Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 127

Finding a review of proposed edit

I'm trying to follow the steps under Wikipedia:Responding to a failure to discuss, but I haven't succeeded in step 2, getting my proposed edits reviewed. Can anyone suggest what I should do next? Shopping around a bunch of forums looking for a response seems a bit impolite. HLHJ (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

What edit are you concerned about? Where is the attempted talk page discussion where you're not getting a response? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor TransporterMan:, the edit is at User:HLHJ/sandbox/Sugar industry funding and health information; the discussion is linked from it. Sorry, I don't want to bring a dispute up here, I know it's not the forum, I just want a critique of my proposed edit so that I can recognize and fix its problems. HLHJ (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Responding to a failure to discuss isn't really intended to apply to text in the draft stage. That essay is intended to set up a situation where an administrator might become upset that you're trying to make a reasonable edit to an article, get reverted or opposed on the talk page, and then the reverter/opposer won't discuss it which leads to an application for dispute resolution being rejected. Unlike an edit to an article, or a proposal on an article talk page, it's very unlikely that administrators will become peeved about other editors not wanting to contribute to or critique a sandbox draft. I think that you're going to have to actually either publish the material into mainspace or, at the very least, propose doing so on the article talk page. If that doesn't work and you can't get any discussion, then the essay may apply (but remember that it's only an essay). (I realize this came out of Talk:Sugar#Funding_of_health_research which ended over a year ago, but if you can't get any discussion about it now then it's not an unfair assumption to presume that the other editor has lost interest. Once again, the next step is to go public with it.) As for policy compliance, I'm afraid that the proposal is too complex for any good review of that. The thing that immediately comes to my mind is whether it really fits on Sugar since it's really about the sugar industry not the substance. It should, perhaps, be a standalone article. Or maybe not. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor TransporterMan: Thank you for the quick answer. I'm sorry, I haven't understood something in your response. The discussion at Talk:Sugar#Funding_of_health_research started two months ago, and I last edited it about three weeks ago. I'm not sure what you are referring to as having ended over a year ago.

I originally posted similar material into the mainspace; the draft is an possibly ill-considered attempt to improve the content outside the mainspace in order to get consensus on putting it back there. In the course of my trying to improve it, the section expanded rather, and it may, as you say, be too long and/offtopic for the article.

I would have no objection to creating the standalone article you suggest; I suggested this too, but it did not meet with approval or comment. As most of the issues raised with the content I'd like to add are about its quality, going ahead and posting it as a standalone article seems a bit like edit warring. I mean, if I'd only had complaints that it was not suited to the scope of the sugar article, it would be reasonable to assume that there were no objections to my putting the material elsewhere, but the complaints are mainly that the content is unfit for the mainspace. I'd like to be sure that it does not have problems with WP:OR, WP:MEDRS, editorializing, being opinion, WP:SOAP, and containing insufficiently extensive evidence for the generalizations it makes; my POV and balance could probably do with checking, too. Should I be notifying anyone of this discussion, as a courtesy? HLHJ (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You're right about the date: I misread it; saw 2018 and thought 2017. Getting old is a burden (but better than the alternative, as they say). If you're done with your draft, I'd suggest cleaning up your sandbox page to just the exact text you want to introduce into the article, then re-proposing it on the article talk page by cutting-and-pasting it there, perhaps in a text box. You can create one with this syntax, with each element on a separate line beginning at the left margin:

{|style = "border:thin dashed red; margin:0 5% 0 5%"
|[Put your text here]
[More text]
[More text]
|}

Get some discussion and if you don't get much, consider filing a Request for Comments. For longish additions such as this, RFC often works out better than the other dispute resolution processes. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Belated thanks, TransporterMan, that is really useful advice. I would not have thought of that, but in retrospect I have no idea why not. I'll have a go at it. HLHJ (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Creation of Article

Hii, I would like to create this article on this Company Named Novotech Australia Pty Limited (https://novotech-cro.com/). I request administrator's permission to write this article. I also request protection of this article from getting vandalized or tagged for speedy deletion.Veilplot (talk) 10:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Create and edit a draft article in your own userspace or draft space (such as User:Veilplot/Novotech or Draft:Novotech Australia Pty Limited). Then ask for it to be reviewed, and then you or a reviewer can ask for it to be moved to mainspace. That title was locked because editors including you kept recreating it after deletion. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Irish abortion referendum's unintended consequences

Hello. I've been reading the WP article about the pending 36th amendment bill and it occurred to me that the deletion of the 13th amendment may have the effect of throwing the baby out with the bathwater (no pun intended). I mean, the new clause provides for the regulation of abortion in general, not only inside Ireland. So in case of a hardline conservative parliamentary landslide the Oireachtas will technically be able to pass laws limiting foreign travel for expectant mothers and/or envisioning criminal punishment for procuring abortions overseas & assisting women in such procurement. So, could anyone point me to a reliable-source article examining this potential problem which could be used to expand the article on the pending bill? --Синкретик (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

If there are no such articles, then you've just got speculation and original research there. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Attempting dispute resolution with editor who is not responding

There is an editor making edits to the Miniso article which I believe violates WP:NPOV. I have listed the reasons why on the article's talk page, and left multiple invitations on the editor's talk page asking to please engage in a discussion. I have never encountered an editor who ignores repeated requests to engage in discussion. I'm not sure what the next step should be, and I'm asking here for help. Thanks, --haha169 (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I gave him a block for edit warring. He was given enough notices that he should have figured it out. Hopefully this gets his attention. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! --haha169 (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Logo Update

Hello! I am looking to update our company logo to our current one, however, I do not have a confirmed account. Is anyone able to assist with this? For some reason when I try to upload the logo in this thread, it says there's an error. Any idea as to successfully upload it to this thread? I've included a link to our company page below. Thanks so much !

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_Distribution — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfrasier11 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

can an editor who requests an RfC also close it?

If an editor starts an RfC, can that same editor close it, per WP:RFCEND? I have gotten some puzzling pushback (see 3 June activity). -- Oa01 (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It's ambiguous. If discussion has begun and other editors have weighed in, an attempt by the filing editor to withdraw it usually is okay with the other editors, but since nothing here is "owned" by any one editor, an editor who wants to keep the RFC going could certainly take it over from the filing editor. The filing editor could strikeout his original request or post a notice that s/he's no longer going to participate, but just based on how this place works, I don't think that there's an absolute right withdraw or close it. That's just my opinion, however. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Oa01: How is the second RFC you started materially different from this first one? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: The first RfC was about image licensing; the second is about choice of imagery. -- Oa01 (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I would say that while it may be technically permissible to close one's own RfC, if it has received any level of significant feedback, doing so may be considered "bad form", especially if the opening and closing editor leaves a summary that the participating editors don't feel is a reasonable summation. Stating a desire to withdraw the RfC without formally closing it is probably more advisable. DonIago (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Doniago, NeilN, and TransporterMan: Thanks. -- Oa01 (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

White House Scandals list Missing

Hi You guys had a list on wikki White House Scandals list. It showed all the Scandals for each administration. Somebody’s deleted it and put federal scandals instead. It is not as informative or helpful. Can you replace the one that’s missing. Also Wall Street Scandals by Administration or and years. Thanks some right winger probably buried the information. MF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.194.249 (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I can find no sign of a White House Scandals list. There is no relevant deleted page with "White House" in the title. We currently have List of federal political scandals in the United States. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

GlassQube Coworking

Answered

GlassQube Coworking is a co-working space in Abu Dhabi

References

To request an article go here and carefully follow the instructions. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Help review page below

I recently read Kaihan Krippendorff's book and think he should have a page.

Info sourced from Florida Internatioal University Business School page CV of Krippendorff along with other 3rd party sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Slotmachiner/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slotmachiner (talk • contribs) 18:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Slotmachiner: See WP:NOTRESUME and WP:NOTPROMO for why I just deleted that page.

If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything, here's the steps you should follow:

1) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.

2) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

3) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.

4) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.

5) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.

6) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

7) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson can you revert so I can copy and paste just to have the content outline I would like to search for in journals, etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slotmachiner (talk • contribs) 18:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Slotmachiner: I could, but the best case scenario is that what you wrote would be useless toward creating a legitimate article. Using any part of the old draft, whether it's sources or prose, would only increase the chances of the draft being deleted again. Follow the instructions I gave (find independent sources and summarize those) and you'll end up with an article that won't be deleted. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Pfauggh! I just examined the deleted version; and the quicker you forget that piece of promotional crap, the better. It reads as if it was written by a PR agency, or a press agent for a speakers' bureau. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

A mistake in a file name

the name of the image linked below should not "karengghar of the ahom kings". It should "talatal ghar of the ahom kings". because this was not karengghar shown by this image.223.179.225.110 (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC) the link is- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kareng_Ghar_2.JPG

That file is actually hosted on Wikimedia Commons, not on English Wikipedia. English Wikipedia has no jurisdiction over matters at Commons. You should put your request on the talk page of the image there, stating clearly not only the fact that you think it needs to be changed but also the evidence to support your belief (such as a link to a map showing the correct identification). Click here to go to that page (which you'll have to start since no one else has started it). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Are United States municipal fencing regulations potentially unconstitutional measures designed to outlaw being secretive from one's neighbors?

Many local jurisdictions in the United States have fencing regulations that include fencing height limits. AFAIK the limits on perimeter fences are considered to be designed to protect the owner's neighbors from unwanted shade, the limits on front yard fences are considered to be designed to keep drivers' sightlines clear.

However, given that fencing one's property is frowned upon in the US, are there any reliable sources claiming that some of the fencing regulations are a remnant of public-morality legislation which could possibly be unconstitutional under the privacy doctrine (I googled but couldn't find any)? After all, how can a high front-yard fence on a long straight street be obstructing drivers' view or give the neighbors unwanted shade? --185.147.82.209 (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

This calls for speculation; see our rules against original research. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Help editing inaccurate page

The page http://www.nbcolympics.com/news/us-short-track-skater-allison-baver-announces-retirement is outdated and therefore now inaccurate. I have tried editing the page myself but all edits have been reversed. I have links I can provide to show the information is outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibo1993 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Tibo1993 We can't edit pages which are not from Wikipedia. MB190417 (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I own copyright for a picture but this is not being recognized

Hello. I represent Ms Helen Clark, former Prime Minister of New Zealand and Member of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, where I work as Communications Officer. She has requested me to remove the picture that is currently on her Wikipedia profile in English, as it is an unsanctioned picture. I tried uploading her official picture, but was then blocked by one of your zealous administrators for copyright enfringement. I wrote to explain, but now i see that the old UNSANCTIONED picture is back up. No exchange, no deliberation, no consideration nothing. Please explain to me how I am suppose to defend my rights, when your administrators blindly apply rules, of which we have no insight (since I DO HAVE THE COPY RIGHT FOR THIS PICTURE). How come someone else uploads a picture of Ms Clark which she has not accepted, and yet I cannot do so AT HER EXPRESS REQUEST. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1205:5058:9BC0:D841:AF91:E8B7:D506 (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

EricGCDP: Wikipedia is not at all concerned about your, or Ms Clark's, wishes. Indeed, as you have a conflict of interest, your opinions about the Helen Clark article count for less than those of other editors. Wikipedia is however concerned about copyright law. The picture which you uploaded, File:Helen_Clark_official_photo.jpg , has been tagged "This media file is missing evidence of permission. It may have an author and a source, but there is no proof that the author agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide evidence of permission by either providing a link to a site with an explicit release under a free license or by sending a declaration of consent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org". Until such evidence is provided, it should not be used in any article.

The picture currently in the article is hosted at Wikipedia Commons, where they're even stricter about copyright law than we are here. It is tagged "This image, originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on 26 June 2010 by the administrator or reviewer Bsadowski1, who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the stated license on that date."

If you do go through the (rather tedious) process of proving that you are the copyright holder of your preferred image, it would make sense to do so at Wikimedia Commons, rather than here at English Wikipedia. That way, your image could be used in the 80-odd other Wikipedia articles that currently use the "unsanctioned" image. Maproom (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Guidance to improve data in a draft

Hello

I have recently created a draft for a company that I work with. I have followed other published pages of similar companies and tried to have the same tone as them and to make it as informative as possible, though my submission has been declined. I understand Wikipedia norms and need help to improve my article so I can publish it.

Draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cuemath

I also need help to understand that if I am creating a page on behalf of my company then how can I use the logo. What measures I need to take to make it legitimate.

Please note I am totally novice at writing HTML, I am learning and will try to get the best out of it. I have a comment on the draft to cleanup reference tags, that I am already working on, though I still would need help in language/content.

Awaiting positive response.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmolcuemath (talk • contribs) 03:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Anmolcuemath: for starters, you'll want to read WP:NOTPROMO and WP:COI. We are not here for you to promote your business on. The articles on other companies were written by people who have no connection to those companies.

If you're going to write an article about something else, here's the steps you should follow:

1) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.

2) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

3) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.

4) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.

5) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism. Make sure that everything is written such that someone who hates the subject would still agree.

6) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

7) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking for the LGBT Wikipedia editors group also is there such a group for Canadian content?

Hi, When I had a problem before,I appealed for help from the LGBT Wikipedia editors group. How do I go about finding them again?

Thanks. Tews~enwiki (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you looking for WikiProject LGBT studies? Your contribution history shows that you've posted there before. Also see WikiProject Canada. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to thank you 'TransporterMan' for your help.

ALSO. I'm looking for the anti-harrassment group on wikipedia.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tews~enwiki (talk • contribs) 16:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome, but I'm not sure what you mean about the anti-harassment group. If you're referring to a wikiproject (i.e. special interest group) focusing on harassment as an encyclopedia topic, I'm unfamiliar with such a group. If you're referring to how we deal with harassment within Wikipedia, there's not a group per se for that, but we have a Harassment policy (with several subpolicies/guidelines linked therein). If you feel that you or someone else is being harassed, start by reading the policy and if you feel like the conduct violates the policy, follow the instructions in the "Dealing with harassment" section there. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Family info

How do you put in a request to change family info? I’ve noticed incorrect family info for a wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B06B:40B6:C967:A233:D0DB:4C0 (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

You can make an edit request on the article's talk page. Be sure to cite a professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic source, especially for any claims about living persons. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC neutral wording check

Which would be the best way or place to request an check of the neutrality of the wording of an RfC?

Thanks, Batternut (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Links to Wiki pages

Hello

I have been adding content to some Nazi party members, mainly regarding, but not exclusively, awards and decorations. Some of the figures do not even have a section on this and I have created some and added to others that already exist. I have had content deleted by certain editors who claim that the awards and/or decorations are "trivial", in their words. I have asked about this on the relevant talk pages and on my own talk page to no avail. My issue is, if there is a stand-alone wiki page regarding a certain award or decoration, why am I not allowed to add a link to that wiki page? I have repeatedly had my added content, with the appropriate link to the relevant wiki page, deleted and been told that those awards are "trivial". I don't understand why a wiki page is allowed to be here, but I am not allowed to link to it? What is the point of having a wiki page about something, but I am not allowed to link to it? I have repeatedly asked for unambiguous guidelines as to what is a "trivial" award, and what is not. This way I won't incur the wrath of an aggressive editor telling me I am not to make use of that particular page with a link in my added content. How am I supposed to know what these particular editors consider "trivial" or not? I'm not a mind reader, they won't give me clear lists of unacceptable linked pages, what should I do? I don't understand why these editors don't also delete the relevant wiki pages since I am not allowed to link to them, since they are, in their opinion, "trivial". I have had other editors tell me that they don't consider them trivial, but these two do.

Should I not bother to add content any more unless I get their permission? I'm honestly at a loss here, and am seeking genuine help about what course of action I should take. It happened again yesterday, I added links to some wiki pages and had them deleted and received a very aggressive warning over it. Yet the ones that were deleted yesterday were not the ones that were deleted on previous occasions, so again, how am I to know what wiki pages are acceptable to them and what aren't unless I just try adding those links and see what happens? I wouldn't have to do that if I had a clear list of what wiki pages these editors will allow a link to and what they will not allow a link to. I'm further confused because some of the ones that were deleted yesterday have been allowed to stand unchallenged on other pages. Why is it ok to have these links on some pages but not others? Surely it should be a blanket ruling, rather than whatever takes some editors fancy? If I'm doing something wrong on one page by providing links to another wiki page, why should they be allowed on other pages? There is no consistency here that I can see. I've asked politely for guidance and have been met with hostility and ambiguity. Either a wiki article is acceptable or it's not, surely? I'm quite happy for someone to explain why it's ok sometimes and not others, or not at all. It's very frustrating and makes me wonder why I bother, or is that the point of the actions of these two editors?

