Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 62

Archive 55

←

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Help with Rushdoony

Resolved

 – RfC started at Talk:Rousas John Rushdoony#RfC Inclusion of Primary Sources Jezhotwells (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like rditor assistance with the Rushdoony article. I was previously involved in the article as I disagreed with some of the sources used to make what I saw very extreme claims about the individual. The claims were verified using multiple sources other than the one I was contesting, and the content has remained in. In addition to the content that makes the claims, I included quotes from a primary source that substantiated the secondary sources provided, which were provided to me by another interested editor on the suggestion that I use them in the section in question. Another editor who became involved in the article has taken it upon themselves to remove the primary source material.

I feel the editor is acting in bad faith, as the primary material clarifies and substantiates what the secondary sources leave a bit vague. I feel that, because they disagree with me, they are attempting to keep material I would like to see in the article out. Im attempting to assume good faith, but it's very difficult given their editing behavior in the past and the things they've said. With that in mind, I'd like some assistance as to what I should do, or if I can really do anything? Feeling a bit powerless because I don't have as firm a grasp as the one reverting me edits. Thanks! Shazbot85^Talk 07:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Still looking for some help or for another editor to weigh in on the discussion on the Rushdoony talk page. The current contention is whether primary sources quoting Rushdoony should or can be submitted to corroborate secondary sources regarding his views. Shazbot85^Talk 02:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Pork

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have gone to Germany many times, my husband everyone else, eat a lot of raw pork, I mean loads of it! Even children eat it, I saw it all the time. They eat it, ground raw pork with onions and spices on top of bread, like a spread. I'm very curious with all the disease raw pork has. What are the statistics in Germany with trichinosis? I did a research on their toilets; they are specifically designed to check for worms. Can you provide information on this subject? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.234.22 (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• I recommend that you ask your question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science instead. Someone at that page may be better able to answer your question. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Entry for "Better" TV

Answered

 – ~~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_(TV_series)

My name is Dan Berman.

I am the Promotions Producer for "Better" TV. Last month I began to update the page for our program. But the revisions I made were almost immediately deleted.

The current version has factual errors.. namely that the program is a product extension of "Better Homes and Gardens" magazine. As my revision stated, the show more closely resembles "More" magazine in its content.

In addition, the current list of broadcast companies that have signed contracts with the show is incomplete. And the implication that host Audra Lowe used to work out of Portland, Oregon is incorrect.

My entry also included additional details.. like the fact that the program recently aired its 500th show. I also posted names of our contributors with the goal of creating hyperlinks to their bios.

I see no reason why this information should have been changed and deleted. What can I do to restore the information and make sure it is not tampered with again?

Dan Berman —Preceding unsigned comment added by BetterPromotions (talk • contribs) 18:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be sourced and encyclpedic. Some editors do however crusade against COI editors- those who have an overt conflict, often expressed as an affiliation with the topic- beyond the guidelines form wikipedia ( I have found personally that all experts in most areas have conflicts so I may be more tolerant than most). So, I haven't looked at this but if you have control over an official website, that may be sourceable so you would first want to make this information available on a reliable source such as this. Note however that such a site, related to the topic, would only be a reliable source regarding the topic's opinions and maybe little else ( " foo.com says blah blah" would be about all that could be said based on this ). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over links

Stuck

 – discussions at article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Internet Studies Section #3, Scholarly Organizations
I have attempted to add links to Web Science Trust and The Society of Computers in Psychology In both cases these organization serve the subject area of this article. "Internet Studies is an interdisciplinary field studying the social, psychological, pedagogical, political, technical, cultural, artistic, and other dimensions of the internet" Editor Alex Halavais deletes these links with what I consider to be WP:COI or WP:NPOV explanations which I believe are based in his role as a VP of AOIR and personal biases to this editor. In the case of Web Science Trust, they are building guidlines/curriculum for the field of Internet Studies The article itself was recently edited by Alex Halavais and it reads like an advertising piece for his organization. Please note, I am not a member of either Web Science or SCiP, but recognize them for their contribution to the field. Wreid (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• comment I think we would all be better off if we assumed wp:good faith, why might Prof. Halavais have removed the links? what is the best explanation available? is that a better explanation than your assumptions above? likely so. I suspect the links were deleted because there is a difference between web science as imagined by tbl and internet studies. To me at least there seems to be a clean distinction. --Buridan (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Buridan's comment resolves to differences of opinion that should be considered to maintain neutrality WP:NPOV. Please note that --Buridan is Jeremy Hunsinger and is also a member of AOIR. Wreid (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the editors, that have weighed in on the edits to this page, Alex Halavais, Buridan, and ElKevbo are AOIR members, I suggest the following study be considered. Emigh and Herring argue that "a few active users, when acting in concert with established norms within an open editing system, can achieve ultimate control over the content produced within the system, literally erasing diversity, controversy, and inconsistency, and homogenizing contributors' voices." Wreid (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Tourettes Guy?

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

How come no one ever did a wikipedia article on the tourettes guy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.162.230 (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of people with tourettes. You'll have to be more specific. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm intrigued. Who are you referring to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by K10wnsta (talk • contribs) 07:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you actually have a request or are you just randomly dropping comments on talk pages?

