Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Socialist Workers Party (Britain)

Stale

 – Fleetflame 02:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Socialist Workers Party (Britain) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Socialist Workers Party (Britain), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Don't insert your own derogatory comments into articles. They will not be tolerated. RolandR 19:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Roland, as you are a supporter of the Fourth International, you can hardly be trusted to put forward a neutral point of view on Trotskyism. It seems you are using Wikipedia to promote the Trotskyist viewpoint, accompanied by threats to those who disagree with you. Stevenjp

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Trotskyism, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you add material to articles, particularly if this adds contentious or non-consensual claims, you must include a verifiable source so that other people can themselves assess the validity of your assertion. Otherwise, such edits are not allowed, and will be deleted. RolandR 11:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( Stevenjp (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC) ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. RolandR 11:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Roland, if you are objective, perhaps you will allow the addition of this quote to any of your Trotskyist propaganda pieces: In 1915, Lenin wrote in his article "The United States of Europe Slogan", “Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country taken separately. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and organised its own socialist production, would stand up against the rest of the world, the capitalist world.” Stevenjp (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me Roland, if I can't quite understand how you are in a position to make such threats? Stevenjp (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stevenjp" Hidden categories: User talk pages with Uw-advert1 notices

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenjp (talk • contribs) 15:04, 26 May 2009

And your request is what precisely? Jezhotwells (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The whole request is a partial copy of the requestor's user talk page. I've fixed the pre-formatted text sections as they were screwing up the pagewidth, and put the whole thing in a blockquote to indicate that it's just a quote. I've also added a more appropriate title to this request and will shortly notify the requestor of the change and requested that he clarify this request. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, gentlemen, I'm pretty new to Wikipedia. I suggest that a balanced account would put the Totskyist account of the orgins of the dispute over 'Socialism in one country' and also proffer the non-Trotskyist viewpoint, for example, the following: In 1915, Lenin wrote in his article "The United States of Europe Slogan", “Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country taken separately. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and organised its own socialist production, would stand up against the rest of the world, the capitalist world.” Otherwise Wikipedia's supposedly objective account of Trotskyism merely reproduces what Trotskyists say about themselves.Stevenjp (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

So, you're suggesting the account of Trotskyism in Socialist Workers Party (Britain) is biased towards Trotskyists, and that the article should reflect an alternative viewpoint? Certainly a valid request to make, though being unfamiliar with the subject area I can't exactly evaluate the appropriateness of it. As such the best advice I can offer is, if discussion of the issue at Talk:Socialist Workers Party (Britain) has failed, you may wish to try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Political parties or Portal talk:Communism or something else similar to turn the ear of editors with significant experience in editing in that subject area. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

copied to OP's talk page. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 17:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Help please

Stuck

 – Having trouble getting discussion underway. Fleetflame 01:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Looks like you've been accused of sockpuppetry, but whomever made that accusation hasn't filed a Sockpuppet Investigations case. As to the dispute itself, I can't figure out what you're talking about. Would you mind pointing to some specific articles? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The sock tag has now been retracted. The dispute still needs looking at. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the dispute, the issue is that Lonelygirl16 is suggesting that the information in a group of articles and/or nav templates is incorrect. Looking at some of the pages in question... yeesh. contributions was asked repeatedly by the Lonelygirl16 to explain his behavior (that is, reverting her contribs to these pages). I can sort of understand where the Endarrt is coming from; he appears to have frequently used the edit summary "rv:discuss your changes first, then we'll take consensus". However, where Lonelygirl16 has attempted discussion, Endaart has ignored it. Not so good, if you ask me. Template:Strathfield platform box is one page affected by this, and is the page where Lonelygirl16 attempted discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

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

I dropped a question with Endarrt asking him why he's ignoring you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Now in discussion with Endarrt at my user talk... —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Homophobic hate campaign

Stale

 – Fleetflame 01:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• EmmDee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Padmaloka Buddhist Retreat Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For some years, an individual has waged a hate campaign against a Buddhist orgnaisation, the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order. He has enrolled as a wikipedia editor, and persists in making homophobic and hateful attacks on this organisation, citing a Guardian newspaper article published some 12 years ago. No financial misconduct or sexual abuse has ever been demonstrated against this organisation, although some 20 to 30 years ago its founder did have consensual sexual relationships with a number of adult members.