Thank you and I apologise if this is the wrong place to ask Troy von Tempest (talk) 06:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I would think a discussion at the article talk page would help. Let's start with Ernst Röhm, being the latest disputed article. I have just started the discussion now. Batternut (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, if you have a dispute with one other editor, you can ask for a third opinion at Wikipedia:Third opinion. My own take is, if an award is notable enough to merit a stand-alone article, then there should be no controversy about mentioning the award in any article we have on a person who earned the award. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Editing Springfield_(The_Simpsons)

Hello to everyone. I wished to publish on the page [[1]] the results of my study that show off in a definitive way where is located the Simpsons Springfield City. Doing that I have being reverted a couple of time. First time was told me that content was [[2]] then when I added the correct reference citing the source (my official post where all that is explained) I was told that I felt in a "Edit warring".

Well I have never believe that to publish a news was going to be so frustrating and tough. My intention was just to report a news.

Can someone please help me, to correctly publish what I found out through my post?

Thanks V.L. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincenzo Lanzaro (talk • contribs) 08:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Vincenzo Lanzaro: It seems to be original research performed by you. Wikipedia is not intended to publish original research. It depends on information published in reliable, sources. Your contributions appear to fail that criterion. Sorry. Kleuske (talk) 08:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Accused of "vandalism", edits reverted?

Hi – For some reason, the user NinjaRobotPirate decided my well-meaning edits to the Andy Samberg article were "vandalism" and reverted them. I'm baffled, and somewhat hurt that anyone here would consider my intentions anything but positive. Is NinjaRobotPirate actually some kind of WP officer with the responsibility of reverting icky edits? Or are they just a fellow WP contributor with a different style and, apparently, a passion for frontier justice? (Okay, I'm being dramatic—I grew up in Hollywood.) Is there some way to appeal this surprising judgment? Am I doing it now? Thanks – AndyFielding (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@AndyFielding: No, it's not vandalism, you were trying to do the right thing. The problem is that the notorious phrase "best known for" has seen huge amounts of arguing over in the past, and is best avoided. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Um, yes it was vandalism. Andy was changing Trump to Drumpf [3]. This could have been unintentional. Andy, do you have the Drumpf browser extension installed, or might you have been using a computer that day that had it installed? Someguy1221 (talk) 10:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: "This could have been unintentional." Right, and vandalism is making Wikipedia worse deliberately. User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to vandalism has more. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey guys—thanks for your input!

@Ritchie333:: I wasn't aware of the controversy around "best known for...". In fact, when I repeatedly see certain phrases and formats here, I assume they're preferred and that I should follow suit. And because Andy (that is, the other one) is unquestionably best-known for his [Peralta] role, it seemed like a good idea to cite it that way. So I guess I'm a victim of my own good intentions. However, ignorance is no excuse.

@Someguy1221:: Yes, I indeed had the Chrome "Drumphinator" extension installed, and someone had already alerted me to the problems it causes here (see [Talk page]). Normally, I'd disable it before coming anywhere near WP—but this time, I forgot. Had I actually seen the relevant surname anywhere on the Andy Samberg page, or had any reason to think it might be there (which I didn't), I would've twigged in time. To avoid further lapses, I've uninstalled the extension, and will put up with seeing our adolescent in commander in chief's true name when necessary.

Finally, for what it's worth:

• I'm a HUGE B99 fan. My son and his girlfriend told me about the show only a few weeks ago, and I'm already into Season 5. Terry loves yogurt!
  
• Like Charles on the show, there's no way I'd ever sabotage any WP article. IMHO, anyone who'd do such a lame thing, then lie about it, must be even less moral and more desperate for attention than, say, a certain unnamed president (and if you know who that is, it says a lot, doesn't it?). – AndyFielding (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate said in both the revert edit summary [4] and the user warning [5] that the vandalism accusation was based on the Drumpf change. It wasn't actually vandalism but it looks a lot like vandalism to users who don't know there is a browser feature doing this. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:ABI-009

Hello there!

We have an updated version of a page published, taking into account previous notes/feedback.

The page is this one: Draft:ABI-009

We are wondering whats next? do we need to do anything else, etc? or, when can we expect approval?

Thank you for your help!!

EspressoHealth (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Anita

For a start, you should remove:

• the title of the lead section. Wikipedia guidelines require the lead section to have no title
• almost all the boldface, which is also against guidelines, and make the draft hard to read
• all the direct external links, which should be entirely avoided in Wikipedia articles
• the promotional, irrelevant, and unreferenced section "About the Company". The draft should be about its subject.

Maproom (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I've done most of the above for you. But you'll need to actually cite the references, rather than using little superscript numbers that don't link to anything. See e.g. Help:Referencing for beginners. Maproom (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@EspressoHealth: Hello Anita, I have also restored the deleted draft history including a "Resubmit" button on top. This information about previous reviews will usually be removed by the reviewing volunteer, once the draft has been finalized and published. Please note that the draft is not under review, unless you resubmit it again with this button. But as Maproom mentioned above: you should convert the current referencing into a WP:REFB-compliant syntax first. I also noticed that some paragraphs have no inline references yet - missing references for these parts should also be added. Hope this helps a bit, but please feel free to ask here or at WP:Teahouse if you have any further questions. GermanJoe (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@GermanJoe - THANK you very much! Removed the top section, can you please look and advise if this current version ready for submission, in your VERY smart and knowledgeable opinion? :- )

21:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Anita — Preceding unsigned comment added by EspressoHealth (talk • contribs)

@EspressoHealth:, just my (average editor) opinion, but the draft is not ready for submission unfortunately. You haven't followed any of the given advice though - please click on the blue link here to access additional information about Wikipedia's referencing. To evaluate the medical content in more detail from a scientific perspective, it would be better if you'd ask knowledgeable topic experts at WT:MED (the talkpage of WikiProject Medicine). I noticed that one of the previous reviewers already made this suggestion, and it would be a good way to gather additional feedback. But of course this is only a suggestion. GermanJoe (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@EspressoHealth:I'm sorry to say that this is not an article worth creating. At best, if other editors are in favour, it may supply a sentence or two for the article Sirolimus. Most of the text is un-necessary duplication of information in various other articles. The unique information does not appear to be suitable for an encyclopedia; it relies on links to clinicaltrials.gov for records of trials that have not yet reported. These are not the published secondary sources that Wikipedia:MEDRS requires. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Seeking someone experienced to discuss an issue with

Unfortunately, I'm involved in a disagreement with another editor about the plurality of the word "autocannon". We had a big argument about it back in 2015 and I thought it had been resolved in a compromise, but now he's saying he has no recollection of any agreement, and he wants the issue "re-litigated" as he called it. Without going into details about the 2015 argument, I'm primarily looking for someone I can informally discuss the matter with, advise me on the best way to proceed, and possibly look over drafts before I officially post it up. I want to do a better job than last time and while I wish I wasn't so strongly emotional about it, I am nonetheless. I thought it wise to seek help from those much more familiar with Wikipedia procedures and politics than I. To clarify, I am not immediately looking for dispute resolution. I mostly would like to discuss the situation with someone and go over what I will then put on a talk page. Thank you in advance. --Trifler (talk) 11:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Trinity Issue with an "also referred to as" phrase in an article. a couple of users insist in not to use talk page but to revert.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

the article Trinity is an article about a Christian theology, therefore it is an article about religion. the term Trinity is also officially referred to as Holy Trinity, therefore the line "also referred to as the Holy Trinity" was added. Not before a lengthy discussion in the section Talk:Trinity#Rename_to_Holy_Trinity saw the establishment of the terms "Blessed Trinity" "Holy Trinity" "Trinity" as of equal meaning but different form, therefore a concensus on something had already been established as per the references.
the line "also referred to as the Holy Trinity" was introduced with a corresponding (and already used) talk page entry (Talk:Trinity#The_various_terms_used_to_reference_Doctrine/Mystery_the_article_focuses_on) with the revision [6]. The users O3000 and User_talk:MjolnirPants have reverted the edit without making use of proper arguments in the aforementioned talk page section. What's more I was received with blatant profanity in the talk section of one of the users [7]. Before, a similar edit had been introduced with several "also referred to as" it was discouraged because they were deemed too many, also the references were pointing to a same religious congregation when the article is multi-confessional, therefore a shrinked to one "also referred to as" statement and rferenced the needed phrase with references from several religious movements so I'm compliant with neutral point of view. The users mentioned seem to be of areligious (namely atheism) as exposed in one of the user's talk page. The article does not contain an atheism view on the subject, and even if it did, the: "Trinity" "also referred to as the Holy Trinity" phrase would be needed as it is the term favored by religious congregations as noted by references in the Talk Page. Please weigh in as the user User_talk:MjolnirPants insists in not using the talk page but the revert button. The referrenced edit has been reverted again by User:Beyond_My_Ken with no proper argument given just citing WP:CONSENSUS. but the problem is consensus on the existence of several terms had been reached, and the talk entry page where the reference are there for the people to see is left untouched, a simple reversion. Thanks.

I also added an entry to the Administrator's noticeboards/Incidents [8] The board that applies better should be this one as it is just a "also referred to as" phrase. But I'm also posting it there since it is content related. Thanks.

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editing the artice "Comparison of photogrammetry software"

Hello, another user by the name "The Banner" keeps deleting softwares in this list by the argument that "non notable" softwares should not be in the list. I disagree and think that all available softwares that have an article or not should be in this list because it does provide a lot of information and it has helped me alot. Even having the names is beneficial for those doing research, and enables looking for more information. Where to have such a list if not in Wikipedia? The list is not perfect and needs to be refined but removing dozens of softwares outright I think is wrong.

Im am not an expert user and I seek help. I hope this is the correct way to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kereplaz (talk • contribs) 09:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

This is about this article: Comparison of photogrammetry software where Kereplaz by edits like this is adding a long list of programs WITHOUT an article (red links). The Banner talk 09:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kereplaz: the guideline for such list inclusions can be found at WP:CSC. The removed entries without an article or any evidence of notability didn't meet this guideline: "notable" entries in Wikipedia's sense of the term should already have a sourced Wikipedia article or atleast some independent reliable sources with detailed coverage about the respective software (self-published information or PR publications are not sufficient). A quick additional tip: article-related issues, questions and suggestions are usually discussed at the article's talkpage (Talk:Comparison_of_photogrammetry_software), where other interested editors can offer additional feedback. Hope this helps a bit to clarify these removals. GermanJoe (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank You for the reply. I figured there were only couple of us so I looked for outside help. I do understand the guidelines but is there no possibility that this list should be treated as an article itself? If the list contains factual information about the softwares, it is a factual, objective piece of information. Its is irrelevant by whom the information was entered as long as it is true. Frankly theres no other place on the internet to find such an extensive albeit flawed list on this particular topic. Again I agree it should be refined, but the notability requirement actually hurts the overall amount of information and people seeking it. Please tell my im not the only one that sees this, list in itself is by definition objective (as long as its fully factual), objective info is what Wikipedia is for. - Kereplaz Kereplaz —Preceding undated comment added 09:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, that's not what Wikipedia is for (Maybe gain some insight from WP:NOT). Wikipedia is meant to be a repository of information, but not all information, and many limitations have been delineated on that page I linked. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

"Lincoln Yards" redirect

The is a wiki page called "Lincoln Yards" that redirects to "A. Finkl & Sons Steel". What I have done is created a new page called "Lincoln Yards (North Side)" from which I took information out from the "A. Finkl & Sons Steel" page and added that to the new "Lincoln Yards (North Side)" page along with new information since it is more relevant in the new page. If possible, can you stop the redirect to the "A. Finkl & Sons Steel" page so that I can rename the new "Lincoln Yards (North Side)" page as "Lincoln Yards"? Thank You.

Roberto221 (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

to upload without being autoconfirmed

Answered

Please can you upload my brief, factual, oprofessorial bio as I am unconfirmed and the site says Upload to Wiki Commons instead but it was removed as academic bios are out of scfope. can you help please as I have failed in making edits to meet the required 10.Thank yiou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnQoLAge (talk • contribs) 13:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

If you're talking about User:AnnQoLAge/sandbox then put this code, including the curly brackets, at the top of the page on a line by itself and save it: {{Userspace draft}} Then click the blue "Submit your draft for review" button in the text that will appear. Be certain that your draft is exactly like you want it to be in the encyclopedia before clicking the button. Someone will review your draft. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

request for speedy deletion nomination

I mistakingly created an article titled Journey2 ( 2016 film) that's not needed any longer after some research made or it's irrelevant, you better delete it. Crispgatoglitz (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Crispgatoglitz: I've deleted it. In the future, you can put {{db-self}} on the page if you're the only editor to have added actual content (not just merge templates or something like that). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

inaccurate adjective in precis

Answered

To whom it may concern,

In the article regarding Britain First, it is described as a 'fascist' organisation. Bearing in mind that there is great fluidity, according to whom one talks to, of political terms, even so the word is not correct. Being patriotic and supporting one's own culture, democracy and the rule of law for all hardly counts as fascism.

Fascists ignore inconvenient facts in order to pursue their aims, BF points out reality and asks our democratic system to fix problems. It does not go about hounding people into ghettos and murdering them using secret police.

You really ought to remove this highly inaccurate adjective.

S A Longden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.164.59 (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

First, the proper place for this request is Talk:Britain First, which is the designated spot for discussion about that article. Second, this has recently been discussed at length there, so you might want to join in that discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Communion and Liberation

Communion and Liberation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi everyone, the Communion and Liberation English Wikipedia was edited by many different editors on the last month, but the current edit warring is over by the same behevior by many new users (19-25 July Wikipedia registrations) that has the same content replacement with text with no reliable and independent sources making the article a very advertising tone. I won't edit the page because I'm still respecting the advice for the current edit warring and I opened this sockpuppet investingation ticket but I think maybe it's not enough. Many different Italian newspapers like La Stampa and La Repubblica handle Communion and Liberation members behevior like an advocacy or pressure group that is know in Italy for many bribery and fraud style approach in private and public companies. I know that it's also a catholic lay community, but it's very common for a lot of Italian managers to partecipate to their meetings to just create lobby businesses. Just a very quick check to this to understand the relevance of this phenomena. My personal opinion it's that not an original research and people and many news papers which La Repubblica and La Stampa refer to Communion and Liberation as an Italian business lobby and advocacy group to make quick money.

The Deutsch Communion and Liberation wikipedia article refers to bribery too since many years, link:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comunione_e_Liberazione

You can have a quick snapshot of this on one of the latest Communion and Liberation revision that was vandalised yesterday, here is the link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communion_and_Liberation&oldid=851523007

Jasmir54 23:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The page may need admin involvement on edit warring and meat sock account. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Lzzy303 reported by User:Jasmir54 (Result: ) One side keep on adding accusation with poor citation, one side tried to clean up or even censor those accusation . Matthew_hk tc 00:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

And @Jasmir54: Your account was also created recently meta:Special:CentralAuth/Jasmir54 your accusation to other user also applies to you. Matthew_hk tc 00:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah thanks. I properly cited my edits, you are free to revert them or report them as you did. Have a nice day. Jasmir54 03:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I never remover the bribery accuses, Jasmir54! I only put them in a proper criticism section (which, in the german version, is few lines long while in the version I edited was half the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communion_and_Liberation&oldid=852068061 ). You continue to say your citations are reliable because you use newspapers; yet you're not completely honest about it. As I pointed out in the talk page:

• some articles are old and the final judgment has changes since then
• some articles DO NOT CONTAIN what the wiki page report they contain
• many articles refer to a book which starts with "warning: this book refers to ongoing investigations. All people should be deemed innocent until the trial is finalized". Since some of this trials finished we should refer to those final statements. Moreover the book is strongly critical (thus has a strong POV) and contains many accusations: we should remember this when using such sources.
• some articles cited contain accusations; if some newspapers treat it as a lobby, then you might say "some newspapers think/accuse it of being a lobby", not write it as a fact on an encyclopedia!

Please, why don't you try to be reasonable, try to read and answer my criticism? GioA90 (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Also this was the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communion_and_Liberation&oldid=803428780 before a random IP and then Jasmir54 (I am guessing, the same person) started editing it. GioA90 (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

That's all interesting, but what can we do for you here at Editor Assistance? If discussion about the article is to continue, it would be much better if it were to happen at the article talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of a certain source

For the article A. L. Srinivasan, I'm unsure about the reliability of a source from Kalyanamalai magazine, from which an user copied and pasted an article on the previous edit. The article did not mention S Varalakshmi, apparently the subject's wife from another source (Times of India), and the info was removed by the same user from the wiki article. I hope people with more knowledge on this subject can clarify and confirm the information. Firezzasd (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you want WP:RSN. Good luck! DonIago (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

References

List of fake news websites

Answered

I am asking for help related to the LIST OF FAKE NEWS WEBSITES

I was researching a news source and was trying to verify the veracity of the incendiary news stories they publish on their website. I discovered several articles critical of the news website that found they published 'news stories' that didn't contain an ounce of truth. If a 'news' website publishes fiction it is fake news. Someone disagreed with my assessment and removed my page edits.