Georges Gilles de la Tourette has an article already, as does the syndrome he described. SpinningSpark 21:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

He's referring to the said-to-be-deceased internet celebrity. A quick Google of "Tourette's Guy" will bring him up. -Karonaway 23:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

In that case the standard answer is anyone can edit Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk)

Larner Johnson Valves

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have up dated the information a couple of times without any problems. I have recently tried to add a link to our company web site, as we still manufacture the Larner Johnson Valves in The United Kingdom, and there is additional information on the site about the valves, which may be of interest to people interested in Larner Johnson Valves. The link uploaded ok and I saved the changes, I then tried the link via the page and it worked ok. But not long after the link was removed. Did I do something wrong linking to our company web site. We also have a massive back catalogue of old pictures of Larner Johnsons when they were manufactured by Blakeborough Valves in the UK. How do I set up a link to these.

Thank You,

David Richmond Blackhall Engineering Ltd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.97.170 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You should ask the reverting editor and perhaps start a discussion on the articlle talk page. With regards to the pictures you would need to upload them to Wikimedia Commons and if you are the copyright holder, give them an appropriate license. Of course you won't be able to do this until five days after you have created an account for yourself. I have placed some useful links on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• C above 2: This topic just came up a few days ago. Generally there is probably a bias against overt commercial citations unless they are very specific to the topic or there are no academic sources. I pointed out that since getting free integrated circuit data books in high school, that often commercial sources do provide free access to the best information on a more general topic than their immediate product ( application notes on RF or high speed digital products often give tutorials in more fudnamental electornics ) and academic sources still have sponsors and advocates and non-free access. So, if you can make the case maybe that you provide unique quality free information you may be ok AFAIK. But note this is not a directory and if many vendors have more or less the same thing I'm not sure anyone will put 50 links to each vendor in the article. Even if your product has some unique features, you would still need an independent source to notice it before that product would get special attention in the article. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• The company has the worldwide rights to the valve. I've added a link to the specific page about the valve on Blackhall Engineering's website,[1] which gives tech specs. I think it's a useful link. Fences&Windows 21:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior by an editor and dealing with it

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I am new to contributing to Wikipedia and posted some things and they were removed. When I asked why, most editors were polite except one. He was uncivil, rude and heavy handed.

Here are some examples of the exchange with rsrikanth05

1) "I hear one more squeak, better be warned" 2) "Your book sucks then" 3) I only wrote to your email because it was on your talk page and you replied with all capitals 4) Saying "GET LOST" to me. Is this how Wikipedia editors are supposed to behave? Is this being civil? Your behavior is heavy handed, and is not really being civil in my mind. I believe I am allowed to ask questions and required a civil response, and consistent answer. Not angry threats without proper explanations.

I expect this editor to be removed or reprimanded immediately.

Rbala99 (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)rbala99

I agree he could have been more civil; but looking at the whole exchange I think you are much better to let it go, and take it as a learning experience. Forget it and move on. The editor was evidently a bit frustrated at you continuing to demand reasons from him. You were too quick to accuse him of harassing you with his edits, and going to email was a bad idea. If you try to throw weight around with heavy handed reprimands and so on, it will only backfire and make things worse. Trust me on this one. The best response for the time being is to walk away. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 17:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

While the #2 statement was likely out of line, it's difficult to judge without context. Regardless, it's important to remember that there's really no one person who has the means to reprimand or remove another editor. Everything is done by consensus. In theory, everyone at wikipedia (even the admins) is on equal footing with regard to handling disciplinary actions (the admins just have the power to carry out communal edict). I would take Duae Quartunciae's advice and simply refrain from further interaction with that editor.
-K10wnsta (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it is easier in a volunteer project like this but wikipedia seems more concerned with the product than the interpersonal/political issues. If you want a wall of shame naming and picturing bad editors I'm not sure that will produce better articles or encourage more people to contribute useful stuff. Generally actions are things like page protections or temporary blocks on users or IP addresses and it doesn't get much beyond that. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Youtube as Source

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia from Bookgirrl in Toronto. My question: Do you accept Youtube as a legitimate source? My first thought is NO, since clips can be manipulated. On the other hand, you can find a lot of good stuff on Youtube based on live footage, interviews, etc. Thank you, Madeleine/Bookgirrl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookgirrl (talk • contribs) 19:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

See our guideline at WP:YOUTUBE. It can sometimes be linked to, but generally it wouldn't be a reliable source. There's also issues of copyright violation with a lot of YouTube videos. If the YouTube channel is run by a recognised authority, it might be OK to use as a source, in the same way that blogs can occasionally be used as a source. See the policy on self-published sources. Fences&Windows 21:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

General notable guidline in P. Misra article.

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Prabhakar Misra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) In the article in question, it has been noted that "This article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic." However, many secondary references have been added. There are other pages with less information that do not have any sort of sources that do not have this notice. I am rather new at this so I am not sure, what information would needs to be added in order for this notice to be removed?