The present dispute relates to a link which this editor insists be maintained to an ANONYMOUS attack site, which makes countless homophobic and other defamatory abuse of the organisation, whose members throughout the world are thus smeared. For example,the attack site alleges:

"In simple terms, FWBO public centres ostensibly teach Buddhism and meditation, but really act as a front for recruiting people to work voluntarily or for low wages in FWBO charities and businesses. Profits from the businesses are covenanted back to FWBO charities, thus avoiding tax. To a lesser extent, FWBO public centres are also used as a front to procure teenagers and young men for the homosexual leadership of the FWBO."

I have sought to bring some element of proportionality to this matter, without censoring or deleting the facts of what are now long-distance controversies about a Buddhist leader and others having sex with members of their order. I have deleted the link to the anonymous site, as I believe that such links are contrary to wiki policy. The attacks from that site are also homophobic and defamatory. The editor Emmdee, persistently reinstates the link, and indicates that he will continue to do so.

I would appreciate it if outsiders, who have no particular interest in this organisation, could assist to clarify what the proper position should be.Bluehotel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

Note this dispute does appear to span multiple pages. Prior to taking a look at the situation itself, I'd like to note that WP:ECCN would probably be the logical next step if the people here can't help. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, anything pertaining to 4chan or anonymous is not considered a reliable source.Drew Smith What I've done 21:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Where do 4chan or anonymous enter into this? I think the website in question is this one. Looks self-published. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, when they said "an ANONYMOUS attac site" I assumed they meant anonymous as relates to 4chan. I guess we all know what assuming does...Drew Smith What I've done 21:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you discussing the "ostensible" and "reality" quote? Even if this was CNN, what factual claim could it substantiate and what would be the primary source for making this conclusion? That is, this appears to make an inference as to the mental state of the subjects. Consider, "Ostensibly they are doing A but the reality is this is a pretext to do B." And, for this argument, they do both A and B in some amounts as can be factually verified by observation. Which is "real" A or B? Presumably this has something to do with intent which is only discernable by mind reading or fMRI. If you need to document the attitude of a notable figure, then self-published work would seem to do that and a quote would be good evidence of this( "Joe made many statements about people's true interest in doing B when they pretended to do A" might be something you could factually say about Joe). However, for describing the people who engage in A and B, what does this contribute beyond saying "they do A[] and B[] and the IRS has doubts about their tax status[]."

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"Batman (film series)" article disagreement

Resolved

 – Change from "stale." OP has "lost interest," and we're rude. Nothing else to be done. Fleetflame 21:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC) (original tagging stamp: 17:31, 9 June 2009)

Batman (film series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This discussion has highlighted that the majority of editors are unsatisfied with the current format of this article. Consensus reflects this in a landslide, but user ThuranX seemingly believes he owns the article, and has repeatedly asserted that the consensus supports his vision of it without any evidence. Recently he marked this user's good faith edit [[1]] as vandalism. Looking at his edit history, you'll find he is frequently rude. I am open to discussion about this article, but I don't think objective dialogue with this user is possible. Any help would be appreciated. A gx7 (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears that there are only three editors talking about this. You, an IP, and ThuranX. It also appears that a prior consensus was reached deciding to leave the article the way it was. ThuranX has provided several very good arguments as to why the article should remain as is. Your arguments have restated the same line in a few different ways, and basically amount to a whiny "Why not!?". One more thing, at the top of the discussion you provided, there is a link to a more appropriate page for what you have proposed. It seems to me that the article "batman movies" should redirect there instead of to this articleDrew Smith What I've done 04:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion page, myself, Noz92, two IP addresses and Wildroot question the current format of the article. Literally only one who doesn't is ThuranX, who is the one repeatedly making the vague, unquantifiable claims that the films follow "one line of development" and that "consensus has been reached". I find your response quite rude. I would suggest that if you realised what such conduct revealed about you, you would be quite embarrassed. I've lost interest. A gx7 (talk) 05:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything by Noz92, only see one IP, and wildroot is agreeing with ThuranX in a "let's pacify A gx7" way. I find this "go to the other parent" aproach to editing quite rude, thus my rudeness in my response.Drew Smith What I've done 06:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Marchywka_Effect?