In my view the web properties truthfeed and truthfeednews.com are purveyor's of 'FAKE NEWS' and should be classified as such. Bloomberg Business Week, Snopes.com, and mediabiasfactcheck.com are legitimate sources, and they concluded that these sites were 'fake news' websites. Another editor determined that my citations were not credible, and removed the sites from the list of fake news websites. While I agree that they do not say 'these websites are fake news,' they do say that the sites have made up news stories that are pure fiction and have no basis in reality. Any individual would conclude a FAKE NEWS STORY is exactly that, and the site publishing the story is a FAKE NEWS WEBSITE. Are we going to use semantics to conclude whether a news story is fake? The documentation must say "fake news story" or the evidence is tossed out?

I cited snopes.com's assessment in the citations, and yet someone concluded that I provided insufficient verification.

Examples: Truthfeednews.com published a story that said "DACA Recipients Burn American Flag" and snopes.com concluded the story was fiction,and wrote "Repeat offender Truthfeed originally promoted this video in a since-deleted article. (Emphasis my own) In another 'news article' Truthfeed falsely claimed Black Lives Matter Protesters Beat Homeless Veteran, and snopes.com found the story to be a work of fiction. Fake news? Absolutely.

Robert Faris, research director at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center stated that Truthfeed makes things up entirely, which is another credible source that concluded Truthfeed is a fake news website.

This list is an invaluable resource and factual information is an imperative. The individual who concluded that the there was insufficient evidence has a bias, and I want to resolve this dispute now, rather than have a protracted disagreement.

Jay Rush (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the primary mechanism for resolving disputes here at Wikipedia is discussion on the article talk page. All the moderated forms of content dispute resolution (Third Opinion, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, Formal Mediation, details here) require thorough — some say "extensive" — talk page discussion before they will accept a case. And even then, the purpose of dispute resolution is to assist the editors in dispute with coming to consensus, not to act as a court or tribunal. Having a thorough discussion is the first step (and if an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations given here). Give the discussion a shot and if you come to a standstill, then try one of those forms of dispute resolution. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

User copying TP messages, forging signatures

See this diff here. This user copied a bunch of talk page messages from User talk:AlexTylersMail. It's worth noting that they are a confirmed sockpuppet of that user. Almost all of these messages were from other users, and the signatures were thus forged. What should be done with posts like these?--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

Sorry I don't understand. I have information on a death of a famous person to add to the list. Who do I need to go to.???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalee48aj (talk • contribs) 11:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Categories

Answered

Hi, I'm looking for some help from somebody who understands category hierarchies. I'm trying to put in a category of Professor at Leeds University, but can't locate it. There is Professor type listing in categories for Glasgow, Edinburgh, Oxford, Cambridge but none for Leeds, Liverpool uni, or Newcastle Uni. It is specifically for Richard Smithells. Here is the category I'm looking at [[Category:Professorships by university or college]] Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Scope creep: it looks like the category that serves that purpose is Category:Academics of the University of Leeds, and the page has already been added to that category. If the comparison categories you're describing are Category:Professorships at the University of Oxford‎, Category:Professorships at the University of Cambridge, and the like, note that those are for professorships (i.e. chairs, positions) and not the people holding those positions themselves. MarginalCost (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Help with copyright on external picture

Draft:Janina_Cibienė (edit | [[Talk:Draft:Janina_Cibienė|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

i was hoping someone could help me who speaks lithuanian. i am trying to find the copyright information for This photo to use in my article. this is hard because i dont speak lithuanian and can't navigate the page. if anyone can help that would be amazing. the webpage on which it's located is Here— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloaker416 (talk • contribs)

There is no information about it. That photograph is actually a display card that was made by the library for this exhibit, and there is no information provided about who took the picture on that card, or when. The picture on that card, by the way, does not show up anywhere on the internet that I can find, whether searching for Cibiene by name, or doing a reverse search on the image itself. You would probably have to contact the library if you wanted to know more. But since Cibiene is clearly rather old in that photograph, and Lithuania is a signatory of the Berne Convention, it is safe to assume the photograph is under full copyright protection. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Follow up Review for Client's Wikipedia Pages (Request for review #stuck)

Hi our account username is wer1sg. We would like to enquire about the progress of the review of 2 wikipedia pages which we contributed for our client on the 3rd of July. The links are below: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing_sources/sandbox&oldid=848611065 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing_sources/sandbox&oldid=848610883

We would greatly appreciate if you could inform us of the estimated waiting time for the articles to be reviewed as our client is following up. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wer1sg (talk • contribs)

@Wer1sg: You go back to your client, give them their money back, and say, “I’m sorry, you were swindled, please accept our apologies and a full refund; we actually had no experience with writing Wikipedia articles and did not realise undisclosed paid advocacy is against policy.” Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:O.Syed/Muhammad_Aanish

Draft:O.Syed/Muhammad Aanish (edit | [[Talk:Draft:O.Syed/Muhammad Aanish|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I created this article but it was recently deleted because an editor thought that it had a strong promotional tone. I tried fixing but I am not sure if the tone still exists or not. Would love if I could get a brief feedback and help in improving the article. --O.Syed (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC) O.Syed

The current version is excessively promotional (e.g. "the novel received a tremendous response"), and contains many unreferenced statements. Maproom (talk) 07:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Need help with a troll - Monument Colorado page

Hello. Need help with a troll - Monument Colorado page He keeps deleting data repeatedly.

I see that various unregistered editors have been edit-warring at Monument, Colorado. Some have been adding unreferenced statements, and a statement referenced only to a non-independent source, and others have been removing these statements. None of them have tried to resolve the disagreements as they should, by discussion at the talk page. One issue has been discussed there: the list of "Notable people" should list only notable people. Maproom (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The article Monument, Colorado has now been semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. That should keep the trolls away. Maproom (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

TV ratings for India?

When I see an article for a new Indian TV show (such as Katto (TV series)), I have very little idea how to assess the coverage of that show, or even the network it airs on. Are there any reliable sources which give TV ratings for India (and South Asia in general)? While Nielsen-style weekly ratings would be best, I'd be happy with a reliable list of the top 10-20 channels in India and Pakistan (probably on a per-language basis). power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Verification of an edit

I have done an edit on the page Acidithiobacillus caldus. I have actually removed the parameter "et al" and also "display-authors" from 2 references. I would like to know whether that edit has been done correctly. Adithyak1997 (talk) 08:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Adithyak1997: Your edit was [9]. et al means "and others". The linked references have multiple authors when you click them, e.g. [10]. I have changed it to use a recommended method at Template:Cite journal#Display options with display-authors = etal.[11] PrimeHunter (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Adithyak1997 10:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit Related to dmy dates

I have seen a cleanup category with the name Category:Use dmy dates. Do I/we actually need to correct the dates in any way?Adithyak1997 18:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Abusive persistent vandal

Please review the edits of User:Son of Caracas, in particular to their own talk page, and their WP:SPA focus - Caracas drone explosions and its talk page. Kingsif (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Having a look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kingsif. As far as I can tell Son of Caracas has not done anything on their talk page that is inappropriate. Broadly speaking users have a great deal of latitude on their own talk pages. This means that they can in fact remove material or comments that they find disagreeable. In the case of warnings or messages alerting them to potentially problematic editing, deleting such messages is understood as effectively saying they have read them and understand. If you have a disagreement over content on a given article, it is often better to resolve those differences on the article's talk page. This allows other interested editors to join the discussion. For further information about talk page guidelines and etiquette please have a look at WP:TALK. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ad Orientem. I understand your analysis, but they have not read and accepted the messages, instead continuing with their disruptive edits. I have tried to be civil, and have explained the situation, and they continue to edit war over a quote as well as more broadly edit things they don’t like and try to subdue the documentation of sentiment they don’t like, as well as being rude. They are not productive on the one page they edit. Does this further context get their edits another look, or do we leave it (likely only until their behaviour continues or worsens)? Kingsif (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, this looks like a content dispute. Those should be addressed on the article's talk page. I would also gently point out that edit warring is one of those things where it usually takes two. I also note that another very experienced editor has removed the quote per WP:BRD. In the event of blatantly disruptive editing, after issuing appropriate warnings you can take the matter to one of our noticeboards such as WP:3RRN or WP:ANI. But I discourage that except in the most extreme situations. It is almost always better to talk things out on the article talk page and ask for other opinions to help form WP:CONSENSUS. Also there is the risk of being hit by a WP:BOOMERANG on the drama boards. In my experience good things rarely happen there. You may also want to take a look at WP:DR for more hints on how to handle a dispute with another editor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Confederate Monument Listing

Under this listing is a listing of monuments by state. In North Carolina under the public section Vance County is listed with the year 1881. The year 1881 is the year the County was founded and zebulon Vance was instrumental in the establishment of the county. However, the Confederate monument was not built until 1910 (during the period of the Black Codes) as Most monuments were built during this period or during the period of the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. The monument was built by the Daughters of the Confederacy, the County of Vance and the City of Henderson.

Just wanted to share information to correct the record. You may look up th County and find the above information there, as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.51.213 (talk)

The county is listed with a date of 1881 because it is the county itself being listed as a "monument or memorial", as with other towns and counties named after Confederate officers. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Deleting a false page, replacing it with the correct one and locking it.

The page in question is Brenda Andress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This page is filled with incorrect information and I would like to take it down and replace it with the correct page. Also is it possible to lock an editing page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apavypav8 (talk • contribs)

@Apavypav8: See WP:OWN for why we don't do lock the page just because one editor says "I fixed it!" Ian.thomson (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, @Apavypav8: I'm not seeing why you're labeling it as misinformation. The sources that work verify that that particular Andress is/was the commissioner of the Canadian Women's Hockey League. Is there a different Brenda Andress that you would like to write about? We have different articles about distinct individuals who happen to share the same name. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Apavypav8: I see that you have created a rival (and unduly promotional) version of the article at Draft:Brenda Andress. If it's your intention to replace the current Brenda Andress by your draft, I strongly recommend discussing your plans at Talk:Brenda Andress first. If you don't, you are likely to encounter a lot of resistance. Maproom (talk) 08:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

4Ocean creation

4Ocean is an environmentally focused company founded by Andrew Cooper and Alex Schulze.

4Ocean aims to remove one pound (.45kg) of plastic and other debris from the ocean or coastline for every bracelet they sell.

4Ocean has pulled over 1 million pounds of discarded debris from the oceans and coastlines

4Ocean bracelets are made from recycled materials

4Ocean has operations in Boca Raton, FL, USA and Bali, Indonesia

4Ocean has been featured on the Today Show

12.133.239.226 (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Please approve image on wikicommon

Please approve my image on wikicommon.

See link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_upload#Canadian_Parliament_Building

Jefferson Richards 2605:8D80:461:58B9:3B6:3495:916:81FE (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I just noticed that that is something on Wikipedia. However, attempts to queue jump are not looked upon favorably. We're all volunteers; your request will be reviewed when someone gets around to it. You'll need to wait until then, or learn how to use Commons yourself if you'd like it done faster. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Attempting to Improve Neutrality of Article, Accused of Edit Warring

Hi, I am relatively new to anything more than making minor edits to Wiki pages. I was recently accused of edit warring and I believe I am on a bad foot and I don't want to dig the hole any deeper. That said, I would like to improve the neutrality of an article that has been previously discussed on the talk page, but the changes I want to make are minor. I feel like I am being ganged up on by 3 other editors and that it may be better to simply go to a more formal dispute resolution process... I am basically lost right now, trying to improve the truthfulness and neutrality of an article and just want to ask for a hand... Testefye (talk) 05:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

So three people disagree with you, and no one agrees with you. That's a good sign you should stop making any reverts, but I see no reason why you shouldn't just keep up the conversation on the talk page for a while. If that doesn't lead to anyone changing their minds, then at that point maybe advance it to another step of dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I will go that route. Although there has been previous discussions and a lack of consensus reached, I am now engaging in good faith efforts to restart the conversation, and if it leads to no mind changes, I'll go with your advice, another step of dispute resolution. Testefye (talk) 05:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

A book added with no adding mark?

I need your help. I've just added 'Old Age'(1972) on the topic of List of publications by Simone de Beauvoir (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_de_Beauvoir). I wonder why there's no mark added on the top of my page. Do I have to wait for verification from Wikipedia or do I have to redo the process? I appreciate your help and reply.--J. Wiwat (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@J. Wiwat: Which mark were you expecting? Editing an article does not cause a mark somewhere. There is no waiting time when editing Simone de Beauvoir. Your edit was live right away. I have modifed it a little to add italics to the title like the other books.[12] PrimeHunter (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Why was the Frag Dolls article deleted?

Hello Wikipedia Administrators, I wanted to know why the Frag Dolls article has been deleted completely back in April 2018 by Lordtobi and always redirects to Ubisoft's article instead (which has no information on the group currently). I tried looking in the deletion log to find it but for whatever reason it says "No matching items in log." I know the group disbanded back in 2015 and the website's domain is no longer available but it makes no sense to me, and it also is quite outrageous why that article would just get deleted like that because I'm trying to educate myself about that group and why that girl group was one of the main reasons as to why sexism is so common in the video game industry nowadays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frag_Dolls

That article page should never have been deleted. Lordtobi said in the summary that he deleted the article because the information provided "lacks in-depth coverage, (WP:SIGCOV), consists mostly of links to the now defunct official website." even if that's true and the article does't provide in-depth thorough details. The page has to at least be used as an archive of some sort because I don't see a valid reason as to why it was deleted unless it violated any copyrights, or if it didn't meet a majority of the notability requirements (which I'd say in my opinion, it's met more than enough for it to remain online). No article written on Wikipedia is ever perfect, but if its met the minimum standard wikipedia policies and doesn't have any severe policy violations, then it shouldn't be marked for deletion.

However, if the article isn't in the deletion log, then I guess the Frag Dolls page was deleted by Lordtobi from the Ubisoft article edit history.

I hope the article gets reverted and gets maybe a little security protection. --Mkikoen (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mkikoen: It hasn't been deleted, it's been converted into a redirect to Ubisoft. The last version of the article before this can be found here. You could be bold and undo the collapse into a redirect, then discuss the issue on Talk:Ubisoft if that is deemed insufficient. If you're concerned about gender imbalance on Wikipedia, please check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Are you saying this is more of a content dispute that I should discuss directly on the Ubisoft talk page? Or is it considered something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkikoen (talk • contribs)

Yes, since the article hasn't actually been deleted (which would have deleted all revisions and made it impossible for me to give you the old link per above) it's a straight content dispute that doesn't directly need any admin assistance. In terms of the groups notability, I see a bunch of news sources going back nearly ten years, so I would say that a standalone article is certainly possible. I've undone the redirect so Frag Dolls is now a standalone article again, and I'm just going to add some sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Thanks for undoing the redirect Ritchie333! I wish I could help out and add some new reliable information / sources about them. However I don't know what websites provide accurate and true information without finding any satire websites, plus I don't know much about the group at all as I'm just trying to read about them since I don't edit pages where I have little info to go on ... or if I don't have a lot of researcher motivation for a certain topic compared to another. Good Luck. --Mkikoen (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mkikoen: I'm afraid I'm pretty much a complete ignoramus when it comes to video games, but I've given you some pointers on your talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mkikoen and Ritchie333: Our WikiProject on video games carries its own list of identifiably reliable websites for video game coverage, which you can find here. There is also a custom Google search query prepared here. For any other questions, you can also turn directly to the talk page of WikiProject Video games or ask myself. Lordtobi (✉) 15:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Lordtobi and Ritchie333: This message made me chuckle a bit, I didn't even mention video games in my conversation with Ritchie333 except for him (even though I am also a huge video gamer) and you gave us a link to a WikiProject list of reliable website for video game coverage. Thanks Lordtobi! If there's any articles I need to edit about video games with accurate info I'll be sure to look up that list of reliable websites, and if I need any assistance on video games or anything specific that you know about, I'll contact you Lordtobi. At this point someone really should mark this request as "Answered" because I don't want this conversation to drag on too far off topic despite your helpful source that you provided since it would be better discussing this topic on a talk page. Thanks again everyone.

