Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)

The assistance section of the village pump is used to make requests for assistance with Wikipedia.

If you wish to report vandalism, please go to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism instead.

If you have a specific question to ask, you may go to Wikipedia:Ask a question or MediaWiki Help instead.

« Archives, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Stalking and Harassment

I've got a couple of Wiki admins (User:Ronz and User:Shot info) tag-teaming me to harass and stalk me across several wikis. They are both claiming to do so on the basis of "policy" violations but both of them refuse to follow policy for their actions. They're also engaging in threats as well as accusing other editors of being sockpuppets/meatpuppets in order to justify their actions. They're even removing valid comments from those editors explaining their actions!

Background and current issues

Talk:ITIL v3 and ITIL v3
Talk:Flybd5#More_on_ITIL_v3 and everything below.
Bede BD-5 and Talk:Bede BD-5#Advert_tag and everything below. In particular, look at the comments from other editors complaining about the actions of both User:Ronz and User:Shot info.
Jim Bede for further pattern of stalking and harassment.
Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Flybd5
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.bd5.com

There are several things being done here, aside from following me to my edits and talk pages. The edits are being made to the articles to remove long-standing links and info without any attempt at discussion or consensus. This in and of itself is a pattern of disruption, exacerbated by the placement of advert tags to further inflame the issue (the subject of at least one long comment thread from one other editor pointing out the disruptive nature of that action in this context). Both of these users believe it is their right to make edits without following any sort of policy on the process to make changes.

User:Ronz in particular is continuing a pattern of making accusations of advertising, first alleging the BD-5 Network web site is commercial, when it is not. Then he claims that having an AdSense link makes it commercial, as if now we have to look at every external link on Wikipedia and blow it away if it has a link to an AdSense account. Then he makes accusations of "business relationships" on the basis of a single link I provided to a disabled person who has a small business selling digitized copies of the aircraft's construction plans. It goes on and on, with User:Shot info lecturing everyone on the rules everyone else must follow, except him and User:Ronz.

I want to point out very clearly that I do not have an issue with being challenged on links, etc. but I do have an issue with admins running rooughshod over articles, threatening and attempting to intimidate people, accusing other editors of sockpuppetry and all sorts of other things, all in an attempt to impose their will on the community. This is grossly inappropriate behavior for admins. Flybd5` —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:39, 10 October 2007

If I may comment some more to this point, please note that I too have experienced the tag team harrassment efforts of Ronz and Shot info. The brunt of it comes from Ronz. I have found him to be a bully and a troll. A look through his recent postings on my talk page will show anyone who cares to see the tactics this guy employs. I hope some kind of warning to Ronz and company comes from this posting here. TheDoctorIsIn 01:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you made an RFC about the issue? Adrian M. H. 14:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Define "RFC", please. Flybd5 16:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? RFC. At least it answers my question, and facilitates a suggestion: if the issues are ongoing/current, open an RFC about it. Adrian M. H. 17:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why duplicate the complaint in multiple locations? That seems counterproductive to me. Flybd5 17:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a dispute that involves user conduct, for which RFC is generally the most appropriate venue. Adrian M. H. 18:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flydbd5, if you start an RFC, let me know how I can participate. Ronz has been bullying me for a long time and continues to. I would like to see how the community feels about his uncivil behavior. TheDoctorIsIn 02:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I feel the same way. I support admins making necessary edits to prevent spammers from ruining Wikipedia, but I object to overzealous admins making across the board edits to valid material that belongs in the article. In fact, just as spammers make unnecessary contributions to articles, guys like Ronz do the opposite, they block necessary and pertinent information from being included thereby dumbing down Wikipedia that much more. Ronz has made a number of edits to the Sybian (see discussion) article, and even though several other admins have supported the contributions I have made, he insists that he is right and will not accept any other outcome. Furthermore, when asked to provide support to his arguments for the deletions, he is quick to either change his arguments or he simply dismisses the request. His arrogance can even be summed up with his "Good luck with that" quote -Buttysquirrel 16:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous user blanking talk page