Thanks for your time, Rgarcia3826 (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The citations should be about Dr Misra, and in independent reliable sources, not articles by him or web pages. The specific guideline to follow for whether he is notable by the standards of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Notability (academics). If you can provide evidence that he meets any of the criteria listed there, the article is fine. Problems with the article are the use of peacock terms, i.e. words that puff up the important of the subject without imparting real information, and the article structure needs improving, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style. At the moment it bears more resemblance to a resume than an encyclopedia article. Fences&Windows 01:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

1986 NLCS

Answered

 – ~~

hello. my username is Whatever Jones and i have been editing the page for the 1986 NLCS over the past few months. the page had been tagged due to its previously informal nature and i feel that my revisions have alleviated that problem. please take a look at my work and remove the tag if you feel that it's appropriate at this time. also, this is the first time i have ever sent an inquiry like this and if i have sent it to the wrong place i ask that you please tell me the right place to send this message.

thank you for your time and courtesy —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhateverJones (talk • contribs) 00:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the work on the article. I think it still suffers from sounding like it's written from the viewpoint of a fan. Words like 'thrilling', 'outstanding', 'nail biting', 'whopping', 'cruised to first place' don't really fit the tone of an encyclopedia. They're what's called peacock terms. Needs a little more polishing. Fences&Windows 02:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

State Guard Association of the United States

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

State Guard Association of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is an edit war going on at State Guard Association of the United States. The SGAUS is an organization that seeks to represent the various military SDF units. However, it has had a past of representing unofficial militias that wanted to become military. Two users have tried editing this out of the article. I have tried negotiating that the present can be depicted in the article, but the past stance of the SGAUS needs to be included. Much of the SGAUS website has been taken down, but is still accessible via archive.org. They also are not happy with using references from archive.org to show what the SGAUS has stood for. In addition, one has deleted my posts from the discussion page. Todd Gallagher (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Try WP:Dispute resolution or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Restore your post on the talk page, noting Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Fences&Windows 04:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

However, the citations you are using to support the new section are not to reliable sources, and the section may be an example of original research and improper synthesis. A search that might yield some better sources is here. Fences&Windows 04:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

SpySheriff Article

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Hi, I saw this article a few weeks ago, and have been trying to correct/update it as it contains a lot of uncited information which does not appear elsewhere on the internet and is quite poorly written.

Unfortunately, another user Vrabu keeps reverting my edits/citation needed markings so I can't improve the article. Please can you have a look at the article and see if my changes are alright? I was going to remove the uncited information as there is no evidence for it at all. SmackEater (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You need to discuss this at the article talk page first. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I asked the dude to join the discussion on the talk page here, last week: article talk, and asked him on his page as well. He responded, but then just reverted my edits when I left the article for a few days SmackEater (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure that the material is unverifiable? Raise the problems on the talk page of the article, and explain what you want to remove and why so other editors can contribute. I'd suggest seeking opinions from Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer Security too. Fences&Windows 21:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I spent quite a while on google and found reputable sources disputing a fair amount of information. I also think that Symantec,CA,etc would mention severe side-effects of a program if they were real, however, none of them do, and the only places that make the same claims appear to be copies of this article, and forum posts. I've removed the unverifiable/disputed information for now and written about it on the Talk page. SmackEater (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Submarine cables

Discussion moved

 – To Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Submarine_Communications_Cable. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

:

Lack of exact terms in Sources, Original Research?

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

At the article Castle, a small dispute involving whether or not Chapultepec Castle is a "revival castle" has taken place. User:Nev1 deleted the mention of it entirely because the sources don't make a specific connection to it being "influenced by medeival castle architecture" or to it being called in exact terms, "a revival castle". He states that my inclusion of it is "Original Research", although it has been there for years. Sources that have been found mention its Neo-Gothic style and historical significance, but fall short of using the exact terms, "revival castle". Is it a technicality?

The very sight of the castle and its features - as well as the time period in which it was built and re-modeled, it's reason for existence, and for whom it was built (Emperor Maximilian I of Mexico also built another revival castle in Italy called Miramare Castle.) - all of it leads to the conclusion that it is indeed a revival castle (What else could it be?), but without a written source, as of yet.

Can someone inform or help with this matter? Thank you so very much. C.Kent87 (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

While I can't agree with the reasoning given, I do agree with the removal. I fixed the inline links to be refs (though the images are probably not useful as references). In general, a good "next step" is to start or join a discussion on the help:talk page (talk:Castle in this case) when one is finding difficulty accomplishing what one wants in an article. I have started a discussion for the addition of this castle, but looking at the whole situation, at this time I would oppose adding the content. Hope that helps, and sorry I can't support your addition at this time. - Sinneed 04:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Fethullah Gülen