Help with ensuring my edits are accepted for a medical treatment

Hello, I'm looking for an editor to help me make sure changes are acceptable for a medical treatment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagus_nerve_stimulation. I have been performing an extensive amount of research, and have been reviewing a lot of medical treatment wiki pages and sources to try to ensure and edits I recommend were accepted, but unfortunately things keep getting reverted. I have asked for guidance on the page that I am trying to edit from the editor that keeps reverting it via the talk page, but I am not getting a lot of responses. I would love some help if anyone is available. Thank you in advance! CMILNEditor (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) may be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Need help on Semitic neopaganism

Answered

I need help on the Semitic neopaganism page. It is being repeatedly vandalized, over a years long period, by someone who has a grudge against one of the listed groups. This page is about modern day groups that have neo-pagan beliefs, and are open about it (for instance, openly discussing their beliefs and the gods they pray to by printing prayerbooks, siddurs, discussing them on websites and in interviews.) But one Wikipedia editor is censoring this position, apparently trying to present one modern day neopagan group (Kohenet) as if perhaps they were Orthodox Jews. They aren't. Members of Kohenet offer prayers to Anat, Asherah, Lilith, and other deities. I do understand the the person opposing me wishes that Kohenet were Orthodox Jews, but they simply aren't. Wikipedia needs to be a place for groups are described accurately. We can't falsely write about Protestant Christians as if they are really Catholic; we can't write about neo-pagan Wiccans as if they are Muslims, etc. We merely need to be accurate. Thank you for your time. RK (talk)

Please see the statement I made at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:RK. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

(I can find no such statement there.) This is about a content dispute, there's no need to involve ANI, let alone Arbcom. There is no vandalism involved. The issue is whether the Kohenet are neopagan. The onus is on RK to find and cite a reliable independent source that states that they are neopagan. Maproom (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Maprom, THEY state that they are neopagan. My opponent is literally flat out lying. I gave the citations, and I can give many more.

RK: you gave no such citations in the article. Maproom (talk) 07:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Maproom I DID give such citations, and I have them. What is your email address? I will email them to you. I am very happy to give them to you, and I do not know why this vandal keeps deleting citations and lying to you. RK (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

RK: He is not a vandal. He deleted the whole paragraph you added, along with its citations, as it provided no evidence that the Kohenet are neo-pagan. He has never lied to me or communicated with me in any way. If you do have citations stating that the Kohenet are neo-pagan, you need to cite them, something you have not done yet. Maproom (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Self-published sources at Quincy Jones

After I did some editing at the Quincy Jones article, I hit submit and was met with a message in red letters that told me there were self-published sources in the section I had been working on. This was the section titled "Activism". The only source there that looks dubious is called interviewswithwriters.com. How do I find out if this is a reliable source?
Vmavanti (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Vmavanti: If you would like to ask about interviews with writers.com, try Reliable Sources Noticeboard where other editors can give you their opinions. (personally, I would say not. It appears to be a commercial site for starters, so likely pretty promotional) However, likely that it's ref 59, a googlebooks link to William Amarteifio (11 June 2013). Humanity and the Nature of Man causing the notice. The book is published by Authorhouse which is a self publisher. Curdle (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Help with a citation

Citadel Alba Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am in the process of editing the above article which I created (which is currently a single-sentence stub with a large infobox) and so far the 2 sources in it are just some tourist websites. I have found a third source that seems to a little more academic, but I have no clue how to cite it and it seems kind of confusing exactly what to put inside the ref. It is an academic conference proceedings book with many articles in it and the second article is what I want. Here's the source: [13]Radioactive Pixie Dust (talk)

@Radioactive Pixie Dust: (please remember to sign using 4 tildes ~ after posts; this way other editors know who they are replying to, and when you posted) not sure if the notifications work if you havent signed, so pinging you now. For citing conference papers, try looking here. Actually, looking at the article, the references already there have been put in as external links rather than inline citations, so perhaps start with Referencing for beginners- apologies if you know the basics already. Curdle (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Request fixing article links in an svg image.

I have just come across am image File:Template_location_map.svg which is supposed to help users to pick location map by letting users click onto the image , select desired location, and then bring user to the template that include the information. However, after all those templates being converted into Lua modules, nowadays whenever user is to click on any of those images, the links in the image would become a dead link, leading to the page with deleted template. Could anyone fix those links in the image so that they will direct to appropriate target? C933103 (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

That image is hosted on commons, so it needs to be fixed there. Or someone makes a bunch of local redirects, I actually don't know if that would work. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes a renewed image will need to be uploaded onto commons, but as the image was hard-coded to link to en.wikipeia.org, I figured that it might be helpful to ask for help here. Also, pinging map original creator: @Cmglee:C933103 (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for assistance from anyone with access to newspapers.com

I'm writing an article on the Delaware Public Library, and found this newspaper article scanning. A handwritten note on the article (cropped out in the picture) says the article was published in the September 4, 1906 edition of the The Delaware Gazette (then known as the Delaware Semi-weekly Gazette). The article is not actually in the September 4th edition of the Delaware Gazette, nor any other edition from late August to late September (I have access to these editions on microfilm). I'm currently trying to find when and where the article was published. I unfortunately do not have access to any online newspaper databases that would contain the article; I would be incredibly grateful if someone with access could search the database for the linked article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Pages with Graphic Pictures

Certain pages have graphic images on them that are not only unnecessary, but borderline pornographic. As a website that is free to all types of editing, one might even say this could be expected, but a large number of people find such drawings inappropriate. For the sake of people that are looking for verbal definitions and not objectionable, visual ones, please consider taking down these images and perhaps banning these pages from having pictures altogether. The pages about human sexuality (such as Fellatio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) appears prone to this kind of problem. I am posting here because this has been a problem for a long time, and it is about more than just taking down pictures (at least to me). Thanks for understanding. --Daedheleth (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. While this does not mean that "anything goes" (see Wikipedia:Offensive material), it does mean that if visit an article on "X", you should expect to find a photograph, drawing or other image of "X", even if some people find that offensive. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

"...a large number of people find such drawings inappropriate." A large number of people would find censorship of such images inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Page hijacking

The article page on Bikramganj, a city in India, is seeing extensive editing by a new user, and most of the article is now dominated by non-notable, poorly sourced content. Repeated requests to agree with established Wikipedia norms and formatting standards have gone unacknowledged. It would be useful if experienced users could look into the matter.  Shobhit102 | talk  05:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Garena Free Fire

Garena_Free_Fire — Preceding unsigned comment added by SazidKabir (talk • contribs) 11:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia terminology question

I'm a fairly experienced Wikipedia editor, but I need some help with terminology. An article I've recently edited had two citations that pointed to webpages unrelated to the text. I called these "false citations" in my edit summaries, but this suggests some kind of duplicity, which I don't think was the case. Is there a better Wikipedia term? Phil Champ (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Phil Champ: The citations can be tagged with {{Failed verification}} in some cases. I don't know a standard term in the edit summary when such citations are removed. I have sometimes written a longer summary like "remove source not supporting the content". PrimeHunter (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Requesting review of suggested changes to Alpha Phi Alpha: Notable Incidents

Answered

I have attempted to correct information that I feel is inaccurate in the page Alpha Phi Alpha under the Notable Incidents section. After several deletes and the restoral by an admin/editor, I am requesting additional assistance as the admin/editor has not allowed for the changes to remain, and has failed to follow the NPOV dispute process by failing provide proper instruction or explanation for the restoral of information that is in dispute.

I have documented the requested changes in the Talk section of the page, and could use assistance if these edits are acceptable as I am being accused of both possible COI and edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rattler98 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

It appears that this was later resolved on the article talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Help with an article moved from mainspace to draft

Draft:Zinovia_Dushkova

Hello,

I moved my first biography article into mainspace on August 12. It received the C-class grade from WikiProject Biography on August 16. However, on August 24 the advert and tone tags were added to it, and on August 25 the article was moved from mainspace to draft.

I've recently rearranged the structure of the article and added new sections. Could you please tell me whether now it can be returned to mainspace?

Thanks. Sogras (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sogras, I can give you a hand with the article. I think it is ready for main space. I will review it and submit it. scope_creep (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sogras, I had a look at it, it still needs work. Can you please resubmit it, and I will review, then we can take a look to fix some stuff. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your reply, Scope_creep. Sorry for my ignorance, but what do you mean under "resubmit"? :) Should I add the "AFC submission/pending" banner to its Talk page? Sogras (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shalom_Show

Answered

Dear Wikipedia Editor;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shalom_Show has not been updated for many years and today I attempted to do so, but Drmies reverted the updated facts. I would like to contact him but do not know how.

I very much respect and want to follow all requirements, but do not really know how. I will greatly appreciate your assistance in updating the true verifiable facts in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. The following update I made today is all easily verifiable; The Shalom Show is broadcast also on WPBF TV-25 (ABC) in Palm Beach since Dec. 13, 2015 https://www.tvpassport.com/tv-listings/stations/abc-wpbf-west-palm-beach-fl/2305/2018-09-02 Here also is a letter from the station: http://shalomshow.com/abc_tv-25_letter.htm

I updated the Wikipedia article to read as follows:

The Shalom Show on TV is a public affairs television program that focuses on Israel and Jewish life subject matter with programming of special interest to the American Jewish community and friends of all faiths. The show features special reports and in-depth interviews with American, Israeli and other leaders in politics, business, technology, medicine, education, culture, entertainment and other topics, generally focusing on positives and the achievements of the State of Israel, sharing a vision of peace, inspiring solutions and progress. The show impartially hosts politicians from left and right, Republicans and Democrats, to offer a broad spectrum of ideas and viewpoints in all subject areas, including magazine-style specials and in-depth interviews with Israeli and American leaders in politics, business, technology, medicine, education, culture, and entertainment. The Shalom Show is broadcast on WPBF TV-25 (ABC) in Palm Beach, Florida, since December 2015, on the air every Sunday at 12 noon. The Show first aired in South Florida in 1979 on local broadcast stations. The Shalom Show also airs throughout the United States on the Jewish Life Television network. Episodes can also be seen on its YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/SHALOMshowTV

Guests on The Shalom Show include Members of Congress Ted Deutch, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Prime Ministers Benjamin Netanyahu, Itzhak Rabin, in addition to Governor Mike Huckabee and other leaders, celebrities and authors, including Indian Ambassador to the USA Navtesh Sarna, Dr. Alveda King niece of Martin Luther King, attorney Alan Dershowitz, Mayor Rudi Giuliani, Suzanne Somers, William Faloon, Senior Pastor Bob Coy of the Calvary Chapel, Dr. Abraham S. Fischler, Congressman Allen West, and Stan Chesley. It has filmed segments and interviews in Israel.

The show was created and is hosted by Richard Peritz.

VERIFICATION

Guests on the show include: Alan Dershowitz - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ4criYO9hFVHqzod34T86UrI81btOmoJ Ted Deutch Member of Congress - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVVg1X43MVc&t=225s Gov. Mike Huckabee - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY3PYRozSf8&t=960s

All of the interviewee names cited above can be easily verified by finding their Shalom Show interviews archived on: https://www.youtube.com/user/SHALOMshowTV

Please kindly assist in verifying to enable this Wikipedia listing to be correct and up to date.

Many thanks! Josephn Josephn18 (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

You may contact Drmies by posting on their user talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Possible massive embedding of a sources

I'm an occasional Wiki editor/contributor and came across what I think might be a concerted effort to input a large number of backlinks for a news company, both in English as well as in different languages.

This makes sense as I know 100% that this same organization has editors watching over the pages of people in the organization.

I'm wondering if anyone has any experience on investigating sources from specific root URL across Wikipedia, gathering data on the times/dates of such edits, names of the accounts that added them, etc.

It's a big ask, I know, but it would be a big help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GypsySpirit (talk • contribs) 21:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

That's way too vague. Please be more specific. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Issue in article "Ken Ryker"

This is going to be a lot of information, not all of which may be necessary, and I apologize for that, but I feel that I need to be thorough in order to be understood.

An editor (whom I cannot clearly identify through cursory research of the article's edit history, but that may not be specifically relevant) was trying to include Ryker's birth name, but could not cite a reliable source. I I know that the name the editor was try to add is correct. Here's my problem, and I hope that there is another, more experienced editor out there who can understand what I'm trying to do.

Ryker's birth name is included in an interview that I read, published in an issue of a magazine that I no longer have. Neither the article itself nor the magazine it was included in are are archived online as far as I know. There may be a physical copy of the magazine in a library in Frankfurt, Germany, which is not helpful to me, but may not be relevant, either.

Through a roundabout Google search, I was able to find a direct citation to the article in the notes of a book. I could buy the physical book,or pay to access the book online, but I don't want to go to the expense without knowing if the book has the name in it, or even needs to have the name in it for the purpose of this Wikipedia citation, just proof that the article exists.

So I'm confused as to what to do. Absurdist1968 (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I can be a little more specific about the guideline that I don't quite understand, if it's applicable. To recap for a second: I know that the information in question is in the article, and I know where the article is, even though I am not in possession of the magazine. In Wikipedia:Citing sources, there's a subheading "Say where you read it." From what I understand in that section, I guess my question is how do I determine what of the information that I've found should be cited and how? Do I cite the elusive magazine article that has the direct information by itself, or the book that cites the article, or both, and in the interest of specificity to avoid disputes, how detailed should the citation be? The book cites the magazine article like this:

Hal Rubenstein, “Bye-Bye Barbie: Ken Ryker Comes Out (And We Don’t Mean to Play),” Genre (October 1998): 38–41, 74–75.

If that information is sufficient, I think I can figure out how to plug it into the citation wizard without the non-existent URL. I just want to do this as clearly as possible so as not to get into disputes/edit wars or generally annoy anyone needlessly. Absurdist1968 (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Request to split a page in two

Like most of these discussions I see on talk pages for specific articles, they're usually years old, and there's always a concensus but still nothing has been done. This subject is 18 months old (so not as old as some of the others I've seen in my short time here), and 4 out of 4 people agree, that Bananaman (TV series) should be a separate page. I'm willing to bet more people know Bananaman as a TV series rather than a comic book character, so could someone separate the pages please?

I looked on the "Edit Requests" page, but it was all gobbledygook to me, so thought this was the best place to ask.

Here's the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bananaman#Television_cartoon_series

And here's the talk page discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bananaman#Bananaman_(TV_series) Danstarr69 (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Check the WP:NOTABILITY + WP:ADS

Good evening,

I would like to point out a large number of items that have been created by IONIS Education Group to be an advertising poster.

Some of these articles were removed from Wikipedia francophone (community decision) because the institutions did not have sufficient notoriety (WP:NOTABILITY).

Can you check if these articles are indeed eligible in English Wikipedia and if so neutralize them?

Institution not eligible in French Wikipedia (beaucause WP:NOTABILITY)

• Sup'Biotech
• ICS Bégué
• ISG Luxury Management
• ISEFAC
• Moda Domani Institute
• E-Artsup
• Coding Academy
• IONIS STM
• IONISx
• Sup'Internet
• ISTH
• Fondation IONIS

Eligible Institution in French Wikipedia (but Wikipedia:Advertising)

• EPITA
• ESME-Sudria
• IPSA
• EPITECH

--EulerObama (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Good morning. Unfortunately by looking your contributions, we can see that you don’t like IONIS Education Group and try to do everything you can to delete these articles : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Institut_Sup%27Biotech_de_Paris&type=revision&diff=856975514&oldid=853348118 ; Luckily our Bot had stopped you : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Institut_Sup%27Biotech_de_Paris&type=revision&diff=856975522&oldid=856975514 ; Please stop doing this and remain neutral and professional. 80.12.39.237 (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

You should follow your own advice, with your disruptive recreation of Fondation IONIS having content already contained 100% in the parent article. It should remain a redirect, not a fork with identical content. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry but I did not do this. 92.184.104.85 (talk) 05:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Anachronist was mentioning 80.12.39.237's unneeded changing of the redirect Fondation IONIS. The reply was to 80.12.39.237. Shenme (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Anachronist is there any specific type of school/college/university which isn't allowed on Wikipedia? I've never bothered to learn the difference between: 1 - Private schools or public schools (both of which definitions apparently differ depending on when or where you were born). 2 - The Grammar schools, academy schools , comprehensive schools, secondary modern schools, independent school etc 3 - A school sixth form, a college, a university or a school which is called a college. All I know is that I went to a free nursery until I was 4yo. Then I went to a free primary school (Which had the infant building and playground separated from the junior building and playground with a wall. Plus was called something different for the 1st 2 or 3 years before it was called a primary school, most likely first school), until I was 10yo. Then I went to a free grammar school which has a sixth form building for 16-18yo's. Today most high schools seem to be academies, and are not liked by the majority of the older population for some reason, but as I said above I don't know the difference so I have no idea why. And there's one independent free school I know of (which is apparently also an academy too), but is also a charity. So as they're next door to my cities football club, and is run by an ex player, they do a lot of charity events which are usually linked to the football club, and vice-versa. Danstarr69 (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

In this context we're talking about higher education. Generally, the institutes of higher education that get deleted as non-notable at AFD are unaccredited private institutions. There is no specific type of school that is forbidden on Wikipedia, nor is there is a type that is guaranteed inclusion. If a school is non-notable, it gets deleted. But private unaccredited schools are definitely the most likely to suffer that fate. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Changing logo of a company

Hi, this is regarding the logo of the company Britannia Industries. The logo has undergone change and am not sure how one can change the logo on the article. The article is at the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britannia_Industries .Please do let me know how to change the logo.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msandeep6 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

How to respond when changes based on reliable sources are reverted?