An anonymous user is blanking their talk page to remove evidence of prior edit-warring, etc. See User talk:24.247.215.55. I have reverted it several times but the user continually claims they have the right to do so (even though WP:talk says otherwise). --Rehcsif 04:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:TALK, it says: "On your own user talk page, you may remove comments from others, although archiving is generally preferred and removing comments without any reason is generally regarded as uncivil." And it does not specifically rule out anons. Adrian M. H. 11:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, an IP subject to repeated warnings are not granted the same leeway as an account that has built a reputation making good edits. There are established anon users on stable IPs, but these users tend to adopt courtesies such as discussion archiving on their own accord, not to mention not doing things that result in large numbers of warnings. - Banyan Tree 07:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about this? As far as I'm aware there is no exception and if a user removes content from their talk page, you should not revert. I know last time I asked this was the case and I was even informed that by getting into a revert war with an anon of their talk page, I may be blocked for disruption. For more info check out Wikipedia:Vandalism#Discussion page vandalism which specifically mentions it's not prohibited and also links to the FAQ which mentions the cases where it's come up and in all cases it was decided that removing warnings is not prohibited even if discouraged. Nil Einne 16:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is the argument that it is technically "not" their page because an IP can be bound to many people if it is dynamic. I believe I've seen this happen on arguments between IPs and Administrators, usually ending in a flurry of unblock templates and a protected talk page. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tags removed on unsourced article

This article VampireFreaks.com doesn't show how it would satisfy WP:WEB and use only one primary source as a passing reference (the other reference was the site's own homepage url!). But when tagged for notability and primary sources, tags are just immediately removed. Looks like the article is owned by its self-described community. Some impartial eyeballs would be useful on this. 62.147.39.223 00:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try starting a discussion by explaining your concerns on the discussion. Conversations via revert edit summaries rarely end well. Also, if you think it should go to AFD, take it to AFD. Toothless threats to delete an article are lame. - Banyan Tree 05:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns were clearly explained both by edit summaries quoting WP:WEB and the contents of the tags: This article currently doesn't pass WP:WEB and use only one primary source, an interview of the founder. It's basic policy that doesn't need discussion with a band of meatpuppets sent here by the website. It was already deleted in 2005 as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vampirefreaks when its only claim to notoriety was hosting the profile of the Dawson College shooting killer. Since, it was recreated under a different name to bypass the AFD, and the shooting incident expunged from the article. I'm only a wikignome so I can't make AFDs, but since they don't even want the regular tags or improve their article, I've informed the bypassed AFD's nominator and closing admins. 62.147.38.190 06:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiGnomes can start AFDs, but anons cannot. If you feel strongly enough about it, you'll create an account, which is more anonymous anyways. I still don't see why you think a revert war with "a band of meatpuppets" is going to be productive. - Banyan Tree 07:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to say and I'm saying it

Who said these words?? Please help me out. I'm doing an assignment on JOhn Cage! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.34.57 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try google?--chaser - t 02:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, but I'm just not sure he was the first to say it. It has come to my min that I might be confusing it with Socrate "The only thing I know, is that I know nothing". I've decided not to pursue it anyway. But thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.34.57 (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mindless Merging?

Coming across a particular page, I seem to have encountered a person who is on something of a crusade to merge as many individual tv episode articles into less informative summaries on episode list pages. I see more than a few objections to what he is doing on his talk page as well. While I'm all for improving wikipedia, that really doesn't seem to be his goal.....--Carterhawk 03:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Always assume good faith; this may be a thoroughly-thought-out quest. It could be that this unnamed editor feels that we are getting into an absurd situation, where every episode of every American television show made since circa 1990 is getting its own article; and is on a noble quest to cure this sad mess. --Orange Mike 04:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

I came across this vandal User talk:38.112.113.3. I reverted one instance but there seems to be many more. Could someone else go thru the history and deal with it. Cheers Nil Einne 16:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they have all been dealt with. Adrian M. H. 10:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unwonted sense equal nonsense ?

lets review this edition 24.15.123.48 08:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is unwonted sense? I can see how the section "PCT is interdisciplinary conception" lacked neutrality or can be considered promotional of the theory. I'm less sure about "other early suporters of continuity". Try asking User:Dbachmann for details. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

google books links

Is there some policy on including links to google books in citations (like Bals des victimes does, for instance)? I think I read somewhere that this was forbidden for some reason.P4k 21:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as they provide free book content that helps verify its contents, I see no problem with it, but whether Google is allowed to do it in the first place is a point of contention. At least one of those books mentioned in this particular article is in the public domain, so that shouldn't be a problem regardless of possible copyright issues. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions

1. I recently edited Travis Hansen. After the editing the external links and categories doesn't show on the page (the page isn't categorized on the categories associated). 2.I wont to merge the the articles Gorgias (general) and Gorgias (Syrian general), both discussing the same person. I suggested a merge ages ago, no one complied or any admin obliged. --ArnoldPettybone 20:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Travis Hansen is the closing tag for the reference <ref/> should be </ref>. Keith D 20:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The merge certainly makes sense to me as they are indeed about the same person. So if you want to merge them and no objections have been raised for months, get to it ;-) FYI, suggesting a merge doesn't mean someone will comply nor will an admin usually go do it...usually its the person who proposes the merge who will end up being the one to do it. Check the merge info if you need help on how to do it. From the naming conventions, it seems like Gorgias (general) should be the name used with Gorgias (Syrian general) merged into it and set up as a redirect. Collectonian 20:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finding deleted articles

Hello! Is there any way i can recover a deleted Wikipedia article?

Thanks

please email at [email protected] if you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.64.30 (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles for further instructions. I have removed your email address and Wikipedia content is mirrored in many sites, making your address *very* public. - Banyan Tree 10:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need help on figuring out the extent of OR

I'm currently in a discussion with a user to figure out what parts of an article constitute as OR, and what doesn't. If I'm posting this in the wrong place, please let me know and I'll move it. Questions we have:

If you have a report ranking different companies from a site like Consumer Reports and the Wiki article makes a claim such as "(company) has the lowest ranked scores in categories X, Y, and Z", is that OR?
Does cherry picking parts of a report to make a point count as OR?
If a report lists the number of complaints for a number of companies and the Wiki article says "Company X has the most complaints" and cites the report, is that OR?

Thanks. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 06:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If done exactly as written here, then I would tend to say that no, none of those are examples of original research. They are examples of ways of summarizing a source and all three seem like common practices that might be used in an article. Now, if the author used the report as a source, but then added their own opinion or they tried to incorporate additional material from another source to create a different view from either source, that would be original research. I took a peek at your contribs and saw the issue at hand (boy what a mess). From what I read and from looking at the article, the main issue is not so much one of original research but a lack of a neutral point of view (which option 2 can result in a violation of, depending on how it is done) and a complete lack of balance in the article. Collectonian 06:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, alright. Yeah, that article is a mess. I gave a third opinion, and look what I walked into... but then again, stuff like this helps people understand Wiki principles better. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If in 2, you cherry pick to make a point that wasn't made in the report, I'd consider it OR or perhaps even a violation of WP:POINT. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's what I thought. I guess I'm just not sure of where the line between summarizing ends, and where OR begins. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the contributors of the Farmers web site. I am just summarizing the Dept of Insurance complaint reports as done in this article Farmers Most Complaints in WA State. Note that in the article they don't go add rations and what have you, they cite the number of complaints only. Obviously I would not consider this OR. Router 15:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Which one would be more notable? A 1.2km high mountain or an organization on the other side of the planet? How about an ethnicity? -- Cat ^chi? 19:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that's in the eyes of the beholder, Cat. A 1.2km (4000ish feet) mountain in the middle of Utah might not be worth writing home about, while Mount Vesuvius is about the same height and is quite notable. Someone standing at the base of that volcano might not think the NAACP is very notable but they are indeed quite notable in the US (and thus in Utah). What are you trying to prove? Ethnicity is usually a notable subject.--Eplack 22:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

I've noticed the policy discouraging trivia, but what about definitions and terminology? I was reading the article on Geocoins and found the terminology section to be fairly dry and wanted to improve it. What is the policy regarding this? --Eplack 21:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that section is pretty dry. Certainly terms like HTF and VHTF don't need to be on there. It seems like a section on coin production could be pieced together, but the rest seems a bit excessive. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 14:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think I will just remove the section and recommend that this kind of content belongs outside the realm of Wikipedia, such as on a personal webpage. It could be added to the links at the bottom of the page then. --Eplack 07:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verfiability