Discussion moved

 – Article moved to mainspace. Science desk would probably be a better help next time. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

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

LOL, anyone want to comment on this,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nerdseeksblonde/Marchywka_Effect

There are a few citations that come up on google and alternative names are suggested. There is a related patent and suggested practical uses. If anyone can find precedents in electrochemistry which anticipate or trivialize this result I would not be offended.

Is there a free citation database somewhere? I recall at the UGA library one of the DB's gave yo citation rates ( I looked up my own papers LOL) and I think citeseer gives "cited by" information. Of course, google scholar doesn't do too bad. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved this to the main site after adding references and general clean up for coherence. Again, the COI issues may or may not be apparent and depending on notability criteria this may be considered arcane technical trivia. I have documented most claims and believe it to be generally accurate but after editing etc it should at least be verified. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry this didn't get answered. Next time you might find the Reference desk/Science more geared up to answering these kinds of questions. SpinningSpark 13:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it gives me more time to fix stuff and I mentioned on talk pages where I could find related topics. Thanks.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Third-Party Ruling Requested

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

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

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

... etc.

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

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

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

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

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

User Sciencewatcher monopolized two articles and keeps vandalizing contributions

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

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

Sir/madam:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sanitizing MSG article for alarming information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Help With Disagreement Re: Shift4 Article

Resolved

 – Per below & IP talk page, appropriate commentary being taken off-wiki. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Shift4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am currently having something of a dispute with an editor named Drmies regarding the Wikipedia article for Shift4. Shift4 is a corporation in Las Vegas, NV that handles credit card transactions for a variety of clients, both national and international.

The article itself is written like an advertisement for the company. It is extremely complimentary and gives the impression that it was written by a Shift4 executive, for the sole purpose of boasting about how wonderful the company is. The article has been flagged at the top for exactly that reason.

I have discovered a website called Jobschmob.com in which former Shift4 employees have posted on the unfairness of the company's hiring and firing practices at length. The reports are all anonymous, but do tend to say the same things, leading to my belief that there is some accuracy to the claims.

In the interest of bringing balance to the Shift4 article, I have been trying to include a section that references the Jobschmob website and point out that some of the company's practices, as regards employees, are controversial. Drmies has been undoing that edit, and on June 3, 2009, posted a message to my Talk page warning me to stop my "disruptive" edit of the Shift4 page, and saying that if I continued to "vandalize" the page, I will be blocked from editing.

On my Talk page, I responded by informing Drmies that I do not consider this to be vandalism, as I am quoting the source and am just reporting on a controversy which does in fact exist. The fact that these allegations from former employees, if true, would tarnish the reputation that Shift4 seems to want to maintain with its heavily positive article is of no importance to me. I have found information that I believe has some truth to it, and I feel very strongly that it deserves to be a part of the Shift4 article.

I have also posted this view on the Shift4 discussion page. As of June 6, 2009, there has been no response from Drmies to either my Talk page or to the discussion page for Shift4. On the discussion page, I specifically stated that I wanted my edit to be restored and left alone, or, failing that, to enter into a discussion about its merits. Drmies has not as yet done so, and I am left wondering if he ever plans to do so.

My question therefore is: may I take his silence as evidence that Drmies has had a change of heart, and will allow my edit to remain in place if I should post it again? If not, is there a way to push forward and make progress of some kind on this matter? Essentially, what are my options here?

15:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.11.126 (talk)

To an extent, silence implies acceptance. That said, lack of response doesn't give you carte blanche to edit war. I'll also note that from your description, the source you're using probably does not meet our criteria for being a reliable source, which means it's very inappropriate to use it as a source for anything controversial or contentious (i.e., complaints about a company). At best, it's definitely a primary source, in which case it still wouldn't be very appropriate for use in the article. But in that case, if the people represented in that primary source were significant, then it should be a trivial matter to find mentions of the dispute in secondary sources (i.e., news articles).

