash;at various times&mdash;tagged the information with {{tl|fact}}, commented the information with an invisible comment to editors, and attempted compromise with regards to the ] we do have in this instance. The administrator involved swiftly reverts all of my edits to these effects, citing a "spirit of the law" that I cannot corrobotate. All of this debate over the applicability of ] is on ] for perusal.

My hope is to bring this article (and, of course, all of them) up to ], and maybe eventually on to ]. Having discussed this matter at ] and ], it becomes clear that an article with plainly contested information will not reach those heights.

What is my recourse? I've discussed this ad nauseam on ], but the administrator will not budge on insisting the challenged material remain. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. — ''']''' <sup>|''' ]'''</sup> | 06:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:I've left a note at the users talk page. By the tone of your post, and the actions I saw in the history, I assumed this user was fairy new. However it appears that this editor has been blocked for edit warring before, and, if blocked again, would probably get an indef block. My advice would be to bring this up at ] if the editor continues this behavior. Removal of fact tags, without proper referencing, is absolutely unnacceptable.]rew ]]] 06:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

::I am not "new", I am in fact an admin. pd_THOR has been forum shopping to try and gain consensus for his stance, and has been unsuccesfull. This has already been to ANI and the last edit regarding this matter was months ago. pd_THOR has been told several times not to press the issue over such a trivial tidbit of information that has been used as conventiuon througout Misplaced Pages, even on feartured articles. So, once again; stop beating the dead horse. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 11:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Or, conversely, you could simply roll up your sleeves and go seek out the citation. As has been indicated elsewhere, what you personally feel doesn't need citation isn't really citable. Sorry for the harsh, but this edit-warring over what you clearly admit is a trivial tidbit of information". It takes two to edit-war; it is as much up to you as the other editor to discuss and find a compromise. Thinking you can win an edit-war is simply wrong. I am not even going to bother suggesting how using the threat of your tools to gain an upper hand would be seen. - ] ] 12:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

::::Several editors ''and'' admins have pointed out to pd-THOR that the matter is not worth beating a dead horse over; the information is verifiable through the episode's homepage link and consensus is that such data is too trivial to require specific sourcing. Pulling policy over this matter is completely undue, yet pd_THOR keeps forum shopping, which is only going to diminish pd_THOR's credibility even further. This matter is closed. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 13:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

::: Really? You discussed me and/or this particular article at ]? I never came across that, nor was notified; can you point me to its archive? — ''']''' <sup>|''' ]'''</sup> | 17:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This discourse doesn't so much answer my question as crystalize my points. The information isn't ] (as discussed on ]). {{admin|Edokter}} has no inclination of allowing it's removal or {{tl|fact}} tagging, as evidenced at the article itself, as well as here. What, then, is my recourse for taking this article further along its progression to ] or ], when those avenues have made clear that challenged information as discussed here will be prohibitive? — ''']''' <sup>|''' ]'''</sup> | 17:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

:How about just go about and write the article to featured status and ask for review; this certainly is no show-stopper for any GA/FA reviewer. Getting hung up on a minor detail is not doing you or the article any good. In the ''very-slim-to-nonexistent'' possibility of any reviewer challenging the information, ''then'' we can discuss what needs to be done. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 19:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
::Or, again, you could simply find a citation to satisfy the request. What's the problem with doing so? - ] ] 20:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:::As I have explained countless times by now: the code is cited by the episode's homepage on scifi.com. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 21:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:::: The website provided (http://www.scifi.com/battlestar/episodes/episodes.php?seas=1&ep=101&act=1) has, in its title HTML: "Episode 101". This is not a reliable source for a "production code". Are you referring to another ] for the article's "production code"? — ''']''' <sup>|''' ]'''</sup> | 22:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:: I linked above where I've discussed the unreferenced information at ] and ] and had responses from editors that any challenged or unreferenced information would preclude such a promotion. Knowing this, and making such a nomination, would be ]. But you're insistent on the unnecessity of implementing ] at this article, so I don't know what to do. FWIW, in addition to the editors I've spoken with, '''I''' would contest a nomination for GA/FA on the bounds of the unreferenced information we're discussing. — ''']''' <sup>|''' ]'''</sup> | 22:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Looks to me as if {{admin|Edokter}} is being entirely unreasonable in this matter. As an ] she/he is expected to follow ] which she/he does not appear to be doing. ] (]) 22:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

::::(ec) I am trying to prevent a potentially dangerous precedent that would result in every tidbit of information being scrutizized beyond reason. pd_THOR has made his point in several forums and was told that the information was too minor to source, and not to press the issue... repeatedly. I am well aware of policy. I am also aware of editors that pull the policy curtain over such minor issues. Rarely do they contest the information ''per se''; they simply want to 'pull rank'. I see it every day.