Do we have a page somewhere to request help from fellow editors to find sources for statements in an article? I can't find anything on Cat Fletcher, Carmelo Torres, and Miriam Fletcher... the main author, User:Cartof, appears to think all is fine.[1] He also claims to be Cat Fletcher himself.[2] I'm ready to believe him, but the problem is that I cannot find any independent confirmation for these three articles. But then, I'm not particularly well-versed in Venezuelan culture... Could anyone help, please? Lupo 13:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC) (Also posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela; further discussion at the talk pages of these articles, please. Oh, and if we do have such a request page (other than this one), please tell me on my talk page.)[reply]

Over-imaging of an article??

I recently saw an editor remove a great number of Wiki links from an article and his stated reason was "over-linking". I totally agree with what he did because someone had linked almost every word in the article.

Taking a cue from the above, is there such a thing as over-imaging an article (meaning adding too many photographs)?? Achim has added 5 photographs to the Piping article which had only one photo before his additions ... and I might add that, in my opinion, some of the five are quite poor.

The article now has 6 photos, which I think is too darn many. It is not vandalism ... but it is over-imaging. Can anything be done about this? I have looked at Achim's Talk page and it looks as if it would be quite difficult to try reasoning with him. Please help. - mbeychok 03:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there such a think as over-imaging? Without a doubt! I recently cleaned up the meerkat article which had TEN different pictures! The pictures were longer than the article almost. In the case of that article, I'd also agree and say that it seems like an excessive number of pictures for the article. It doesn't really seem like they all add to the article or are relevant to the sections they are in. Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Images goes into appropriate image use and has a few suggestions for dealing with excessive images. Maybe point the editor there and hack away? Collectonian 04:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is particularly bad for articles like cat, where everyone seems to feel that a picture of their cat is encyclopedic, but can happen in nearly any article where people are spoiled for image choice. I figure galleries should be deprecated as being warehouses for multiple similar images with uninformative captions and {{Commons}} used in nearly all cases. The one exception I make for image glut is for stubs of locations, where there may be a both a map and a photo of the place that go longer than the text. I figure that this is acceptable, if not ideal. - Banyan Tree 20:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help us spread knowledge worldwide. Donate to Wikipedia!

How can I put this message on the catalan Wikipedia? Pérez 07:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There should be information here but I can't find it. Perhaps the English Wikipedia is only a test? x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sugarcane - why was its article deleted?

It's gone! sugarcane - even its botanical name saccharum (which was a redirect to the former). Can someone restore it? Thanks. Peter1968 10:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki edit

I've just received the following request: "can you please change the content in MediaWiki:Sharedupload/no to the following: {{subst:User:H92/Commons}}, and when you’re done, delete User:H92/Commons". It's easy to do, and I would've been done by now. However I'm not familiar with the MediaWiki pages, so I thought I should err on the side of caution and ask here first. Thank you. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Patrick 17:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I meant to do it myself, I just wanted to make sure it was OK. But thanks again. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images with logo embedded

I can't seem to find where to point out two images have a company logo (three flags) in them. Image:Image733.jpg Image:Image1214.JPG (SEWilco 04:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia:Copyright_problems lists the process, in the instructions section, for tagging the images as possible copyright violations if you think the person has uploaded them under a false claim of ownership. Collectonian 04:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I think the user represents the company so I'm not questioning the license or copyright. I saw mention someplace about marks in images, but no mention of how to report them. (SEWilco 15:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Reporting Harrasment and Trolling

I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this but a member - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ioeth#Listen_here_sonny - has been harrasing me. User:Ioeth continues to talk to me in template form and assumes bad faith about me as well as being incivil towards me. He refuses to talk our grievances through. MagicMons 13:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When investigating this matter, please be sure to review contributions of both users. Thanks! --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 13:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like MagicMons has been removing the afd template and blanking out portions of the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conference Theory, in violation of Wikipedia policy, and has not reacted helpfully to being corrected by Ioeth. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You ought to check the definition of trolling; using standard warning templates to deal with unacceptable editing behaviour such as removing discussion comments is neither trolling nor uncivil. Have a look at WP:WARN for more info. Incidentally, AFD discussions are not votes. Adrian M. H. 14:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]