I'll furthermore note that 3 days isn't exactly a long period of silence. Even though Drmies has been active since you posted the question, it's possible he just didn't see it. If you want his involvement in discussion, you should drop a message at his user talk page inviting his participation at the article talk page.

As to the article itself... some of the history section, I agree, is puffery. The "origin of the company name" is written in a highly unencyclopedic tone, and should simply be integrated in a matter-of-fact manner in the history and/or lead sections. The technology section is unclear. Per WP:PRODUCT, information on prominent products generally belong in the article about the parent company, while less-prominent ones don't merit mention. I recall a recent case where an article of similar structure was nominated for speedy deletion per criterion G11. The article itself doesn't show much indication of how the company passes WP:CORP, but if its subjective claims of importance are true, it should be trivial to substantiate them with sources. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response! As per your suggestion, I posted a message to Drmies in his Talk page asking to continue the discussion regarding Shift4's edits. Insofar as the Jobschmob website is concerned, I see your point; given the fact that all of the people who've posted complaints about Shift4 are doing so anonymously, I can't verify with any real names...and therefore, I can't verify with references to any legal claims against the company that may be in process. However, I find the fact that these people clearly do exist, and that they do have legitimate axes to grind against the company, to be personally offensive, and I really would like to make the general public aware of the fact that Shift4 has this in its background. Do you have any suggestions for how I can do this...if not with Wikipedia, then through some other means? 70.170.11.126 (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I can understand your irritation that such a source wouldn't be acceptable here. Part of the problem with using primary sources to reference such controversy is this- how do we determine how relevant those complaints are overall? If we read through all the complaints, weight them, and figure out how significant this is to the company in comparison to how big they are, while we might be able to evaluate such significance, we have an even bigger problem- that evaluation constitutes original research.

I have no idea what to tell you about getting public awareness up with regards to that website. Wikipedia isn't the place to do it, however. One thing I'm reminded of, however, is EA Spouse, and how that changed employment practices at Electronic Arts. I have no idea if that's relevant to your interests, but when I heard you mention anonymous complaining about a company's employment practices, that just happened to pop into my head. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Onyeka Article

Discussion moved

 – On-going at OP's talk Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Good morning,

The Publishing house Narrative Eye has posted an article about one of its authors Onyeka. We find his life work including three fiction titles to be a great asset to the life and times of Black people in England.

We recently recieved a note on the newly created site to say there were no reliable sources and that there is a possibility that the page may be deleted.

I have read through the wiki material about using resources etc but apart from Onyeka's work there is not much more we can post.

Could you please look at the page(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onyeka) and provide your opinion.

Kind regards,

B.Moir (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Page got hit with a {{notability}} tag. I just added {{wikify}} as well, since it's got a strange layout. Anyway, problem here is a poorly- or un-referenced BLP with questionable assertions of notability. I've dropped a welcome template at B.Moir's user talk which may help out with this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Discussion moved

 – There may or may not be a salvageable article here - however, the article talk page & the afd are the more appropriate place to discuss the references. The block log of the afd nominator is a red-herring. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 17:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

To summarize the above, the article Frei Hans created has been nominated for deletion, and has received near-unanimous support of deletion, though another editor has seriously edited the article and is suggesting merger with deletion of redirects. I don't exactly know how to respond to this request. Parts of it appear to call for the sort of help WP:ARS provides, but I'm honestly not sure the content merits it considering the arguments at AfD re: original research. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The same wired article also wrote:

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

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

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

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

I'm going to echo Spinningspark's comment above; handle this problem at the AfD or at the article talk page. Don't bring accusations of editorial malfeasance here without pretty good evidence thereof. Being blocked temporarily for edit warring or violations of 3RR does not mean a thing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Update

• Some issues resolved, some users are working to improve the article.
• User Verbal, who nominated the page for deletion, has begun reverting content to versions with almost no referencing and citation and taken to dropping "edit war" messages on my user page.
• A user with no account and the IP 160.103.2.223 tagged the page for blanking - this was reverted within a minute by a bot noting possible vandalism. The user IP 160.103.2.223 edit happened shortly after Verbal attempted to revert content to nearly nothing.