::::The "101" coding is a matter of convention and used extensivly throughout Misplaced Pages. I submit that most, if not all episode article have "unsourced" production codes. Take ], another featured article; it also has an "unsourced" production code. It can be found on the episode's homepage, but does not specify it as such. Unless pd_THOR intends to address ''all'' these articles, which I doubt, I advise him to cease and disist this petty dispute; it is literarely about nothing. He is welcome to open an RFC on ] about the issue, but I refuse to let him single out one article. And I am warning him not to engage in any further forum shopping. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 00:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
::::: I don't know what to say that I haven't already. If I may concise my points:
:::::* ] is a policy. This policy says, in a nutshell, "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." I have challenged material in the article discussed here, yet it is not attributed to a reliable, published source.
:::::* I have seen no policy, guideline, or consensus determination that codifies "a matter of convention" for how most TV shows create or use production codes. For that matter, I made the following statement before:<blockquote>At a random sampling, ], ], ], ], ], and ] all use differing formats for their episodes' production codes. here are no ] that ''Battlestar Galactica'' even uses such codes.</blockquote> These examples do not conform to a supposed "matter of convention", and it is ] to assume this instance does as well.
:::::* Whether other articles are unsourced or unchallenged, and whether or not I intend to tackle all of Misplaced Pages's articles any time soon is not relevant to the application of ] and ].
::::: Edokter continues to warn me against discussing this policy-related issue with regards to forum shopping. In addition to the inquiries (disclosed above) I made at ] and ], I have requested a ] as a part of the ] as well as this forum itself. If seeking either (a) policy-implementation, (b) policy amendment to allow Edokter's information to remain, or (c) dispute resolution between myself and another editor is forum shopping, then I may be.<p>I greatly appreciate the input of other editors in this resolution, and would ask for both more input, as well as recommended actions by the parties already commented. — ''']''' <sup>|''' ]'''</sup> | 01:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
::::: I also don't appreciate the implication that I am making this effort not to improve the article but to "pull rank" on other editors. This strikes me as a lack of ], and potentially an attack on myself if Edokder did so in response to my self-disclosure as a military member. Regardless, neither assumption is helpful as part of the ], and I respectfully ask Edokter be more careful with any potential implications or accusations in the future. — ''']''' <sup>|''' ]'''</sup> | 01:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Edokter, provide the diffs that prove this "forum shopping". And even if it is forum shopping, we have policies, and they need to be followed. The information is unsourced, another editor has asked for a source, and you failed to provide one. Furthermore your actions on this forum alone represent a breach in the administrators code of conduct.]rew ]]] 02:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
: For what it's worth, I think I have laid claim to all outside requests for input either above or at ]. I don't recall any others, but it's possible. As my memory serves:
:* ] - {{User|Blueboar}} agreed with Edokter regarding that the information is too trivial to worry about sourcing. As with Edoker, I disagreed with this stance because there is no "triviality" clause in ], which requires everything challenged be sourced. I discontinued here though when Blueboar made me realize I could incorporate the source we have for "Episode 101" in the "episode" variable of the infobox. Edokter disallowed this as well though, discounting the sourcing.
:* ] - I asked whether or not "the repeated inclusion of unverifiable information into an article, in knowing and plain contravention of the ], constitute vandalism?" I was assured it did, but I declined to pursue this avenue with an administrator for fear of retribution. I did not mention any particular article in my inquiry, should that warrant note.
:* ] - Since Edokter insisted that "trivial information" wasn't subject to ], and that that was the consensus, I argued to add that amendment to the policy so others would be aware that they did not need to reference "trivial information". Two editors seemed to understand my position and agreed with my determination, but didn't feel it was worth risking an ] with an administrator over.
:* ] - I asked here about how much of an article needed to be sourced to make FA-status, seeking confirmation that unsourced or challenged information will stymie an article's chances at ]. I again didn't discuss this particular article, so I don't know of Edokter is counting this as "forum shopping".
: As above, I can't find any corroboration for the triviality clause of ], nor does anybody make the claim that "Episode 101" = a "production code" of the same. I did receive feedback that I shouldn't worry about this, or risk the ire of an administrator, but I feel that all articles to meet the muster of our core policies and guidelines. Regardless of how minute this fault is, or the tenacity with which Edokter seems to feel it is necessary for this particular article, I'd like to see either the rules followed, or the rules changed. This particular "forum" (as well as my ] request I cannot find evidence of) is a part of ]; and as Edokter and I continue to dispute this issue, it seems warranted to seek more input.<p>If Edokter has any evidences of any malfesance on my part, aside from what I've listed above, I welcome his reminders of my lapses in memory. — ''']''' <sup>|''' ]'''</sup> | 02:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