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I already stated my view on the titles "Scholar" and "Philosopher" for Fethullah Gülen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on the article on his name. Please refer to it in the Biography section of the discussion tab for my reasons. Those titles should be removed. It makes the article as a propaganda tool, not a source for information. I am not going to continue arguing about this. But it does not mean that I concede to the opposing view. Memetist (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So - you have a disagreement with another editor. You can ask for a WP:Third opinion or you could enlist the help of the WP:Mediation Cabal. Disagreements amongst editors are not uncommon on Wikipedia. It is often through such a process that artciles are improved when WP:concensus is achieved. Remember to keep discussions civil and try to understand other points of view. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion, there is a lot of appeal to defintions. This is a good sign as my first thought was that this would be too ill defined of a question to argue logically. I also gave the prior question about "conspiracy theorist" label more thought as this is the same argument but with opposite connotation. Before more questions come up on "patriot", "good person", or even "philanthropist" etc, it may help to find more general concerns when trying to use subjective labels or adjectives. In the prior discussion, it came down to finding reliable sources- do relaiable sources call the subject a scholar or philosopher? In some cases, you may be able to source a catagory and its opposite, "consrvatives regard his as patriot[] but liberals consider him to be a traitor[]." It may be easier, where there is only marginal value attached to these terms to try to avoid them. A few sentences of a bio may make clear that he is philosopher or scholar etc. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Dayton Ohio history: Deletion

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am the 4th great-grandnephew of Samuel Thompson (1753-1815), leader of the first settlers at what is now Dayton, Ohio. The Thompson Party arrived on 1 April 1796. I know Dayton history far better than anyone, also being very familiar with the contents of all written histories of Dayton. I wrote a very detailed introduction to that topic on Wikipedia so as to preserve the actual names of the first twelve settlers, etc. All of this was erased by some unknown person doing great damage to the record of Dayton's founding. See such Wikipedia deletion.

Also, I am The Founder & 1st President of Presidential Families of America. I share ancestry with and am blood-cousin to 26 Presidents, including President Obama. See its website.

I have championed genetics for five decades, unlike most intellectuals in the past, and was thus led to genealogy, in which I have great expertise. Years ago I proposed the marrying of genetics and genealogy to American leaders in genetics and I was ignored. Iceland's genetics researcher are now doing precisely what I proposed long ago. Americans have yet to catch up. Someday I will be plagiarized by some to whom I proposed this in the past. I had planned to write an article on Wikipedia on this subject as well but now know that someone ignorant of the subject can delete it so why bother.

I had planned to write the history of Presidential Families of America, including the facts which led to the founding of a copy-cat society some years later, so such history is accurate, as written by The Founder. (See relevant website.) I am 74 now and not well. My death could occur today, or 30 years from now. Given my bad experience with the deletion of key elements relative to the founding of Dayton (for what jusifiable reason?), why should I waste my time writing the history of Presidential Families of Ameriaca on the Wikipedia site?

What are your comments as to the above? Please email me at:

[email removed]

From: Lawrence Kent, A.A., B.A., M.A., Ph.D., Kettering OH 45429 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.165.255.88 (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't reply by mail and the top of the page says "please do not include an e-mail address or other private details". There are many possibilities why you can no longer see your contribution. Which page name are you referring to or which user name or IP address did you use to edit it? This question is the only edit by that IP address. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The revision history of the Dayton, Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article contains details of each edit to the article. As you have not chosen to open a Wikipedia account I cannot see what edits to that article you are referring to. Can you say on which day you added such material or on which day it disappeared? Jezhotwells (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You may be referring to this edit [12]. User:Texas141 removed the information and left a note at the article talk page here Talk:Dayton, Ohio#Recent history edit. The information you added to the article was not cited to WP:reliable sources and so was properly removed. I suggest that you create a user account which you may do at Special:UserLogin/signup and discuss matters at Talk:Dayton, Ohio. You can only start new artciles if you have a user account and I would recommend that you do so and read up on how to edit Wikipedia at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Encyclopedia: An encyclopedia is not generaly a journal for publishing new results as there is no peer review from experts in a given area nor even anyway to verify the plausibility of your claims. If you have valuable information, it should be published elsewhere first, preferably in a place where it can be checked or researched. Generally in this setting credentials don't matter as arguments have to come by appeal to known information sources. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Hi Lawrence. We'd very much welcome your help in expanding the historical coverage of Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors can be quick to remove information when it is unsourced, and indeed the burden is on whoever adds information to make sure it is verified using outside sources. Ideally, the editor who removed the information you added would have seen that the information was plausible and looked for a source to use to reference it. I found a history from the end of the 19th century that agrees with your account. "The pirogue landed at the head of St. Clair Street April i, 1796. The Thompson party was the first to arrive. The other two parties arrived a few days later."[13] The best way to avoid editors reverting your well-researched contributions is to ensure that you always provide a reference to reliable sources. Fences&Windows 20:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I've added back in a short section. Fences&Windows 02:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone step in

Resolved

 – Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Luca Marco Jezhotwells (talk) 14:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

:

Can someone step in as regards the repeated attempt by an editor posting and re-posting the same poorly written POV "rant", (asserting that Jesus "approved betting them [slaves] severely", etc.) under the names "Rences wiki," "Luca Marco" and "Comprehensible view" on the Christianity and slavery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and The Bible and slavery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) pages? Evidently the editor is ignorant of the extensive debate as regards the wording of this complex and contentious issue, and the efforts at balance, as seen in their previous talk pages. Reversions by myself and others have resulted in him/her re-posting under a new name. Thanks.Daniel1212 (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Difficult. If you can show that the editors are sock puppets then report them at WP:Sockpuppet investigations. If they engage in edit wars then WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring is the appropriate venue. You should accompany reverts with warning notices on their talk pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I reverted them again and posted an appeal and warning on each of the talk pages of the names used by this editor.Daniel1212 (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I have started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Luca Marco. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Pam Grier