Internet protocol suite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In July 2018 I suggested several changes based on reliable sources (Internet RFCs and one university-level textbook) on the talk page, against which no arguments were presented (after lots of initial dissent, mostly related to a diagram). I incorporated those changes in July and August 2018. On August 31, my changes were reverted with this summary (the linked diff shows the removal of four pieces with references that are replaced with statements without references): "revert to correct version, diagram does not represent the concept of TCP/IP, end-to-end is the principle of the entire suite, not just a layer."

I perceive this summary to be a straw man argument: The "concept of TCP/IP" is too vague to be refutable, and my use of "end-to-end" was really embedded in "end-to-end communication services", for which I provided a quotation from RFC 1122 in the text. I did not state anything about end-to-end as principle. My textual changes were largely unrelated to end-to-end, and they were based on reliable sources.

I reverted that reversion, which then was reverted by a third editor with the summary: "please edit topics you are familiar with"

I perceive this "summary" as ad hominem assertion, no argument, no source.

The lengthy use of the talk page prior to my edits now looks like a waste of time. As more than two editors are involved, a Third Opinion does not seem applicable. Bringing this to the dispute resolution noticeboard seems daunting.

I'm largely unfamiliar with Wikipedia procedures, and I may be missing something fundamental here. Any suggestion how to proceed would be welcome.

JensLechtenboerger (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Style and content rules re: /wiki/Curt_Columbus

The complete text of the article is copied verbatim from the staff biography for the subject on their employer's website. The website in question is the only external link listed on the page.

Regarding the content of the page, the veracity of the entry may not be disputable but its presentation deviates from normal formatting of articles on Wikipedia. It further suggests the question whether Wikipedia content rules permit organizations and individuals to publish promotional materials as articles. Themelancholia (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Assistance in the article move from Stir-fried ice cream to Rolled ice cream

Stir-fried ice cream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I would like to move the "Stir-fried ice cream" article to a new name "Rolled ice cream". I have submitted this move twice and it worked; however, one other user will change it back to "Stir-fried ice cream". Now I can no longer move the article name to "Rolled ice cream". I received a notification from this user saying "Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Stir-fried ice cream." I am posting here because I believe that "Rolled ice cream" does in fact make more sense than "Stir-fried ice cream" and here is why. An article/interview from 'The Splendid Table' written on July 24, 2018 refers to this type of ice cream as "Thai Rolled Ice Cream" in the title and throughout the article. The owner of a Thai Rolled Ice Cream parlor mentions that Stir-fried ice cream is a nickname to Thai Rolled Ice Cream as it is an analogy for how the rolls come to be made, but the actual end product is the rolls of ice cream. The Splendid Table From CBS News, an article from 2017 features a special, titled "Today's Special: Rolled Ice Cream". The article discusses what this style of ice cream is, the process to forming the end product and the craze of this trend that has expanded globally. This article from CBS News does not mention stir-fried ice cream, but does mention rolled ice cream and ice cream rolls. CBS News Stores that have picked up on this trend refer to this style of ice cream and rolled ice cream. A restaurant in the DMV called "520 Ice Cream and Tea" refers to their ice cream as rolled ice cream, as does La Moo, a ice cream parlor in Arlington. This title for this ice cream stretches all the way across the country to California. A store named "Cold Rolled Ice Cream Company" refers to their ice cream as rolled or rolls, not stir-fried. 520 Ice Cream and Tea , La Moo , Cold Rolled Ice Cream For these reasons listed above I would like to move the "Stir-fried ice cream" article to the new name "Rolled ice cream". If anyone is able to help me make this move, I would appreciate it. Thank you! --Latte2424 (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should be named for what their subjects are usually called. The name "rolled ice-cream" does appear to be considerably more widely used than "stir-fried ice-cream". I see that now Stir-fried ice cream and Rolled ice cream both redirect to Rolled Ice Cream with unwarranted upper-case letters, and non-admins don't have the power to correct this. Maproom (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Table on Marachucho Spanish

Maracucho Spanish features a table which I believe is intended to demonstrate its differences from Standard Spanish and from similar varieties of Spanish. However, the formatting of the table creates an overlong bottom row of the table, and this pushes the substantive parts of the table far to the left, to the point where I believe most of the information is actually off the screen (at least in my browser, which for the record is Chrome running on Windows 7 Professional). My understanding of wiki syntax relating to tables is poor, and I could not identify the problem with the table formatting that is creating this issue. Can someone with a better understanding of tables please correct the page so the table displays correctly? (I did post this to the talk page, but given that the article is short and about a niche topic, I hoped to draw attention to this hopefully simple technical problem in a place where it is more likely to be seen by someone who can help.) Lockesdonkey (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Lockesdonkey: Fixed it - some of the rows were delimited by "pipe, space, hyphen" | - instead of "pipe, hyphen" |- -- John of Reading (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Campaign Against Antisemitism

Could I request an editor for advice and assistance regarding the page Campaign Against Anti-Semitism

An editor seems to have interpreted that this rule applies

You have recently shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

and is now handing out 1RR violations on my talk page. Of course I wish to conform to all Wiki standards regarding this. However, I'm baffled why other people appear to be ignoring this revert rule including the person who keeps handing it out. Was the introduction of the rule and subsequent violations valid? I have attempted to discuss this issue, but have received no response.

On the advice of an uninvolved administrator, I'm happy to revert any changes, but of course must expect others also obey these rules and remove any 24 hr reverts they have been involved with. (Andromedean (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC))

That editor is myself, and after alerting Andromedean to the sanctions regime, I gave him a courteous heads up regarding the potential applicability of WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction to the following diffs - [14][15][16][17][18] - all of which tie CAA's (the article) formation to 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict and variously describe it as setup to counter anti-Israeli activity, boycotts, and events such as Israel apartheid week. As such, this amply meets ARBPIA's standard of "could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict".Icewhiz (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Help on Starting a Discussion

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

I would like to encourage a discussion on New Atheism Talk page, about the page's intentions. Because I feel like all the past comments about how "broad" the page is, stems from the fact that the page goes back and forth between simply describing the viewpoints that Wolf was talking about when he coined the term "New Atheism," and describing all of the atheistic view points of those people whom fit his definition of New Atheists, regardless of how unique each individual view is to just this subset of atheists. I feel like a consensus on whether the article is about New Atheism, or is about people who have been called New Atheists, would clarify what changes need to be made so the article can adequately do either task.

I've written 4-5 short paragraphs on examples in the Wikipedia article where it is implying a common secular viewpoint - even one found among deists - is being specifically attributed to New Atheism. Such as when it says that "New Atheists reject Jesus' divinity," which is certainly true but is also a viewpoint shared by roughly 70% of the world's population. I think sharing these examples will help people understand why I think the question matters to the structure of the article.

But I have two issues. One is the current Talk page is seriously in need of archiving, but I feel like archiving it before I've started what could be a potentially-long discussion feels like I'm trying hide past discussions which might have relevance to this one. And yet, I don't think a discussion gets as many participants or honest debate, if it's section 36 on the Talk page. So I would appreciate some more 'professional' input on if it should be archived before I post, or not. And two, my 4-5 short paragraphs probably shouldn't go directly on the Talk page, right? It seems cumbersome and too weighty to put there, plus some might disagree with my examples and feel I'm trying to bias people's responses. I was thinking that a simple short version of the question would go on the Talk page, and presumably I should link to my examples on my Talk page? Or is it my main page? I am open to discussion on the validity of my examples, of course, so that's why I'm thinking my Talk page is a better choice, but I don't know if there's a protocol on which to use. Thanks for any input you can offer. CleverTitania (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

On archiving, agree, someone who know how to do that should archive all threads without comment in the past year (at least). If necessary, one can refer to/link to discussions in the archive in new discussions.

I may misunderstand you, but on talk pages the "I'd like to change X to Y (or just add X) and here's why" is often encouraged. So I see no problem with stating what you like to add, though depending on whatever a "one piece att a time" approach may be better.

If you like, you can "advertise" your discussion at places like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Atheism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. Something like "I've started a discussion about X at Y, your input would be welcome." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Help, I am a volunteer for Renee Powell trying to add changes approved by Renee Powell, they have been deleted

How can I "talk" (I really don't get how to do this, I tried clicking alot, including trying to see the message sent in my Talk). Renee Powell needs an up-to-date wiki. I added valid information, as an approved volunteer for Renee Powell, that is all verifiable online. Please I am really confused on how to help Renee have a comprehensive wiki. Who is the person who created this, because I asked Renee Powell and she has no idea who did it and who is updating it (her University of St Andrews ribbon cutting taking place tomorrow in Scotland for the residence hall named after her) and my question, why would they delete accurate information I added two days ago and today? Do I need to start an new wiki that Renee Powell herself for her own page? You can contact Renee Powell at the email on the Clearview website and confirm all of this. Help, we need a diagnostic and not a bunch of pages to review to try and understand what is going on. You said not to give you my email, but I can't even understand how to read the notice you sent me in Talk, it's a page filled with extensive information that I don't know how to make sense of. I tried adding information 2 years ago and gave up. This is not at all comprehensible for a VOLUNTEER.

Please lay it out for me on the next steps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamarastuchlak (talk • contribs) 16:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Tamarastuchlak: The main problem is we need biographies to be neutral and concise. The information may be accurate, but it may not be necessary for a layman reader, who just wants to find out who Renee Powell is. If you want to talk off-wiki about things, you can click here to get a page that will send me an email, and we can talk about things in an easier to understand manner. In particular, we need to know if anything is factually incorrect, and what needs to be fixed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Request for an Editor's/Administrator's assistance - Editing changes made to Medal of Honor --see the talk page

Hello Fellow Wikipedian Editors - Perhaps if you have, time kindly examine Talk:Medal of Honor (See the section on "Samuel Adler") for the article Medal of Honor. Apparently questions have arisen regarding whether the absence of a "military related" reference source constitutes sufficient grounds for excluding mention of the composer Samuel Adler (composer) within the article Medal of Honor. The references which have been cited supporting the reference to Adler include: a website posted by a leading academic institution which interviewed Adler, a website established by retired members of the Army who served with Adler in the Seventh Army Symphony Orchestra and apparently posted his biography, a website hosted by a leading performing arts venues, a published Guide to Choral-Orchestral works (copyright 1994, published 2003) and a published Encyclopedia (published 2005). If possible, kindly clarify whether the lack of a citation to a reference source maintained by the military constitutes sufficient grounds to ignore the published references which identify Adler as a recipient of a special Medal of Honor award granted by General Eisenhower in 1953. Thanks for your input and assistance. As always, best wishes for continued success on Wikipedia. Repsectfully, 104.207.219.150 (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)PS 104.207.219.150 (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)PS

Euphoria

I wonder if the text included in the section References of the article Euphoria is not disproportionate compared to the size of the main content -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look for you. scope_creep (talk) 10:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so. The references are beautifully constructed, with no close paraphrasing. They are summarising the papers' contents, including clarification of specific points in the article. I think it is ok. scope_creep (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Perfect then, thanks for your intake -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Deschooling

The article "Deschooling" on Wikipedia appears to have been plagiarized from the website article "Deschooling" found at https://www.k12academics.com/alternative-education/deschooling.

My partner and I are working on editing this article and adding information to it as we research about it for a class.

We plan on revising the entire article from scratch, however are unsure as to whether it was plagiarized by the website above or if that website plagiarized Wikipedia's article.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Emilychingle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilychingle (talk • contribs) 14:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Emilychingle, I have ran it under Earwig Copyvio, and external WMF utility which reports probability of copyright violation:[19] that it has a 79.7% of copyright violation of https://www.k12academics.com/alternative-education/deschooling. I will need to put a copyvio noticed on it. scope_creep (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Emilychingle, I have passed it to Diannaa, she will finagle it, and return it to a non copyvio state. Hope that helps. scope_creep (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Entropic interaction```` 21:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

It is a surprise for me that all reviewers for this article are not specialists in the subject of the article. Right reviewer should be a theoretical physicist, but not a person with humanitarian education. There is cannot be lack of references for one-page article. The references contain 6 monographs and 21 articles published in peer-reviewed journals. The contain of the article is a novel development for the last few years and is currently actual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvilench (talk • contribs) 21:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Having looked at your article, is seems to consist of mostly WP:OR, or original research, which is unacceptable as a subject for Wikipedia. The draft has been rejected for that reason. scope_creep (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Having examined some of the references, and looked at Google Books for the terms, the article still looks like OR, although the term exists. The references needs to be improved and cleaned up, so they can be examined by an expert on thermodynamics.scope_creep (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I will try and find an expert on the subject to have a look at it today. scope_creep (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Scope creep, I reviewed and declined the article. The topic is the subject of the editor's papers and recent book, but does not yet have any independent coverage. I have explained that to him here. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Coolio. scope_creep (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Vehicle fleet of RAT Brașov

Hello. I have a question regarding the article titled Vehicle fleet of RAT Brașov, precisely the section named Full list. First of all, I have to admit that I did not pursue discussing this on the article's talk page as it has only one daily view on average. I will post a link to here there. My question is: do you think that the list in the section in question is encyclopedic? I personally think it isn't. Tables like the one in the Vehicles by manufacturer and model section seem relevant content to me, but that table below, with the "Number/Type/Manufacturer/Model/Produced/Doors/Axles/Articulations/Acquired/etc" columns seems obviosuly too much for Wikipedia and rather relevant for the suggested fansites. I've been looking through WP:NOT, but could not find a precise policy that could be the base for removing that table. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and "Wikipedia is not a directory" seem close enough for this, but I would like to hear a more experienced user's opinion on this. Thank you! Also, the article itself might have a notability issue, but I'm planning on renaming it as RAT Brașov, the local public transport operator in the city of Brașov, Romania, and maybe add some relevant information about it. There is also Transport in Brașov which could host such information. Thanks again, in advance. BaboneCar (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Edits to Kati Agocs page

Please help! In 2015, I made a mistake. I hired two editors that I didn't know (met online - private editors, not a company) to add updates to this page. I was unsure of their credentials at the time, and am unable to reach them now. It's entirely my error - I should never have engaged in paid editing, have learned my lesson, and won't do it again! Could someone kindly place disclosures on the talk page for the problematic editors, and replace this tag with something appropriate to the content remaining? I am not looking to be self-promotional; this is an honest attempt follow protocol. Thank you! KatiAgocs (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@KatiAgocs: The problem of promotional wording remains, so unless certain parts of the article are rephrased, the tag will likely stay there. Wording like "Kati Agócs’s music is lyrical, emotionally direct, and dramatic, with clear overall architectures" are not neutrally worded. You are free to make WP:requested edits on the article's talk page for rewording. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Moving the Smartland draft post to an article

I would like to move this Smartland post from a draft post to a main article. I'm unsure what else I need to do. When I try to move it as "(Article)," it says I do not have permission. I finally got the "Move" option yesterday after making 10+ edits, but something else is stopping this post from moving and I'm not sure what else to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShamontielV (talk • contribs) 05:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

John Shoop

The University of the South is a division 3 school and does not offer football scholarships. They do offer academic scholarships and need based financial aid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.129.19 (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

68 do you mean Sewanee: The University of the South? MarnetteD|Talk 01:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Help with new article

Hi I am a new user here on Wikipedia and would like help on this article that I have been contributing to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Legend_of_Hallowaiian

Thank you and all the best. Lildrewzy (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lildrewzy, I'll take a look at it, but your best place is the WP:TEAHOUSE. 80.229.232.253 (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

PC crashed there. I had a look at it, there is not much I can do. The film is very new, and no way at the moment to determine if it is notable. Take a look at WP:SECONDARY.scope_creep (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Alison Moyet article

Hi there,

I think an edit war might be developing on the Alison Moyet article. This week she was a signatory to a letter in The Times criticising the UK charity Stonewall for its attitude towards the transgender debate.