::pd_THOR, what are you going to do with the hundreds of other (featured) articles that have an unsourced production code? Why are you singling out this article? Why are you not adressing ] I pointed out? If this is such a problem, wider community input is needed. Since you are not interested in that, I shall open an RFC for you.
::Drew, unless you can point out any 'abuse of admin power' in my conduct, you concern is totally out of order. I may be stern, but I haven't touched any tools; I am merely expressing my take on the matter, and I am well entitled to do so. So please refrain from mud-slinging to further your position. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 10:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

:::: I have to say that I am very concerned over Edokter's use of the phrases:
::::* " advise him to cease and disist this petty dispute"
::::* "And I am warning him not to engage in any further forum shopping"
::::* "This matter is closed."
:::: I have seen this language from Edokter before, and it was used to threaten the use of admin tools (ie, block), and on at least one occasion foreshadowed his block of someone he was involved in a dispute with. He has been warned not to take admin action in disputes he is actively involved in. I am sure he remembers the multiple times he has been counseled against this sort of behavior by his fellow admins, and will cease and desist any further veiled threats. There are ways to disagree without threats; as an admin, he also has been advised of this by his fellow admins at AN/I.
:::: The citation you provided which shows the information in the internet address for the article - but not the article itself - is not sufficient for inclusion. You ''know'' this, Edokter. You've argued against this sort of too-tenuous inclusion on several occasions across different wikiprojects. You've ''specifically'' argued against conventional standardization of infoboxes in ''Doctor Who'' articles. You need to base your arguments on solid ground, not a tenuous ] of what sort of precedent ''you'' feel it is setting.
:::: The citation you have offered is not enough. You need to find another citation that says what you want it to say. Seems like a no-brainer to me. - ] ] 10:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::Alos, please point out where I have stated you abused admin power. Seems like someone has a guilty concience to me. All I said was that you broke the admin code of conduct. And I feel the need to echo Arcayne's thoughts on this, find a better citation. One other thing, it doesn't matter what kind of precedent it will set, policy is policy, and unsourced information has got to go.]rew ]]] 11:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

There just appeared a large picture of the joker on my article about a fish. I cant find out who did it either. I tried to revert it, but it stayed there. I tried to manually edit it out, and can't find the picture anywhere in the coding. What's going on?]rew ]]] 06:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:And now they are gone... What happened? There is nothing in the edit history for this...]rew ]]] 07:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
::Somebody was messing with ]. Click 'related changes' from the fish page and you can see it. --] (]) 13:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Ah. That really freaked me out.]rew ]]] 23:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

== Edit war over scope of category ==

{{lc|2004 United States election voting controversies}}

I'm looking for help with regard to the conduct of ] concerning ].

The category was ]. Otto4711 , writing, "absent the far-too-tangential inclusion of people like GWB, Barbara Boxer and Jesse Jackson, there are about three articles that would go here, making this a ] category." His view did not prevail, however, and the CfD was closed as "no consensus".

Otto4711 then went ahead and implemented his view anyway. He removed most of the articles from the category, without discussion at ] or on any of the article talk pages. An example is ], a lawyer who is notable solely because of his litigation concerning the 2004 United States election voting controversies. Otto4711's was "a person is not a controversy".

I considered this an unduly narrow interpretation of the category, one not consistent with the handling of other categories, and certainly not one that should be implemented without consensus. I on Otto4711's talk page, on the category talk page where the issue could be discussed, and on Otto4711's talk page to point him to the new thread. I then restored most of the articles to the category.

Otto4711 made to the category talk page, reiterating his view that "Individual people are not controversies," and then reverted most of my edits, so as to again remove from the category several articles that had been in it for quite some time.