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Pam Grier, last significant relationship with [struck for privacy reasons]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.159.132 (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can cite that with WP:RS then you could post that at the article talk page for consideration there. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

"Currently in a long-standing relationship with a businessman she prefers to leave unnamed."[14] Fences&Windows 23:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Changing disambiguation page

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Botanic_garden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This page is actually a disambiguation page, but in my view its title doesn't reflect this. Reading WP:Naming the disambiguation page, the issue is whether there is a primary topic for the term. 'Botanic garden' and 'botanical garden' are synonyms in English (see e.g. the Wiktionary entry for botanic garden). But at present one of these terms (botanic garden) is being used as the title of the disambiguation page and the other (botanical garden) as the title of the topic page. This means that if you search for 'botanic garden' you get the disambiguation page, whereas if you search for 'botanical garden' you get the topic page. I'd like to see both searches end up at the topic page which will then have a standard hatnote to the disambiguation page whose title would be 'botanical garden (disambiguation)'. (The ambiguities aren't major in my view so the topic should be the first landing place.)

I'm relatively new to editing, and am not sure (a) whether this would be a sensible change (b) if so, how to achieve it. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you should discuss this with some of the other recent editors on the talk page as there have according to the history been several different views on this. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal is reasonable, it would make sense for both terms to go to Botanical garden, with a hatnote to a disambig page that deals with articles with similar titles. Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation may be able to offer advice. Raise it at Talk:Botanical garden. Fences&Windows 14:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this has now all been sorted out; see Talk:Botanical_garden#Disambiguation_page. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

neutrality issue

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not affiliated to The Real Deal (Magazine) article I am editing, yet it still says that it sounds like advertisement.

I tried deleting everything off the page, and even if only the first sentence remains, it still says it sounds like advertising and has a conflict of interest. Help!

Grannysmith5w (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It still looks very promotional. I see no concrete evidence of notability as per WP:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I understand that, but even if I have a blank page, it says the same message. As for notability, I have the Los Angeles Times as a cited source, and have followed other publications' wiki pages as a model for how to describe The Real Deal. Still stumped..

Grannysmith5w (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance tags are not removed automatically. I see that User:Master of Puppets has removed them and indicated that they will help clean it up further. – ukexpat (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Thank you so so much, I will wait for editors to clean up then! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grannysmith5w (talk • contribs) 22:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Section should not have been closed

Resolved

 – Directed to WP:ANI – ukexpat (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate actions by User:Hu12

Resolved

 – Directed to WP:ANI – ukexpat (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Change title of page

Resolved

 – page moved. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to change the page name for Entriq. Inc. It should now be listed as Irdeto Content Management (formerly Entriq, Inc.) The change is requested to reflect Irdeto's acquisition of Entriq, Inc.

Entriq,_Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WikiEditIrd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC).

It looks as if the page has been moved to the new name by User:Dynaflow. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[E.C.] Done, after confirming the new name through the company's website. Might I suggest merging this article with Irdeto Access and beefing up the combined article enough to satisfy WP:NOTABILITY? --Dynaflow babble 22:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's accomplished by means of the move tab at the top of the screen. I think you need a few more edits in order for your account to be autoconfirmed, after which it will appear for you. You might take a look at WP:NC to review our naming conventions; I think 'Irdeto' might be the best title, with redirects from Irdeto Content Management and Entriq. We don't usually use the Inc., etc. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the page I saw seems questionable unless there is some inherent notability for being traded on LSE. It tends to read like a directory listing. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have redirected Cloakware to Irdeto Inc., as Cloakware did not have any reliable sources and made no claims of notability outside its parent company. I'd also like to point out the likely conflict of interest on the part of User:WikiEditIrd, and request clarification about the differece between Irdeto Inc. and Irdeto Content Management; these two seem exceedingly similar, and a merge may be in order. GlassCobra 16:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ramtha and criticism

Discussion moved

 – To Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Mindgladiator_reported_by_User:Jujimufu. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

:

J. Z. Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

During the past few days, there have been constant edit undos between myself (Jujimufu (talk)) and user Mindgladiator.

The reason for the disputes and reverts is that I have been trying to provide information (from relevant published sources, including news articles, journals, books and interviews with/by scientists, writers or skeptics) that sheds some skepticism on the validity of the reality of the entity 'Ramtha', while user Mindgladiator has been reverting the edits by accusing me of trying to promote my own opinions, and ignoring the fact that all my edits were sources, reference and cited appropriately (by calling it "irrelevant to the topic" or "extremely anti-topic", or other accusations along these words).

We have been trying to reach a consensus in the article's talk page, but it looks like we've reached a dead-end instead: for every argument for the inclusion of skepticism and controversial information to the issue of Ramtha that I have provided, user Mindgladiator has replied accusing me further of promoting and supporting an (assumed) agenda, while it is clear from his replies (e.g. here, second reply by the user) that he is biased towards supporting and believing the reality of Ramtha's entity, and therefore against any evidence to the contrary.

I propose a whole new section in the article J. Z. Knight to be added, titled "Criticism and controversy", under which the court cases can be mentioned, as well as opposition from previous students of Ramtha's, and an inclusion of other, relevant, skeptic and scientific information, which although was well sourced ended up being removed by the user.