Someone added this bit of information to her page, and I edited it to make it more neutral. The original editor portrayed the letter (and, by extension, Alison Moyet) as "against trans rights". This is a complex issue with deeply-entrenched viewpoints, but there is no evidence for Moyet being against anyone's rights. In fact, I don't think this singer's Wikipedia page is the place for a battle on the transgender issue. I also believe that her involvement in this letter is not particularly noteworthy; if others disagree, then it should be mentioned without being politicised.

I've linked to the letter itself, which I believe is the best possible reference.

Thanks for your help. 95.145.211.32 (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi 95.145.211.32, I had a look at the letter, reference and content. It is clear pure fact, the ref is from a good source and it has been cited and unfortunately it wont be removed unless perhaps some other event happens around it. I needs to stay as it is. It is nothing to do with NPOV, is it the way it is. scope_creep (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Hijacked Wikipedia page

Does anyone know how to get your page back when it's been hijacked? Happened about 3 years ago. Wikipedia - Troy Patrick Farrell is redirecting to Pretty Boy Floyd...I am not with Pretty Boy Floyd. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.197.165 (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

74.141.197.165, Unfortunately your page doesn't have sufficient stand-alone notability, in terms of verifiable references, that can verify the facts of your musical biography, to support a Wikipedia page. So it has been removed and redirected to Pretty Boy Floyd. Please take a look at WP:MUSICBIO, WP:V, WP:BIO, and WP:SOURCES. If you need further help, please post a question to WP:TEAHOUSE. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 10:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Your edit has been reverted

Hey Guys,

I have updated some detail information here but someone reverted by saying "This is trivia and not required" [20]. No issue, I am new here and I would like to know; can't we put detail information regarding any site or place? --Rashid Jorvee

User:Rashid Jorvee, first can you sign your comments with ~~~~ with four dash The Wikipedia engine will convert them into a proper name and date information, and wee can see who you are. The information you added can be really be gotten from the website of the palace, and it doesn't add anything that the average reader would find useful, so it is considered trivia. It can be easily retrieved from the website if they plan to visit. Trivia in general was stuff that used to be added, and but was found through research to be of little encyclopedic value, and clutter, so it is removed now. I see you created diff. Keep at it. If you need any help, give me a shout. scope_creep (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The Devil and The devil

It seems silly that The Devil and The devil go to different places (Satan and Devil respectively). Also if I type "the devil" I'm probably not looking for a page that starts "A devil is...". Talk page discussion is being ignored. How do I proceed? Satans Botty (talk) 09:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Satans Botty, If the talk page discussions have stalled with no consensus, then there is not much you can do. The two articles are essentially dealing with two subjects, with some overlap. The Devil is dealing with Satan as a person, whereas the latter deals with the devil as concept with religion, or different religions. Really different concepts, so there must be two articles. scope_creep (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Help with Russian language sources

Hi could a Russian language speaker help analyse the sources on Taz language. It is spoken by less than 300 people and I can't tell if it was really a language or not at one point and if the sources point to notability or not. --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Massachusetts (disambiguation)

Hello, I need someone smarter than me to figure out what on earth is going on at Talk:Massachusetts (disambiguation) (never mind, looks like it's just uncaught vandalism from a decade ago). Also, this and a ton of other talk pages (4,000+) just popped up in a search I ran to find ref errors, which, five minutes ago, yielded two results. Some template or something has gone crazy. Help? Thanks. Jessicapierce (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jessicapierce: You didn't say which search you made and your only example is Talk:Massachusetts (disambiguation) which did have a reference error so I don't know what you want help with. I removed the wrong ref tags on that page.[21] PrimeHunter (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry @PrimeHunter:, should have been more clear. I routinely run this search, which never yields more than a handful of results. Today I saw it go from 2 results to 4,000+, apparently because it was suddenly counting Talk pages, whereas it hadn't before. None of these talk pages had been recently edited, so the ref errors were usually quite old, and I wasn't understanding why they would suddenly turn up in a search. I assumed there was some new error in a template which was included in all those pages. Whatever happened seems to have been resolved/undone, since the search results are back to normal. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jessicapierce: Your search link should normally only search articles. I don't know why you temporarily got talk pages if you didn't click "Everything" or "Advanced". Everything currently gives me 4202 results in other namespaces. Based on some samples, they do indeed have the ref error. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: I click "everything" or "advanced" super rarely, and to my knowledge, I only refreshed the tab I had open to that search, but there's a definite possibility that I somehow clicked something weird by mistake and didn't realize. I'll assume this was user error on my part unless it happens again. Thanks for your time! Jessicapierce (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

October 8

"On This Day" includes Canada Thanksgiving and Independence Day in Croatia. What happened to Columbus Day in this country? In an era where shame seems to rule the scene, is this where political correctness has taken us? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.92.255 (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

What country are you in? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Check back in on October 12. JohnInDC (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Columbus Day celebrates an event which happened October 12, 1492, but it's observed the second Monday in October in the United States. That was October 8 in 2018. It was not shown with other holidays and observances on the "October 8" line at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/October 8 because the article is ineligible for the main page due to a {{refimprove}} tag at Columbus Day#Latin American observance. Today (October 12, 2018) Columbus Day does not fit the holidays and observances line. Columbus's arrival in the Americas could have been listed as a historic event under 1492 if Christopher Columbus did not have refimprove tags. If you click "Show" at "Staging area" at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/October 12 then it's listed under "Ineligible". PrimeHunter (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Edits to Maafa 21 page

I am finding my edits to the Maafa 21 page are repeatedly being undone.

The article spends almost all of its time citing criticisms of the film and very little time talking about the film. The film is about the Eugenics movemnt, but the critics focus soley on the figure of margaret Sanger. The film spends the first half talking about forced sterilizations and doesn't really get into abortion until the second half. You wouldn't know it based on the article.

I am providing a link to the film itself for verification:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6XfU8KVkzI

I made edits on Sept 30 and October 1, highlighting Sanger's own account of speaking at KKK rally, which I think is relevant to the charges of her racism. It was removed as "original research", how can that be if it a quote from her own autobiography?

I included remarks made at one of her speeches about how whole populations of millions should be given the choice of sterilization or segregation according to Sanger. I think her own words are more relevant than a scholar's interpretation of her intent.

I spent time highlighting other things the film talked about such as the figures of Madison Grant, Harry H. Laughlin, and Francis Galton, all of which feature prominently in the film. All were removed.

All references to the film being about forced sterilization were removed, as well as the interview featured in the film with Elaine Riddick who was forcibly sterilized.

I believe I cited these additions correctly, so I am confused as to why they were removed unless there are purely ideological motivations. I did not remove more than a word or phrase here and there from the article, I spent most of my time adding to it to let the reader make informed decisions based on the material presented. I feel as if the editor who removed my work has an agenda, but on the chance that I'm in error, I am asking for assistance before requesting mediation.69.139.11.106 (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, 69.139.11.106, I don't see you IP address editing on that page? Where you editing as somebody else? scope_creep (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Wrong photo for historic building in Calgary - St. Mary's Parish Hall

I was submitting photos for the September Monument push, and noticed that the photo for St Mary's Parish Hall in Calgary is in fact quite wrong. The photo represents the new Parish Hall, while the historic Hall (sold to CN by the church and used as a train station, now currently the HQ of Alberta Ballet) is next door. Clicking on the historic number link on the original file shows the difference immediately. I have submitted photos for the correct building, but not sure if they have been accepted, or how long the review process takes.

Here's the link I was concerned with. It's from the List of historic places in the Calgary Region on Wikipedia.

St. Mary's Parish Hall 141 - 18 Avenue SW, Calgary, AB 51°02′13″N 114°03′58″W 9012 ST. MARY'S PARISH HALL.JPG

This is my first update for Wikipedia, outside of participation in the September push for photos of monuments.

Suggestions / advice please!

Ben Berg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benlarhome (talk • contribs) 16:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Benlarhome: I have replaced the image with the new one you provided. You can take alook: St. Mary's Parish Hall. Also note that, once you uploaded an image it doesn't go through any review process, just make sure you're the copyright holder or uploaded it with appropriate permission and that's all. If you want add it to any article just use the file name in the syntax like this [[File:St. Mary's Parish Hall 1.jpg|thumb]]. You can also read more about images on Wikipedia here: Help:Pictures. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Central Valley High School of Shasta Lake, CA Alumni add ons: Paul Howard - Pro football Hall of Fame and Ashley Parker Angel - singer

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.35.45.104 (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

References

How do we deal with attacks?

James Arboghast told me to fuck off Unpleased by my edit Mr. James crudely noted his reason for reverting. He included a personal slur against me; misspelling and incivility. He said, "because it makes no sense to you Kmccook indicartes your lack of perceptiveness and intelligence. Kindly cease vandalising this thing and fuck off." I found this action very unhelpful. I am not arguing about his revert, just his incivility. There just is no reason for that.Kmccook (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Kmccook (talk) 03:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not acceptable, otherwise the ceiling could come down. Speak to the administrators.

@Ritchie333: can you please take a look scope_creep (talk) 08:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I took a look at James Arboghast's contributions. Most of them are good faith improvements to prose, but done in a snarky manner which brings to mind the old phrase "being right and being a dick are not mutually exclusive". For example, this edit on Sarah McLeod (musician) does make the article a bit better, though the prose is still a bit too puffy in places, so the overall improvement is only slight. In this specific instance, no he should not have told Kmccook to fuck off and definitely should not have accused them of vandalism. Please don't do that again. Kmccook wasn't vandalising the article, they were trying to make it easier to read. While it's perfectly valid to hold the opinion the vast majority of Wikipedia's articles are poor quality, there's no point getting stressed out about poor quality articles created in good faith, you'll just burn out and give up. WP:ASTONISHME is one way you can tackle it instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Help

i have a artist wikipedia page i want to move that page draft to main page i need a help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editoroffice (talk • contribs) 04:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Editoroffice: If you want to post Draft:Riyasayiroor, add {{subst:submit|Smgroups}} to the top (use Smgroups as that user created the page). --Danski454 (talk) 10:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

My Wikipedia Page Was Deleted, Can You Advice Me on How to Get it Reinstated ?

Hello All,

My Wikipedia Page Was Deleted, Can You Advice Me on How to Get it Reinstated?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Margaret_Noble_(artist) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margaretnobleartist (talk • contribs) 14:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Margaretnobleartist, it was moved into draft, its now at Draft:Margaret Noble (artist). It was moved to draft, because it is highly promotional in terms of advertising or self-promotion, in violation of a number of Wikipedia policies, including Wikipedia Terms of Use. A paid editor, who has now been blocked indefinitely for writing a number of paid articles which were highly promotional, decided to bypass the WP:AFC and write it in main space, instead of Afc, where it would have been reviewed and improved, again violating Wikipedia Terms of Use. The article at the moment is not fit for Wikipedia. Draft articles, I understand, are not visible in the open web. scope_creep (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

--- Thank you for replying scope_creep (talk) Can you give me advice on how to submit for edits to reinstate my page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margaretnobleartist (talk • contribs) 15:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Margaretnobleartist - First, it isn't your page. Wikipedia is not a directory or a social medium. The encyclopedia has articles on people and subjects that are considered notable and are written from a neutral point of view. Second, read the conflict of interest policy. Third, and this is as much for other readers as for you, don't hire paid editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

At the time of this posting, I could see the Margaret Noble article already published and no longer a draft. The link provided has been redirected here. Darwin Naz (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Can't fix the header on my entry

Hi. I have created a Wikipedia page/entry on the Area Support Group Afghanistan. I published it (I think) but I can't figure out how to give it the title/header "Area Support Group Afghanistan." Currently it lists my name as the header -- USER: Adriane Elliot. Please help.

Thank you.

Adriane Elliot, you have created Draft:Area Support Group Afghanistan. You have also used your user page User:Adriane Elliot to write about the Area Support Group. Wikipedia user pages are intended for users to write about themselves, particularly regarding their activities on Wikipedia. I strongly recommend deleting the current content of your user page: having two draft version of the same article very often causes confusion. The draft is not currently acceptable for publication as an article, as it cites no references - you may need to read Help: Referencing for beginners. Maproom (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC).

List_of_songs_about_California#Other_locations,_cities,_and_streets

Someone please fix the last 2 sections (1 of them is reflist) on this page. I tried checking the code but it looks alright. 209.254.167.186 (talk) 07:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it's alright. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Cannot edit the article Bodacious which is protected from IP and anon users, but I am registered user

Bodacious (bull) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Please see this conversation with the admin I just had who referred me to post at "ANI." When I came to the noticeboard area, I wasn't really sure which noticeboard to post it at. [22] The issue is explained clearly at the admin's talk page. But the theme is that I cannot edit an article that was protected to keep IP users from editing it temporarily. I have a login and should be able to edit it. Thank you! dawnleelynn^(talk) 05:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dawnleelynn: It's WP:ANI a.k.a. WP:Dramaboard. You should be able to edit semi-protected articles. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 05:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Question about "Personal life" sections in BLP and other biographical articles

Because of some current disagreement about this issue on the Kate Fischer BLP article, I am wanting to ask the views of other Wikipedia editors on what kinds of information ought to be included (and what ought not be) in "personal life" sections of biographical articles instead of the broader "life and career" sections. In particular, is it appropriate to include such "controversy" things as a person's arrests and charges for driving offences in a "personal life" section? In my current view this is not appropriate but there does not seem to be any clarity about such matters in the MOS or elsewhere as far as I'm aware. I hope this is the correct place to ask this question. If not please advise me on where it would be. Thanks, Yahboo (talk) 04:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion on this between the above editor and others has subsequently been discussed on the article's talk page. — Maile (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Unresponsive, Accusatory User

Hello - how does one resolve a potential edit war with a user that refuses to discuss? I was reviewing older versions of an article and noticed that proper grammar and acronyms were removed a while back. I also noticed text that was properly sourced and seemed appropriate to restore. I did so and the user quickly reverted all changes, accusing me of being a sockpuppet.

I left a comment attempting to suggest compromises at the talkpage as these were WP:GF edits. Nothing. User reverted and accused again.

I then left the user a message on this Talk page, explained why I restored the missing text and then proceeded to restore just the proper grammar and acronyms. The user again did the same and deleted my conversation on his Talk page. [23]

I made a final reversion (fearing WP:3RR after that). Again, no discussion. Simple revert and accusing on sockpuppeting (a term I was unfamiliar with until now, which I find quite offensive).

Details are here: [24]. 104.172.8.126 (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

If you are still getting no response, you should post about this at WP:ANEW. — Maile (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Gwendolyn D. Phillips (Lady de Ashborough

Gwendolyn D. Phillips (1960 - ) (AKA: Gwendolyn. Lady De Ashborough) European Aristocracy. Socialite. Patron & Professional Polo Player. Philathropist

Education: Bachelor Arts Broadcast Journalism Texas Southern University Executive Masters Public Administration Texas Southern University

Children Austin Rutherford Colby DOB: March 28, 1994 24 yrs

Parents: Mother: Lucille Evans Phillips Kelley (83) Father: Tom Westly Phillips ll (Deceased)

Know For: First Women to Own a non heritage non corporate owned professional polo team Alegria Para Siempre. First Women to Represent England as Captain in the Cartier World Cup Championships on Snow in St. Moritz, Switzerland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LGA11266p (talk • contribs) 00:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you looking for help in creating an article for this person? You might be interested in WT:WIR, a project that exists to create articles about accomplished women. — Maile (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

She's not a peeress. See [25]. She probably doesn't merit an article until she's actually convicted of something. - Nunh-huh 03:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Tried to move a page but it was flagged as vandalism

Hey there!

I'm from Australia and just noticed a lot of the naming conventions for the TAFE Institutes above are outdated as they don't exist anymore. I've put in the new names as they're known out here in Australia. Wasn't able to rename them since it was getting flagged as vandalism.

Could someone please help move these pages?