Otto4711's position is not consistent with how we handle categories generally. It appears to be an attempt to implement his view of the category even though he was in the minority in the CfD discussion. I don't want to get into a revert war with him, but it appears that he will just keep reiterating and acting on his personal opinion, regardless of the CfD and regardless of what anyone else says on the category talk page. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 06:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:* I removed people who have such a slight relationship to the topic as to make the categorization silly (like ] whose article says nothing about 2004 voting controversies, for instance, and ] whose connection to the controversy was to object to certifying the Ohio vote) and from articles like ] and ] who, if they were included in every category that touches some aspect of their political careers, would be in hundreds if not thousands of categories, making the categories on their articles virtually useless for navigational purposes. Yes, I do believe that the category should have been deleted at CFD, but I do not appreciate being accused of trying to somehow subvert the will of the people (all four of them who !voted in favor of keeping) by removing articles that even some of those who wanted the category kept thought didn't belong. The category system is not intended to be an index of every aspect of every subject. It is supposed to be for defining characteristics of the article's subject. There is no way that the 2004 voting controversy is defining of ], ], ] (which does not mention the 2004 controversy at all) or the vast majority of the other articles that were included. I'm sorry that this other editor has decided to make accusations of skullduggery in his edit summaries but if I find an article that is miscategorized I see no reason not to remove the category, regardless of how I might personally feel about the category. ] (]) 09:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

:::Correction of occasional errors is one thing. You removed, by my count, approximately 17 of the 20 articles in the category, effecting its near-deletion despite the CfD result. You persisted in your actions even after being informed that this major change was objected to, and you have not discussed the dispute in good faith. Edits by me and others on the category talk page show that some of us are willing to discuss specifics -- I pointed out that I myself agree with you about ] -- but your approach remains to do as you please without regard to anyone else's views.

:::I didn't accuse you of skullduggery. I accused you of unilateralism. On Misplaced Pages, that's a pretty serious charge by itself, without being hyped up. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 06:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

== Consumer Cellular ==
{{la|Consumer Cellular}}

I would like to post an article on Consumer Cellular. They're part of the Portland business community, and have proven to be very active in the area. They've also been one of the "Silicon Forest" companies to keep going after 2001. The page has been deleted four times, possibly because in the first two attempts it was posted by marketing people who did not understand the Misplaced Pages regulations. When I wrote about the company, I had several citations showing their involvement in the community, both as a local organization & as part of the Portland business community - and the article was still deleted.

I would like to know how I can better convey the significance of this company to avoid invoking the dreaded ] Would stressing only community involvement help? Consumer Cellular were also the first phone company to partner with AARP and continue to be one of the only cell phone companies catering to seniors - would mentioning that help or would that make the entry sound like a brochure? Thanks, ] (]) 20:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

:I think an important guideline to consider here is ]. Can any of the criteria here be met? If so, then write the page in your userspace, perhaps at ], and then come back here for some constructive criticism. btw, I've refactored your post a little for clarity - I hope you don't mind. --] (]) 21:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

== Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce ==

{{La|Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce}}

An IP editor has made five edits removing large sections of text from this article. I don't feel comfortable determining whether or not the edits should be reverted, as I'm in a conflict position, but I'd appreciate it if a neutral pair of eyes could have a look and see if the edits were appropriate. ] (]) 22:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:I have reverted the section blankings. Not edit summary has been left by ] and I have warned them for vandalism. ] (]) 23:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

== ] article and ] ==
{{la|Jeopardy!}}
I have made several good faith attempts to tag the ] article as a fansite and remove intricate detail, unsourced information and general fancruft. However, ] continues to remove tags and labels his removal edits as either undoing vandalism or removing "drive-by tagging." The following edits made by this user detail his actions:

*
*
*
*
*

I have asked this user to refrain from removing tags, however the user continues to undermine good faith efforts to clean up the article. This user has also publicly stated his opposition to using tags, ] and again ].

Please provide assistance in at least maintaining the appropriate tags and how to avoid circular debates as to whether or not tags should be used in an article. ] (]) 22:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

:Happy to chime in. The appropriate response to what are perceived as deficiencies in an article is to edit the article or to discuss the deficiencies on the article's talk page, not to lazily place a drive-by tag at the top of the article, sans any explanation, and hope somebody else comes along and deals with it. It is inappropriate for the many reasons I've outlined (see links provided above), and what the above editor is asking for assistance for is the establishment of a squad to enforce article blight. Instead, the editor should place talk content where it belongs, in the talk space, and follow the procedure outlined in ]. ] (]) 23:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
::I think this should be discussed on the article talk page. I agree that drive by tagging is not generally productive. ] (]) 23:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

:This user has since reverted the addition of the tag again, . Additionally, this user is potentially violating the ], making three revert revisions in less than a 24-hour period.