Of course, this is what I believe about his/her actions, and I may as well be wrong - which is why I require a third-party opinion on the topic, to settle the matter for good (for now, at least).

Thanks a lot. -Jujimufu (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, just from skimming the talk page I would have to conclude that commentary from Sagan would meet inclusion criteria as would more citations from her supporters. Right now, it seems notability is a bit thin and I'm not sure an appearance on Merv Griffin alone gets it, although I earlier assumed notability would be met with a little digging due to another person appearing on Oprah. If you have noted gestures on You Tube video I'd have to think that is original research, even if you could claim that the video is "Realiable" for the claim made ( but you'd have to expect this exists from better sources, and the topic's own website would be presumed reliable in this regard, for statements about itself). So, offhand, your approach seems reasonable as there is likely enough for a controversies section if Sagan singled her out and her teaching/health related divorce has made the new etc. I'm not sure how the first paragraph states as fact that she is a channel for Ramtha as opposed to just claiming it, perahsp something like "she claims foo[] but others dispute that[]". Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added a 3rd opinion at the talk page, removed some dubious ELs and warned Mindgladiator for edit-warring. This is now a subject of note at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Mindgladiator_reported_by_User:Jujimufu Jezhotwells (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing interpersonal spat

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:FlashForward (TV series) (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not precisely certain what this dispute is about exactly, especially since all parties involved essentially agree when it comes to actual editorial decisions. I do personally feel a bit er... persecuted, I guess, but I'm perfectly willing to let that go. I explained my side of things at least, so I'm satisfied in that respect. For my own part I'd like this just to go away at this point, but I think that we need some third party assistance so that myself and User:Drmargi can continue to work together constructively.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 19:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've explained repeatedly, and fruitlessly, that this editor is taking something personally that's not, and assuming bad faith where there's none both in the discussion cited and on his talk page. I'm not picking a fight, I don't see this as any sort of spat, and no one is persecuting him. I don't understand why, if he's in agreement, this ever had to be discussed, much less escalated to the degree that it has, other than that he's simply not hearing what's being said to him. Regardless, this is his issue, not mine. Drmargi (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd take a step back and edit some other articles. Stay cool. Fences&Windows 22:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

In these situations my preferred approach is a nice cup of tea and maybe some chocolate HobNobs. – ukexpat (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing edit warring

Answered

 – meger discussion at Talk:Yugoslavian_selection_for_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest#Merger_proposal Jezhotwells (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be extremely long and boring to explain the entire conflict, so I'll try to keep to what is current. Yugoslavian selection for the Eurovision Song Contest was created to describe the selection methods used by the country identifying itself in the Eurovision Song Contest as "Yugoslavia" (which in fact was two different countries, the second participating in 1992 after the former was broken up in 1991). The page was originally named Jugovizija, but was renamed after it was discovered that there were different names throughout the years and that Jugovizija was only used from about 1986 through 1992. Now User:Imbris does not believe that the 1992 entry should be mentioned at all on the page because even though the new country it called itself "Yugoslavia", it was a new country. In terms of the contest however, the same Yugoslavia participated from 1961 to 1992 and they do not consider the 1992 entry to be any different besides from the fact that "Yugoslavia" was a smaller country. They consider the 1992 entry to be Yugoslavia's last. Over the past year there has been edit warring over the inclusion of this 1992 entry on the page (and every other related page) with sources supporting its inclusion, but Imbris's personal opinions urging against it. In his summaries he says things like he must revert because the only opposition was from "three greeks" or that the inclusion would be in error since it is "one source" information (even though imbris down not have a relevant source for his changes. his claimed source is proving that the countries are different, though this is not relevant to the song contest). Basically editors (random ones, not just a few, some unrelated to the topic) continually revert Imbris's changes claiming he has no consensus, no sources etc, but he just reverts back. This has been going back and forth for months and the admin noticeboard never takes action even though there are over a dozen threads where people complain about his actions. [15]. To be honest I think it is because it is way too complicated and time consuming for them to accurately investigate and see what is going on. Here is the history of the recent dispute [16]. So the purpose of this post is to ask what do I do now? I will not accomplish anything by reverting his edits because he will just come back and revert me. Having a discussion with him is also useless as my previous attempts just turned out to be a waste of time. What should my approach be here? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Why can't it be dealt with in the same way as Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest, to make clear what political entity was participating? And why do we need separate articles? Yugoslavian selection for the Eurovision Song Contest could easily be merged in. Fences&Windows 22:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Technically the selection article is about selecting the candidate and the other is about the next step which is actually participation, but I agree, there is no reason for two articles. Most ESC pages only have one. The selection page was created by Imbris as a way to get around a compromise of the participation page since he felt that the selection process was shielded from the influence and point of view of the contest since countries are allowed to conduct their selections as they please. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Then it's a WP:POVFORK, and should be merged back in. Imbris seems to have form in this area judging from various AN/I reports. You might want to take this to AN/I if it can't be resolved on the talk pages. Fences&Windows 22:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright if this doesn't work I will try AN/I...again. In the meantime it would be nice for people to weigh in on the merger discussion that I set up for the page in question. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Spotlight (software)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Multiple instances of sneaky vandalism (Wikipedia:Vandalism) on article Spotlight (software) by IP users. This is resulting in repeated edits by other editors to remove bogus/uncited information. Would kindly suggest we lock the article to registered users, and/or warn the IP users, as appropriate based on Wikipedia protocols.