Current Links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illawarra_Institute_of_TAFE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Coast_Institute_of_TAFE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Sydney_Institute_of_TAFE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverina_Institute_of_TAFE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Western_Sydney_Institute_of_TAFE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Institute_of_TAFE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Institute_of_TAFE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sydney_Institute_of_TAFE

New names:

TAFE NSW Illawarra

TAFE NSW North Coast

TAFE NSW Northern Sydney

TAFE NSW Riverina

TAFE NSW South Western Sydney

TAFE NSW Sydney Metro

TAFE NSW Western NSW

TAFE NSW Western Sydney

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bananasareyummy12 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC) 

Hi Bananasareyummy12, I will take a look at these. Get back to me before the end of the week, to make sure I've done it. I might be worth getting a couple of reference, in terms of name change to make sure it is verifiable information. scope_creep (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

moving from sandbox

Answered

Hello, I created an article in my sandbox and moved to article status, but the 'my sandbox' graphic still appears in the upper left corner of the article. How do I remove this or did I do something wrong in the move? Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felipe_Pantone

Thank you, Shawna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawnasafari (talk • contribs) 23:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed - TransporterMan (TALK) 02:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Jason Crookes

Hi my Wikipedia page needs editing it’s missubg the 16 games I play for Featherstone Rovers in 2013 Signed Jason Crookes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.241.191 (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I tagged for updating valereee (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Multiple multi-AfDs

I've discovered a category, Category:Lists of political office-holders by age, in which it seems impossible for most of the articles to meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion, as they are lists which

1. Require constant (or, at least very frequent) maintenance
2. Are (IMO) trivia
3. Almost certainly require WP:SYNTHESIS (combining information from multiple sources to produce the list).

Even those few where each entry is sourced to a single source (as opposed to birth date and death date from different sources), putting them in a sortable table seems to violate WP:SYNTHESIS, as the sort order requires synthesis.

So, I have two questions:

1. Where should I bring the matter up for discussion? The talk page of the category seems inappropriate, and WT:WikiProject Longevity seems likely to be predisposed toward keeping even those articles which clearly violate Wikipedia policies.
2. If I choose to submit multiple multi-AfDs, how can I generate the AfDs. There are at least 3 categories:
   1. Lists of heads of state of Foo by age.
   2. Lists of heads of state of Foo by longevity
   3. List of current ... (members of national legislatures, governors of states) by age
   • Some of the other articles do not violate point 3, as the tables are not sortable or sorted. "List of Fooian monarchs by age at succession to the throne" falls in the category of things that I think inappropriate for Wikipedia, but do not violate any of the current criteria for inclusion.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin I think you would probably have trouble deleting this category, and I would suggest leaving it be, as it would be uphill struggle. It is a list of list article, a kind of meta category, which is common on Wikipedia. Only the last entry in the list is being maintained, by the editor who is maintaining the list article, so its not a huge amount of work to maintain each list article, indeed the work is update the end date, and add the new person in with dob and start of term. Each list entry has an article, which is independently source, so they are not just random data, they all heavily referenced. Some of them are likely to be FA/GA articles. The information in each of the end articles are clearly encyclopaedic, as is each list itself. All in all, I suspect it would difficult to delete. I would certainly vote keep, as ultimately they need a category. Its not complete either, most African, South American, probably around 120 countries on it still. So a long way to go before it is fully populated. Hope that helps.scope_creep (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that your dad died. You have my condolences. scope_creep (talk) 10:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Prevention of abuse-of-priviledges and concealment

Request unclear

I noticed that guidelines are not always locked and may be ignored, specifically an "author" or "reporting editor" of a new project having elevated the project status without following the guidelines (neutrality, point-of-view, etc.). In the specific case, the guidelines should have either been locked or ignored all the time. The author had previously composed a list of IP`s and labeled the list as "spam IP edits", although mostly the contributions were made to talkpages as material for future improvements and as such were not "edits" at all. After changing the terminology from "spam" to "vandalism" and again to "disruption", the author then came to the position that a project page should be started.

It is not correct to suggest that the contributions (of all the IP`s on the list) were counter to the raison d'être of Wikipedia, and the level of proper scrutiny was never afforded, resulting in the list of IP`s then having been labeled (wrongly) as abusive, vandalistic, and currently wrongly being labeled as puppet-mastery; the progression of the listings should have been done in a less underhand manner, in that the author elevated the status despite the guideline specifically warning the author NOT to elevate. The author purported that IAR (Ignore All Rules) may be applied to semi-administrative functions, and then progressed the project which has subsequently grown wings, due to other like-minded authors or editors with experience and priviledges. They had a meet, puppetry having been alleged, although without having followed the proper procedures to have arrived at the current status.

Most recently, {{expert needed}} requests were deleted, and as such valid information pertinent to the project is being obscured (or concealed in the sense that you would have to check the historical differentials of the project page itself and other Wikipedia Category {expert} Help to see it).

So simply put, in the so-called "Long Term Abuse", a case exists in which the author (and authors mentors/meats) of the project page has (/have) abused priviledge themself(/ves). That shouldn`t have been allowed to happen in that way. It has spiraled or snowballed way out of proportion. The contributor has not evaded anything, and is not breaking the law or policy, despite the lists suggesting otherwise.

Objectively, if the author and associated wikipedians have a "good" case, the procedures certainly exist for the appropriate procedures to progress, without having to ignore the appropriate procedure (IAR). The project may be abandoned and re-started, if the author and associates wish to do it the proper way; openly, accountably, and in good faith. Alternatively, sanctions may be in order.

An objective read-through of the listed IP content is hereby requested, and apologies for the snowball having to be examined are proferred. Any request respondents or curious wikipedians may find the case as it has been authored "Long Term Abuse" and given the identifier "Hydro Dot Net". ```Cheers```182.158.82.171 (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll confess that my attention span has been degraded by Twitter and other social media, so perhaps it's me, but I've been through this several times now and can't figure out what it's trying to say. JohnInDC (talk) 12:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The request seems to be clear in the last bit; noting the progression after the changes of "Vandal-s" to "Vandal-m", (summarized as if to prevent an "error") it is clear from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Hydro_dot_net&diff=848998420&oldid=848340260 that the project author crossed the line, prior to the "snowballing" and `actions taken by admins`(WP:NOCON) outside of the project (puppet investigation), and that as such both the alleged sockpuppetry and alleged LTA investigations were not only imprudent, but inappropriate. The request did indicate a level of good-faith in (WP:ENEMY) not demanding sanctions, rather by suggesting alternatives. Although there may have been merits to some actions taken, it seems that the projectmentorship may have staged a sort of coup`d`wiki here, as there are glaring omissions and overzealous deletions partly by automizations such as rollback and huggle, amongst other tags/bots, etc.

If an increase in checks-and-balances are required, that is simply done. We cannot have users involved in co-"conspiracies" to subvert the rules-based system of wikipedia, and feigning ignorance. False-flagging doesn`t do anyone any good: "if your email wasn`t received, spam likely got `em.", they say~ pinging @Patrick Earley (WMF): on this matter for good measure. If the request is any clearer, these ({{expert needed|Portal:Semantic_Web}} and {{expert needed|WikiProject Fact and Reference Check}}) may be of assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.101.236.86 (talk)

I think it's continuing some previous discussion. It refers to "the specific case" without any case having been specified, and to "the list of IP`s" when no IPs have been listed. I can't make any sense of it either, despite never using Twitter. Maproom (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Third concur. Marking unclear, removing template transclusion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The request is for someone to address the problems cited, and rollback the project(s) if required.219.101.236.86 (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I created the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hydro dot net page as OP noted, lately I've been indiscriminately reverting the recent edits by these IPs. It's true, there are many edits that are harmless chaff (some are a slight improvement, some are a slight detriment) that wouldn't ordinarily warrant reverting. But there are some that are actively damaging -- misrepresenting sources, repeated posting of the same unsourced conspiracies, etc. At this point I just can't be bothered with reviewing the edits in detail any more and I think keeping them would send a message that such behavior is tolerated.

This abuse has been going on for 4 years now, with over 90 IPs we know of (and probably more we haven't found). Many IPs have been blocked, so there's no question that this constitutes block evasion. However, if anyone wants to go over the edits and restore those that are helpful, I won't stop you. :)

-- intgr [talk] 22:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems the request indicates that "many IP`s have been blocked" inappropriately. However, that doesn`t say there was no question of excessive zeal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.101.236.86 (talk) 11:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Good job, intgr, in decoding this request and responding to it. Thank you. JohnInDC (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Feeling not free to express my POV

Hello! New old user here (been away for many years). On the MH17 -article/talk https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17&action=history I found the article not accurate according to the information and evidence (and lack of) it's based on, and instead of editing the article, I expressed how I view it on the talk-page, and asked relevant questions to the editorial team. However, my contribution on the talk-page was deleted. ?? Now, is that according to common policy here -that matters aren't even allowed to be discussed? Please, help me understand how the Wikipedia works in this regard. Best Geirsole (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Geirsole, personally, I don't think your post should have been removed considering WP:TPO, but it doesn't really matter if you think it's obvious that MH17 was a false flag. Your point of view, same as any other, would need to be represented fairly, but fairly is relative to how it's represented in reliable sources, so the easiest way to go about this is to find some reliable sources that back up what you're saying without synthesis, and then either doing the talk page thing or adding it to the article yourself. Your viewpoint sounds like it's held by a relative minority, so the WP:DUE guideline may help determine how to cover it appropriately here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! Yes, I expect my POV to be held by a relative minority. But, if I looked through the edit-history of page/talk I expect to find hundreds of other page- and talk-edits from other user in line with my POV, and with all the relevant links and summary. So, that's why I judged it as a waste of time to do the same. And, I just wanted to ask some relevant meta-questions for the editorial team. Then seeing the deletion of a respectfully worded talk-edit, made me wander if this is common practice on Wikipedia. After all, the article itself, is all worded as a support for the official story, and in all ways tries to ridicule and argue against any other POV. Geirsole (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I kind of hate to see a talk page post that isn't clearly disruptive deleted. Can we just semi-hide it? valereee (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! May I ask, why hide or delete relevant comments and questions on a talk page any way? Geirsole (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Geirsole Because you didn't come in with anything helpful, just an opinion you have on the issue. The article talk page is not the place for that, but I believe such things should be semi-hidden, not deleted. valereee (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

In this case I ask myself: How much worth would an article that supported the wanted agenda of one or more of the involved countries be worth to that country/ies? I believe that's would be quite a sum. Geirsole (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

There appears to be significant coverage of theories advanced by Russian media, and I'm not sure what exactly you think is missing here. Unless you can find some sources, as you claim to have done so in the history (copying and pasting is fine as long as proper attribution is done), I doubt anything could be done, since it's not clear what you are disputing. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, to be clear, what I ask for here is to determine if the deletion of my comment is according to Wikipedia standards and policy. And if so, help me understand what this policy is and how it applies here. And if not, as a relative new user, what should I do about it? The context is for me to understand how Wikipedia works in areas of ongoing conflicts. How/if a minority POV are fairly represented. Or if it's a sort a majority dictatorship and information suppression. I would contribute according to all standards collecting information and references, editing the article itself, if I judged it a meaningful use of my time. But, with some preknowledge of Wikipedia, I would just assume it would be deleted/reverted and meaningless. And the deletion of a rather respectfully worded comment on the talk-page confirms this. At the moment, I rather not go into the details of what exactly I feel missing in the article, but keep it on a meta-level. Geirsole (talk) 12:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Talkpages are for discussion of article improvement, not for speculation or invitations to discuss personal opinions. Such discussions are liable to be removed or hatted per WP:NOTFORUM. Such discussions tend to swamp talkpages to no good outcome for the article, and they often end up as arguments, particularly on articles where there are nationalist/ethnic disputes, or which are the focus of conspiracy theorists. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for your views - there are lots of other places on the Internet where you can do that. Talkpages serve the process of building the encyclopedia. If you have specific, sourced suggestions in accordance with Wikipedia policies for the article, use the talkpage. You aren't free to post your personal point of view. Acroterion (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I worded myself wrong then. This was of course not just my personal opinions, as a lot of users share this view. But frankly, it felt like censorship, much like the church would clamp down on questions in th 17th century, or Pravda would not allow wrong-thinkers express their views in Sovjet 1975. So, I'll leave the topic for now, getting to know Wikipedia a little better. What it is, and what it's not. Thanks for your help in this. Best Gsoler (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

A query about the page of Petr Čech

Answered

Sir, i want to ask a question to you about the page of forementioned person. I had added a content on the mentioned page referring petr cech to be " one of the greatest goalkeepers of all time" and i also cited not one but two very reliable sources claiming the exact same thing proving the righteous authenticity of it. I know this is a subjective content to add on wikipedia but you should also consider the fact that every other page on wikipedia has got some sort of subjective content in any way. For example- the beatles, Buffon, Pele, Maradona, Lev yashin, manuel neuer so denying one will make it really biased. If you ask your football expert about the matter he will also tell you that iy is no way a high praise but a well deserved statement as Petr cech is one of the most legendary footballer ever. So i just want your permission to do my edit because an editor is not letting me do that. Afterwards for others convenience i will also add a consensus but firstly i want to do my edit. Thanks for your time,Sir. 117.234.145.137 (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit: that includes you. Permissions are both unneeded and, since there is no one with the authority to give them, unavailable. Remember that the kind of source that you need for this is not a reliable source saying "X is the greatest of all times" but a reliable source that says something like "it is widely accepted that X is the greatest of all time". The difference is that the first is an opinion, while the second is a assertion of fact. We do not repeat opinion here as fact, nor do we accumulate multiple opinions from different reliable sources and analyze them (such analysis is prohibited SYNTHESIS), to conclude that "it's accepted that X is the greatest of all time." Individual opinions can sometimes be included in the form "Commentator Y asserts that X is the greatest of all time," but in most cases that's giving prohibited undue weight to the opinion of a nobody unless Y is regarded as a super-expert on the subject in question. Because these rules and their application is very subtle, it's generally not a good idea to generalize from what's been done in another article to the one you're concerned with. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

addition to persistent carbene entry

The persistent carbene entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_carbene) has a Perioidic Table of the Elements that shows which elements are such carbene complexes. Bismuth is shown as not having any, but this is now incorrect: please see: Highly Reactive Cyclic(alkyl)(amino) Carbene- and N-Heterocyclic Carbene-Bismuth(III) Complexes: Synthesis, Structure, and Computations Guocang Wang, Lucas A. Freeman, Diane A. Dickie, Réka Mokrai, Zoltán Benkő, and Robert J. Gilliard, Jr. Inorg. Chem., 2018, 57 (18), pp 11687–11695

I do not know how to edit the Periodic Table, but it should be changed and this reference added. Jtelser (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

References

@Jtesler: The article is about persistent carbenes, not just any carbines. Do the bismuth compounds qualify as "persistent"?

The periodic table isn't actually editable from the article because it's transcluded from Template:Periodic table (persistent carbene), which is easy to edit. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Correcting obvious errors in an article about a music album with reference to the sound of the album

Answered

Hi, I try to source my edits to the best of my ability. However, I came across a particular kind of problem. The article in question is on Stuart Hamm's Radio Free Albemuth (album). The article listed Allan Holdsworth as featured on guitar, and this is also what the AllMusic reference in the article, as well as secondary references such as discogs.com say. However, if you listen to the actual recording, it is apparent that the performance in question was not done on a guitar, but performed with a synthesizer controller called the SynthAxe, using the performer's undisclosed synthesizer module for the actual sound output. So the source listed is in fact wrong. I made an edit, and made a footnote. The editors should of course take whatever appropriate action.

Now, my question is: How do you correct what is an obvious error in the article itself that results from an obvious error that can be found when investigating the source material? The only source that actually seems to be correct here, is the sound file itself. This is really a minor problem in terms of the article in question, but more of a philosophical general Wikipedia problem - What can be argued to be a credible source? Kind regards, KaldeFakta68 (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows, in general, secondary sources. The sounds on an album are a primary source. Primary sources can, in many instances, be used for article information but the primary source policy, which I just linked, says

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. ... Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."

For that reason, your analysis of the kind of instrument that was used should not be used in a Wikipedia article; a reliable secondary source for it must be found if it is to be used. Until such a source is found, the information which is currently reported in reliable secondary sources is what can be in the article. It would be good to report your observation on the article talk page, however, so that individuals interested in that article can keep an eye out for a secondary source. Yes, the combination of these policies can result in incorrect information being included in Wikipedia indefinitely, but bear in mind that Wikipedia is intended to only be a compendium of information which is verified in reliable sources, nothing more. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

@KaldeFakta68: The SynthAxe is a type of guitar. You need to know how to play a guitar to play a SynthAxe. Therefore I would say the sources are correct by saying Holdsworth plays guitar. You could probably change the credit to "SynthAxe guitar" and nobody would object.