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

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

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

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

how to remove page banners

Answered

 – It would be nice if someone with experience in NPOV would help here. Fleetflame 00:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Tasmanian genocide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the case of History wars, you may have better luck posting a request for involvement at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board; the people there would be in more of a position to help dredge up and represent a majority position than the general helpers we have here. WP:ECCN might help get you some editors more experienced in these sorts of cultural disputes. Also, if the two editors you mention are simply reverting without substantive discussion, while you're attempting discussion on the edits, you might consider WP:ANEW if it's becoming clear they're just edit warring and deliberately stalling in discussion. However, you're right that this needs more eyes. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Evolutionary argument against naturalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sun `n Fun Fly In

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

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

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

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

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

Gold Mercury International

Resolved

 – speedily deleted per G4 and G11. – ukexpat (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Gold Mercury International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can an admin check if Gold Mercury International was merged or simply deleted? A new version has popped up (it's a spammy phony awards company) and I want to know if the new version is the same as the last one. It was at least a year ago so I'm vague about if it was AFD'd or I am thinking of another article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The deletion log shows this Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gold Mercury International. – ukexpat (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

{edit conflict} You don't need an admin to check that. Just go to the revision history and click on View logs for this page, and you will see that it has been deleted four times on 18 March 2005, 16 January 2007, 8 February 2008, 7 November 2008. there are links to the AfD for the last deletion. the previous three were admin actions for copyvio. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The thing an admin would need to check is whether or not this version is substantially different that the version previously deleted. If not, it can be speedied as a re-creation of deleted material. But you need the buttons to see the previous version. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 17:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)`

LOL - seems I AFD'd it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And now speedily deleted per G4 and G11. – ukexpat (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Reductio ad Hitlerum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

editor userface

Hi,

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

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

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

You could try starting a discussion at WP:VPR, and linking that to that discussion from MediaWiki talk:Edittools; the talk page of the interface page which contains those inserts. If I get you correctly, that the organization of that list of IPA symbols is just awful, then I hope something does change. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

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

An Insultive Behavior - seeking and advice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This comment Cryptonio made at his user talk, while it was quickly followed by blanking, is pretty unsettling. I'm hoping I just see it as such because there's some greater context I don't realize. I definitely don't see this as resolved, but possibly moved to WQA for the time being... but considering the overall problem and some of Cryptonio's other comments, this may rapidly become a ECCN situation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Your own actions, seen in the comment at Talk:Gaza War and at your user talk page, no matter what Sceptic's actions are, are unacceptable for any collaborative setting, professional or otherwise. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Endeavor (nonprofit)

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

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

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

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

The article had been speedily deleted previously per criterion A7, meaning the article didn't assert the importance or significance of the subject. As ukexpat above indicates, however, just passing that criterion won't mean such an article will stay... the subject itself should be notable by Wikipedia's guidelines for organizations (WP:CORP). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Doesn't seem likely given the IP's geolocation (NYC) versus that Endeavour's location (QLD). But I suppose it's a trivial matter for someone with the tools to check if Endeavor (nonprofit) == Endeavour (organisation). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Nah, it's different. Check the IP's other edits, linking to something at endeavor.org, which is different from Endeavour (organisation). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Was I wrong to delete a comment of another user?

Answered

 – Very good answer, C S! Fleetflame 21:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I understand, of course, that there's a concern of being wrongly characterized in the eyes of editors who don't know you... and this is a genuine concern. My advice in that regards is that, if you do believe there's a pattern of thinly-veiled personal attacks, or attempts to prejudice other editors against you by a particular editor, and you have evidence of it, it may be time to go for WP:WQA or something more extreme. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but I'm still befuddled by something.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SpinningSpark 09:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The harm, B2C, is that removing someone's comments risks escalating the situation rather than the intended effect of promoting civility. Powers ^T 12:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Kaplan University

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

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

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

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

In short, unless it's blatantly obvious vanispamcruftisement, you should just assume good faith on the part of Logger9, and try to work towards establishing a consensus, using the dispute resolution process (as you've started to do, by posting here). WP:NPOVN might be the best next step if it's a big deal; while WP:COIN might be appealing, I don't think it's going to help unless you can establish said user has a disruptive COI. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

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

CObra group marketing

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

Thanks

Cheers --79.97.105.2 (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)_{Subscript text}