:Furthermore, this user has begun engaging in incivility, with to my talk page, accusing me of making "unsubstantiated and libelous" edits and goading me into a fight. ] (]) 23:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

::To be clear, the "unsubstantiated and libelous" edits referred to above are Sottolacqua's sundry accusations on my talk page, the tone of which indicated to me he prefers to instigate editor conflict rather than discuss issues in good faith and arrive at reasonable solutions. And as to "goading me into a fight", this is a plainly malicious misrepresentation of what was written. ] (]) 23:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please provide assistance in at least maintaining the appropriate tags and how to avoid circular debates as to whether or not tags should be used in an article. ] (]) 22:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:I do not think that Sottolacqua's edits are unjustified. Many of the additions to this article over time have been unsourced or irrelevant. There isn't a single ''reliable'' source that verifies that the 1990s set was called the "Sushi bar", so we shouldn't mention that. Indeed, the whole article feels very bloated, like most of the other game show articles. <span style="color:green">Ten Pound Hammer</span>, his otters and a clue-bat • <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 23:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
::Agreed, but discussion should take place on the article talk page. Drive by tagging is not productive. ] (]) 23:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Neither is constant removal of the tag without improving the article. I hardly think that Sotto is drive-by tagging, as he has stated why he thinks it looks like a fansite. <span style="color:green">Ten Pound Hammer</span>, his otters and a clue-bat • <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 23:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
::::Additionally, reviewing the edit history clearly shows that "drive by tagging" is not taking place, as several good faith efforts have been made to remove fancruft and minutia. ] (]) 23:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::TenPoundHammer: "Neither is constant removal of the tag without improving the article. I hardly think that Sotto is drive-by tagging, as he has stated why he thinks it looks like a fansite." Where? Where is the proposal for improvement? It does not exist. Also, the "sushi bar" bit is non-sequitur, since that is not a part of the page and not what is being contested here. ] (]) 23:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::He has indeed been making good faith efforts to improve the article by removing poorly sourced info. One citation was a Geocities site, which we shouldn't have per ]. Oh, and did we mention that you seem to be the owner of the J-Archive site (which actually looks reliable) that is cited in the article? <span style="color:green">Ten Pound Hammer</span>, his otters and a clue-bat • <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 00:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::It is plainly disclosed on my User page, and yes, Solottoqua mentioned it, and couched it as a libelous accusation that I am somehow editing with a conflict of interest. I value my reputation as an editor and I won't stand for libelous insinuations. I would be very appreciative if you were to substantiate, by pointing to actual edits, where there is a COI, or else apologize. The real conspiracy here is that you and Solottqua trade talk messages opposing me, rather than following SOP and discussing problems on ] to arrive at consensus solutions. Finally, if Solottqua has been making good faith edits, then the blighting tag is unnecessary. It is simply being placed there to give the appearance of a perspective that does not have consensus. ] (]) 00:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
:(outdent) Clearly it ''does'' have consensus, if there's another editor (me, and at least two other admins who found out about this via IRC) agree that it is a fansite. That's kind of the point of tags: to be removed ''after'' the problem is fixed. Could you tell me how you think the article does ''not'' read like a fansite? <span style="color:green">Ten Pound Hammer</span>, his otters and a clue-bat • <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 00:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
:2 editors against one does not make consensus. Really, since you and Solottqua are the ones who are taking this position, it's up to you to say why, and preferably in a way that proposes a solution. A fansite is a site that presents fanatical non-objective commentary of an adulatory nature about a subject, or otherwise discusses the subject in a way that betrays clear preferential bias. The '']'' article presents the rules of the game (as any article about a game is obliged to do) and then outlines in what is at this point the briefest of ways the various versions of the show. I won't defend the culture section at the bottom, which tends to bloat; it should preferably be limited to the three most notable instances (without reference to which the article would probably be lacking--but I'm not going to argue that here, this isn't the place for it). But this is a far cry from a fansite, and defining it as such is an absurd exaggeration, and insisting on the blighting tag as if to punctuate the point is just improper. You can't find any justification for doing so in guidelines. I note that you're silent on the apology issue, but that silence is fine with me, as long as you don't disagree it indicates the withdrawal of your baseless insinuations. ] (]) 00:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
:: (ec) Fine. It's a fansite because it's overly detailed. Do you think the average reader really cares that the buzzer locks out for a quarter-second, a trivial fact which isn't even in the ''Jeopardy!'' book? Do you think that they care about what kind of car the second- and third-place winners got, which again can't be sourced? Et cetera. <span style="color:green">Ten Pound Hammer</span>, his otters and a clue-bat • <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 00:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
:::It is probably inappropriate to assert an exact length of the lockout (my understanding is that the lockout device is and always has been human-reset), but the fact that there is a short lockout is part of the rules of the game, so your question is like asking, "Do you think the average reader cares what a ] is in ]?", or "Do you think an average reader cares what the ] is in ]?" Your assertions about what is appropriate for the average reader amount to an opinion, as does your assessment of the level of detail presently found in the '']'' article. The articles for those other two games I just mentioned are both substantially longer and more detailed, and I would wager that far more people watch ''Jeopardy!'' in the average day than play bridge or chess. Saying that any such detail "can't be sourced" is again ''prima facie'' absurd. If nothing else, the prizes can be sourced directly to the TV show episodes, which is perfectly appropriate. This sort of substantive discussion belongs on ] and it's time we closed out this debate here. ] (]) 00:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My two cents: Both users involved seem to be being uncivil, and neither is innocent here, just look at the history on Jeopardy. I do support the tag until the article is de-fansited, though, as tags are not talk content, and this one seems appropriate. ] (]) 00:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