Current issue started with IP-edits on 8 June 2009.

I have added warnings to User talk:219.148.197.154, User talk:210.107.84.7, and User talk:124.155.211.116.

Thank you for your help! PolarYukon (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The IP edits are few and infrequent. If this turns into ongoing vandalism by multiple IPs you should file a request at Requests for page protection, but at the moment I think a request for semi-protection would be declined. Fences&Windows 14:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Too many external links at Dynamic imaging

Resolved

 – addition of links has ceased, following warning. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look at Dynamic imaging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? On November 4, an editor removed most of the external links from the article. Later, I removed some more material that I felt only helped to promote a company and did not actually add to the article. Later that day, an editor re-added all the links to the article. I then removed them again, noting that the external links were not necessary and that if people really wanted to learn about the companies providing this service, then they could use a search engine as that was not really the article's purpose. The editor reverted me, and assumed that I was making these edits because I had a professional connection to Adobe's Scene7 division, because I brought that article to featured article status (I have absolutely no relation with the company). I responded to his assumptions about this on his talk page, and also explained why the external links did not belong in the article. I also explained to the editor that at the very least, if he wants to add all these companies in the article, they need to be cited, as I had done in Scene7 when mentioning the company's competitors (the editor had added other competitors to the article earlier, which I had removed because they were not mentioned in the sources I used). Anyway, the editor just recently re-added all the external links to Dynamic imaging again, claiming himself and his own personal experiences as a reliable source but also noting that he will add references soon. Could someone please take a look at the whole thing? Please note that the editor seems to have some professional affiliation with these companies, according to his user page and the link provided there. Gary King (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted User:Mikebrands most recent edit and posted appropriate warnings on thir talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I am looking to pay and hire someone to properly clean up my page on Wikipedia. Can you direct me to someone that would be willing to help me. Privately? Thank you Tim Bello <phone number redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimBello (talk • contribs) 18:54, 15 November 2009

Hi, paid editing is generally considered unacceptable on Wikipedia. I have removed your phone number as printing it here might lead to problems for you. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and generally articles on notable people are sourced from reliable third party sources, not created by paid employees of the article subject. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reward board? Fences&Windows 23:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Is reward board cited on COI page? Apparently COI editing is not prohibited but the article still have to end up being unbiased. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The Reward Board is only mentioned as a See also link. Wikipedia is inconsistent on this issue, we still don't have a coherent policy on paid editing. See WT:PAID. Fences&Windows 14:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, the consistent policy is "its about the article." The COI page IIRC seemed reasonable but some people do go overboard on COI issues, and indeed they need to be examined very very carefully. On the plus side, there is no appeal to credentials so a COI editor with a good resume can't dismiss an arugment based solely on an appeal to authority and there is some hope of looking at the data. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have done some major cleanup on Sean Hamilton, which is likely the article that TimBello is referring to, but if anyone else would like to do some work on the article as well, it would be appreciated. Thanks. GlassCobra 18:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Undoing multiple edits

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

On the page for USC Trojans Football, USC_Trojans_football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a vandal has uploaded multiple edits that would be considered vandalism. I am unable to hit the undo button for edits that are not immediately past. What is the best way to fix this problem?

--Paperbakwriter09 (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well you could manually remove the edits by editing the page at the appropriate point. It looks like some recent reversions have removed vandalism. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Another way is to copy an earlier version of the article and paste it over the new version. (If only one or two sections are affected you could just copy and paste those sections. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think all edits between two versions do not improve the article, then you can go to a previous revision, click "Edit this page" at the top, and hit "Save". Gary King (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

new account making form entries, LOL,

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

horoscopes and latin names for people, only 2 so far but that is all, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Skydancer25 Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes well the pages have been tagged for CSD and warnings issued, which is the appropriate course of action. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Marriage (Historyguy1965)

Resolved

 – through 3rd party intervention. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Recent comments by User:Historyguy1965 are WP:RPA. "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."

A. User:Daedalus969, 6:52 pm, 12 November 2009, wrote "A single user and all his sockpuppets don't count." Not explicitly identified as to who is the single user, though later he said he thought it was I.

B. User:Historyguy1965, 12:20 am, 13 November 2009, writes in great sarcasm:

Right you're not a sockpuppet, all these new users just magically appeared and just so happened to come here to just to happen to agree with this new proposition you've made. Obviously not suspicious, right?

C. User:Historyguy1965's statement above is a slanderous personal attack. It is a false accusation without merit.

D. User:Historyguy1965 Victimizing yourself Afaprof01 does nothing, if a police officer arrests a suspected murderer or murder, that isn't a "personal attack", it's an arrest based on legitimate suspicion. Approximately 5 (newer) users signed up, all entered the discussion and all happened to concur with this proposition you've made. Luckily, WP:PNSD protects against such attempts. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 7:34 am, 13 November 2009

E. Our suspicions were dead on, sockpuppets have been banned! Kudos to Daedalus for his contribution in this, well done. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 9:35 pm, 13 November 2009, last Friday (3 days ago) (UTC−6)

F. Your suspicions about User:Afaprof01 were not dead on, however. WP:Civility and common courtesy would seem to warrant an acknowledgment of that fact, and some sort of apology. Afaprof01 (talk)

G User:Historyguy1965, please remove all references in which you name me in false accusation WP:PA. I think an apology is also in order. You jumped to a conclusion which has now been proven false, totally without merit. Afaprof01 (talk) 9:10 pm, 14 November 2009, last Saturday

No, it wasn't "proven false" nor was it "without merit", of all the users I suspected of sock-puppetry almost all were banned. Not only were my accusations legitimate, I still think you were part of it and that those sockpuppets were yours, what are you going to do? Sue me for having an opinion? What you call a "personal attack" is what I call Wikipedia guidelines, my accusations were based off WP:IDART, WP:CHRONO, WP:SIM and WP:SPASOCK. I hate it when people vandalize articles, and as a result of (not only my) suspicions a cowardly sockpuppet had several of his accounts banned. If you feel these suspicians were "personal attacks", then report it to an administrator and let them arbitrate. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 10:28 pm, 14 November 2009, last Saturday (2 days ago (UTC−6)

---

Falsely accusing a well established user of stacking the deck with Sockpuppets is a serious affront. Many readers won't have a clue whether I'm guilty or not, and I'm most certainly not. Please scan Talk:Marriage to see the bullying nature of User:Historyguy1965's postings. I find that offensive and disruptive, especially when he usually ignores facts and rants almost at the level of babel.

I am requesting a censure of User:Historyguy1965 for false accusations of Sockpuppetry and an apology from him. He should be counseled about the obnoxious tone of his retorts and discourtesies to other users.Afaprof01 (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as a censure on Wikipedia. It looks like you've had plenty of direct communication with historyguy (which I applaud you for). You also have already tried multiple times to resolve your issues while third parties discussed. So, you're probably looking for dispute resolution. Likely mediation is your best bet. I can help if you would like. Some suggestions in the mean time ... while you look for the best course of action in mediation, heed the words of third parties, like FisherQueen as an example on his talk page, which, sadly, he outright dismissed. Demanding an apology never works. Also, if you indeed were using sockpuppets in a prohibited way, you might consider letting it drop. In fact you might consider letting the sock-puppet issue drop regardless. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt and empathetic reply. I'm not trying to exact the proverbial "pound of flesh." He has run off other editors of this article with his bodacious threatening bullying manner. That's what I want to stop. He has shown not a whit of anything close to humility, so I have no hope it may come now. This article is largely at a stand-still and a standoff. That's sad. You'll note that I tried WP:Rfc and nothing significant has happened there.

Yes, I will very much appreciate your help, ~a. If you think mediation is the better one to try, I'm up for it. FYI, I was not using sockpuppets in a prohibited way or any other way. I volunteered for a wp:checkuser but was told they saw no need to run it.

What's next, Coach? And THANKS! Afaprof01 (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia Hall of Shame?LOL: The focus here is on the article. While public executions may be a traditional form of entertainment, I'm not really sure they help the intellectual level of the articles. Sometimes identifiable contrib sources, IP or alias, are banned or restricted or specific articles are protected. Although sometimes anonymity leads to vandalism and frivolity, it may be liberating to let data rather than credentials speak. Allowing the benefits of anonymity to become a trap would probably be counterproductive. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. And you're right, I am not nearly so concerned about damages to my pride as I am the hostile, bullying environment he continually creates on the Talk page. What do you recommend? Afaprof01 (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the ambience of the talk page doesn't immediately translate to any content on the main articles. So, the concern here is about attitude and not the ultimate end product, the article. I'm going to stop commenting here largely due to ignorance ( I don't know the wiki policies here ) and disinterest. This forum seems to permit you to ignore personal or irrelevant comments, unless they get to the point of cluttering a discussion. Exchanges can get "dry" without a few personal comments but arguing interminably about words, intent, and other forms of mind reading seems to be a bit of a waste. Until someone just starts editing the main article in apparent disregard for the article and consensus or factual information, it seems to me to be largely irrelevant in this setting. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have watched, and briefly participated in, the talk page discussions. There was indeed some suspicious activity on that page, which by its nature also cast suspicion on you Afaprof01. Noting the suspicion is not a personal attack. In fact the suspicions were partly borne out, though nothing definitively ties Afaprof01 into the socking, and this is clearly noted in the discussion. Afaprof01, I really think you should just consider yourself vindicated and move on. Further accusations of socking from this point forward would be inappropriate IMO. If you're inoccent (and it appears to me you are) then this will never come up again. (And of course, if you're guilty, sooner or later you'll make a mistake in future.) As to the hostile environment, I've dropped Historyguy a note to that regard, and you too need to respect consensus. Franamax (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Franamax, for taking your valuable time to help us up out of this sinkhole (maybe stinkhole). Your note to Historyguy seemed well received, and that is amazing in and of itself. Afaprof01 (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)