== Dispute over info about raw milk ==

;Articles
#{{La|Raw milk}} - main article, with centralized discussion
#{{La|Lactose intolerance}}
#{{La|United States raw milk debate}}
#{{La|Milk allergy}}
#{{La|Lactose}}
;Involved editors
*{{User|Phil Ridley}}
*{{User|Mark7-2 }}
*{{User|Ronz}} - editor making this request
;Discussions
* ] - centralized discussion
* ] - welcome message, advert1 & 2 notices, comment by Mark7-2, request to join discussion by Ronz
* ] - request to join discussion by Ronz
Phil Ridley, a new editor, added the exact same information about raw milk to the five articles listed above, which is now under dispute. Currently, the revised information is still being disputed in the first three articles. Because neither editor has responded to my discussion on ] after two days while still changing the information and removing my tags, I decided to remove the information from two of the pages and notify both editors directly of the talk page discussion.

I'd like suggestions on how to proceed. Direct help with the dispute is also welcome. --] (]) 02:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
:Well, if everything is as you say it is, then just keep trying to talk to the editors. If the problem persists, see if you can get a full protection of the article to force them to discuss. If this doesn't work try ].]rew ]]] 02:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

== Misplaced Pages content copied to Wikia ==

Is there some arrangement under which Misplaced Pages content can be freely copied to Wikia wikis? appears to be a copy of the ] article from Misplaced Pages with no attribution. is Gantz Wiki's main page on 5 November 2008, and is the ] article from 31 October 2008. Should something be done about this, and what would be the appropriate forum to discuss this? ] (]) 02:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
:All information contributed to[REDACTED] is released under the GFDL which means anyone can use it. However a direct copy and paste without at least pointing to the source seems a bit underhanded and out of form. I'll look up the relevant policies, but I guess ''"technically"'' this is ok.]rew ]]] 02:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
::When a small number of people who were around at the time, decided to mass delete things from the original Gantz article, I was able to save it by putting it over there. Up top is clear mention of where the original source material came from, I and others having worked on it here previously. A lot of stuff has been improved and added since then. ]''' 02:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

:::Not a problem - per ] it is okay. You are fine to discuss this here, or could alternately discuss in ]. Thanks. &nbsp;<span style="padding:2px;background: #cccccc; color: #0000cc; BORDER-RIGHT: #6699cc 3px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #6699cc 3px solid;">]</span><sup>&nbsp;]|&nbsp;]|</sup>&nbsp;&nbsp; 02:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:27, 10 September 2023

Help:Contents
On 31 May 2021, a community discussion concluded that Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests should be closed down in an effort to consolidate help venues. New requests for assistance should instead be directed to either the Teahouse (an area specifically for new users) or the help desk.
This Misplaced Pages page has been superseded and is retained primarily for historical reference.

Archives

Previous requests & responses
Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132


This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Other links

Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests: Difference between revisions Add topic