As to the philosophical question, TransporterMan answered adequately above. Here's my take on it: Generally if it can be demonstrated that a source is wrong, it can be removed, but would need to be discussed on the article talk page. Substituting it with Wikipedia:Original research, however, wouldn't be acceptable. In the case where a reliable source conflicts with original research, the best approach would be to omit mentioning it altogether until a reliable source can be found. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! Very useful information there for a newbie editor. A comment in the reply below.

@Anachronist: I would argue that the SynthAxe was NOT a guitar, based on the evidence available. This is also why I brought up the question to begin with. This is also an example of both a specific and a general case. The specific case is that the SynthAxe was indeed constructed in such a way that guitarists could play it. However, if you read the SynthAxe article, it pretty clearly lays out that the SynthAxe was NOT a guitar: The sound was not created by the string vibrations themselves, the instrument was divided into separate strings for the right and left hand, and there were multiple non-guitaristic ways of playing it, i.e. the touchpads. I also do not think that you need to be able to play a guitar to play the SynthAxe, drummer Future Man of Bela Fleck and the Flecktones is a case in point, although he does play a heavily customized version. The more general issue is of course how dissimilar something has to be to be excluded from a category and constitute its own. I'll have a look at the article again and try to make appropriate edits in line with the feedback given here. Thanks again for your insightful reply.KaldeFakta68 (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

General discussion about certain topic

Hello. Is there a place where I can make a discussion and a request about a proposal I got for articles about mobile phones? It isn't just one particular article I'm referring to but rather I mean the topic as a whole. I tried looking at Portal:Mobile phones without luck. --KaukoHaapavesi3 (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi KaukoHaapavesi3, here is as good as any. What are you looking to do? scope_creep (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Really? Well I hope Wikipedians with good knowledge about this topic are here to read this then, anyway here goes.

I would like to talk about the article names of certain mobile phones (particularly older models). Phones made by Nokia, e.g. Nokia N85, only have the 'N85' part in the name, and rightly so because that is the name the device is marketed as and known as by the general public - obviously better to use rather than its actual internal name which are "RM-333", "RM-334", "RM-335". However many phones made by Samsung and LG (where applicable) don't have the general "public" name in the article but rather the internal manufacturer's name - for example Samsung i8510 which is marketed as "Samsung Innov8" or Samsung S8000 which is marketed as "Samsung Jet". Yesterday I changed these articles' names (and a few others) to the current form which has both the internal and "public" name, i.e. it's changed to Samsung i8510 Innov8. (this is also the exact format in which models are written on the GSMArena.com website, , ) Likewise, LG phones' articles have this issue too: yesterday I renamed LG KM900 to LG Arena (KM900), "Arena" being the marketed name it is known as.

Changing names so that it has the general name in it makes it a **lot** more recognisable. I honestly had a difficult time to for instance tell LG Chocolate models apart when they all had their long internal letter/numbers in their article names, until I changed them to their more better known marketed names ("LG Chocolate", "LG Chocolate Spin", "LG Chocolate 3" etc.). In fact, this is also bad for users to not only identify the models but actually finding them on the internet - I did a Google search yesterday for one of the phones (I think it was "Samsung Jet"?) and the Wikipedia article didn't even appear on the first page! (the article was called "Samsung S8000" yesterday until I renamed it to "Samsung S8000 Jet"). It's difficult for the average person knowing this phone as "Samsung Jet" to know that "Samsung S8000" is actually the Jet model. I've noticed that modern phones such as Samsung Galaxy S8 use this common public naming format on Wikipedia - the S8's internal names are "SM-G950" and "SM-G955", but the article is just "Galaxy S8", the way it's supposed to be. The older phones' article names I mentioned here should also be like this.

Also don't forget that there could be several internal names for one general model (that could be variants or for different release regions) - for example the Samsung SGH-F480 (which is marketed as "Samsung Tocco") is internally called "SGH-488" in the Hong Kong market. This is yet another reason of the importance of the public marketed names in article names. This article should be called "Samsung SGH-F480 Tocco" or better yet a simpler form of "Samsung F480 Tocco". -- It also needs to be consistent, for instance in the Samsung models it's in the format "Samsung i8510 Innov8" but the LG models are in the format "LG Arena (LM900)". The latter should probably be changed to "LG LM900 Arena" so it's the same standard - this is also how it's known as on the GSMArena.com website.

I want to make this a general standard on Wikipedia for articles of this topic (mobile phones), so would like to have a discussion with others to see what their views are on this. --KaukoHaapavesi3 (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

References

@KaukoHaapavesi3: The standard guidance is WP:COMMONNAME. That is, we name articles according to how the subject is most commonly known. That's why we have an article on Bill Clinton, for example, instead of his official name "William Jefferson Clinton". If a phone is more widely known as "Samsung Tocco" instead of "SGH-F480", then the more common name should be the title of the article.

Be prepared to back that up with sources. Raw Google hits on one name versus another can help although Google hits aren't a reliable indicator unless the difference in results is significant, like 25% or more (my opinion). Google's Ngram viewer is an excellent resource for finding trends of commonality in certain phrases (but only in books). ~Anachronist (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Ridiculous Policies

I was the producer of the Computer Game Heaven and Earth. I was visiting your posting regarding that game and noticed some errors and a lack of relevant data, I made a few corrections and additions which are easily verified and you tossed them out because I was involved in the game. I not only produced it, I own the copyright. Who better to fix the problems, your policy that won't allow that under any circumstances is just plain ridiculous. I support you financially every year, but I'm beginning to think that I need to reconsider that. And, don't tell me to write to an editorial board, I tried numerous times over the years and have gotten nowhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradfregger (talk • contribs) 16:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Note that he's talking about edits that were made under his other account, The Brad Fregger. Addressing this and other issues on his talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

...Or is he talking about his edits under the account Smith on Wiki...? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I think WP:SPI would be appropriate to determine for sure. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Or maybe Bradfregger is talking about edits by 69.18.20.167 to Heaven & Earth (video game). None of those edits have been reverted but some were ignored in the rendered page because they used parameters not supported by Template:Infobox video game. A template call can only use parameter names which are known to the template. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Handling of FDA-unapproved medical treatments within a disease article

I would like to get help from experienced editors in handling the following RfC on Handling of FDA-unapproved medical treatments within a disease article. The point of the RFC is how the article on MRSA can present treatments that are not officially admitted in the US, that do not necessarily meet WP:MDRS but are widely used and officially approved in many other developped countries.

Most editors on MRSA article are obviously medical doctors, and they don't see the point, referring systematically to WP:MDRS, and thus censoring any attempt to mention the bare existence of these treatments. It seems experienced editors from non medical fields will better understand the issue.

Thank you.Riffstilde (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Need help sourcing

On the Megan McKenna article, I am unsure how to source one of the details. The reference is down as [10], on the section about her book. The link is there, but the reference does not work correctly. If this could be fixed, it’d be a great help! Experienced editors will be able to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joesimnett (talk • contribs) 18:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

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

The reference was just a web address, sitting inside the wrong kind of brackets. I've converted it into a {{cite web}}. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Where and on what basis to take a request to reconsider a closed Template for Discussion re merge of Geobox river into Infobox river

Answered

Template:Infobox river(edit talk links history)

I believe a closed Template for discussion (link: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 October 19#Template:Infobox river) though conducted in good faith, was conducted and closed incorrectly; and that after closure it was discovered that a core group of interested template users would have been unaware of the Tfd discussion. I would like to know the proper forum to have the closure re-examined, and on what basis it would be acceptable for such a request to be considered. I have looked at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy but regret it is not clear to me how to proceed. I submit some discussion I attempted to have on the matter at Template talk:Infobox river#Disappointed at handling of Geobox river to Infobox river merge proposal. Many thanks, --papageno (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

You're looking for Deletion Review. I don't get much involved in deletion matters, but since the proper notice was given and there was good participation at the deletion discussion, I'd be surprised if "some people missed it" will be enough to obtain a reversal. But, heck, I've been surprised before. Read and follow the instructions at Deletion Review carefully. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for your swift reply, @TransporterMan. Daunting, and disappointing , but thanks. I know how to proceed. --papageno (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The Voice Season 15: Emojis

I've been trying to edit this page about The Voice Season 15. There is a check mark symbol to show that a person's performance got into iTunes Top 10, and I tried putting one, but after clicking 'Publish changes' it showed me an error sign saying no 'emojis'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.245.95 (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe the checkmark symbol you tried to use was not a Unicode symbol, but an emoji of some kind. The Unicode for a check mark is U+2713 ✓ and for a heavy check mark is U+2714 ✔. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Paul Deussen

Paul Deussen, Carl von Gersdorff or someone else entirely?

Talk:Paul Deussen

c:File talk:Carl von Gersdorff.jpg

An IP just removed the image again. Dispute has apparently existed since 2006. Can someone who actually knows about these things establish who is depicted? - Alexis Jazz 06:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

c:File talk:Paul Deussen (1914).jpg

Rather than fight over that image (which now having been disputed ought to be required to have a reliable source to be reinserted, per BURDEN), why not use the other image of Deussen at Commons, perhaps trimming it down so it's just a head shot? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 07:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: works for me. But as on Commons we don't typically have the knowledge about this sort of thing, it would be helpful if someone could tell us if the disputed image is indeed Carl von Gersdorff. Some IP users said that, but I'm not taking their word for it and they didn't provide any proof. - Alexis Jazz 08:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alexis Jazz TransporterMan I was passing. Can you not do an image search, using each image and see what names comes up. Or look for a portrait and if it exists, do a comparison. scope_creep (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Look at this:[26] The top man is Carl von Gersdorff. It should be easy to confirm him as he is an German aristocrat and should have many images, including portraits of him. That is turn will confirm Deussen.

@Scope creep: no. Wikipedia used that image for 6 years and likely longer on the Paul Deussen article. So obviously image search says it's Paul Deussen and some "reliable" sources may well have copied that "fact". Your link to weltbild only confirms the bottom image, but that already had a reliable source. The top image is from Photobucket, which means nothing. - Alexis Jazz 13:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I hate to be picky about this, but unless we can find a reliable source which clearly identifies the top picture as von Gersdorff, we may never be able to say in Wikipedia's voice that it's him. I've compared it with some other fairly well documented photos of vG (do a Google image search on his name and you'll find some) and, for myself, am pretty sure that it's vG, but such comparisons are not sufficient for Wikipedia because the visual comparison violates the no original research policy. We have to find a reliable source that says that the top picture is vG in order to say that in Wikipedia's voice. But, as I noted above, the mere fact that the image is disputed is, by itself, enough under the Verifiability policy to exclude it from the article until someone comes up with a reliable source which says that it is Deussen. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Messy page

The ‘Singles’ section on Burna Boy is very messy, due to inexperienced editors damaging the page. I’m not quite sure how to fix this issue, I would try but I don’t want to mess it up even more! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joesimnett (talk • contribs) 00:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I just pulled an old copy of that section from before the newbie broke it, and pasted it into the current version of the article. That's all you have to do, really. If someone completely screws up the formatting of an article or section while trying to do... whatever it was he was trying to do, even if it's adding new content, you don't have to try and salvage anything. You can just restore the affected section to what it used to be, or the entire article if need be. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Adding a ‘promotional singles’ tab

I’m unsure how to add a ‘Promotional singles’ tab to the Megan McKenna article as I’m still fairly new to editing and contributing to Wikipedia articles. If this could be added under Discography, this would be a great help. Experienced editors will be able to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joesimnett (talk • contribs) 14:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed this now, from using the Wikipedia cheatsheet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joesimnett (talk • contribs) 23:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Photo copyright

Hi there

I recently uploaded several images to a wikipedia article that were claimed by another organization. I own the copyright to those photos but I allowed the other organization to use them. These photos have since been deleted and I was wondering how can I resolve this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chain10 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

That's not nearly enough information to advise you since you did none of that from this account and this is an area that's far too complicated to generalize about. Please be specific and provide links: What article? What photos? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Chain10: This is the English Wikipedia. If you refer to files you uploaded [27] to Wikimedia Commons and used in the Chinese Wikipedia then try asking at commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Tried to move a page but it said "ask for assistance at the new contributors' help page"

Answered

Delayed sleep phase disorder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello, I'm not exactly a "new" contributor: I've done Wikipedia edits for years... Anyway, I tried to move (re-title) the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_sleep_phase_disorder

I proposed changing the title to: Delayed sleep phase syndrome (i.e. change the word "disorder" to "syndrome")

My reasons: 1) The article immediately states it's "more often known as delayed sleep phase syndrome" - well, why have the LESS common name as a title? 2) Authoritative sites seem to prefer the term SYNDROME (e.g. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/14295-delayed-sleep-phase-syndrome-dsps ) 3) Calling it "DISORDER" instead of "SYNDROME" carries an inappropriate judgemental value: it's not an illness

I don't think there's anything controversial about this title change... The move operation said: "To complete this move, please ask for assistance at the new contributors' help page, and a more experienced editor will perform it for you."

So, here I am - would a more experienced editor please perform this operation for me? Thanks!

--Nikoschance (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

According to the article, "disorder" is the official International Classification of Sleep Disorders (ICSD-3) name even though "syndrome" may be more commonly used. The article was renamed from "syndrome" to "disorder" in 2014 and there's an existing redirect from "syndrome" to the current article, so anyone entering that name will be taken to the current article. You should follow the instructions for potentially controversial moves rather than just moving it yourself or having someone do it for you. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The new contributors' help page closed in 2013. I have updated the message.[28] PrimeHunter (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

How to add reference section

Hello, I recently created my very first Wikipedia article, and it is going smoothly, except for one thing. How do I add a dropdown section for references? The article is Sam Retford. If this could be done / explained for me, it’d be a great help!

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joesimnett (talk • contribs) 20:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like you figured it out already. Do you need something more? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Public school/Independent school

I'm baffled by the difference, if any, between the articles Public school (United Kingdom) and Independent school (United Kingdom). The former appears to have been pagemoved to the latter over a decade ago, and there's been some discussion about whether or not the two terms are synonymous, and there is some mention of public schools being a type of independent school, but there doesn't appear to have been much effort to heavily distinguish the two articles from each other because to me they appear very similar and I'm surprised there have been no merge requests. Can someone assist me in finding why these articles are the way they are, and if they could be improved? --78.148.49.38 (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a difference. Public school in the UK are private schools, that are run by themselves, and pupils pay a fee on a term basis to attend. They are at very top of education and tend called in posh schools. The elite use them to school their children. When there were originally setup, they were called public schools, as anybody public person could send their kid to them. Its a bit of a misnomer. Independent denotes that they are outside the state system. Instead of being managed by the Department of Health and Education in the UK, they are managed by their own local board. scope_creep (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Simply put there is some independent schools that are not public schools. It might be worth posting this question to the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities and asking them for help. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Restoring sourced title to CCTV Headquarters

As mentioned in talk, there's no source to justify the new title one editor has chosen for this article - which doesn't have a single English language source to support it. I don't know how to revert it to its original title. Could someone help? I have created pages but don't know how to change titles. Thanks. Bangabandhu (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bangabandhu: Moved back and left a note on the talkpage. If you disagree with a bold move (that's those not as a result of discussion), you can request reversal at Wikipedia:RM/T. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, I didn't know about RM/T. Bangabandhu (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Assistance needed in dealing with aggressive editor and inaccurate use of policy against me

Re: Talk:Free! (TV series)

Please refer to the most recent entry called "Post Move." My initial post was made in May 2018 and, looking back, I admit my post was unnecessary and I apologize. Six months have passed on this closed discussion without incident until the other day when User:Raymond1922 re-opened the discussion with a response from Paige Ellsworth. I have no issue with that. However, User:Sk8trPrince went on an ad hominem rant against me. Being confused, I politely inquired about his remarks, but he he again attacked me personally, then closed the discussion based on WP policy, citing me at fault for re-opening a closed discussion. I would like that inaccurate citation as me being the one who reopened the closed discussion removed. I am not seeking sanctions against User:Sk8trPrince at this time, but if this user persists in another personal attack, I would like to know how I should proceed. Please advise.Ouranista talk 19:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

In May, you wrote a "protest" about the outcome of a closed discussion, in which

• you accused someone of being unregistered, despite being aware of their username
• you mis-stated who had started the discussion
• you called the outcome of the discussion "a quiet coup d'etat"
• you implied that the decision had been made to prepare for paid advertising on Wikipedia
• you failed to sign your protest.

For six months, no-one took any notice. You did not retract any of your claims. Then Ouranista responded, quite sensibly in my view, as did three other users.

Now you are upset at being accused of reopening the closed discussion, even though everyone can see that you did so, with this edit.

I see that you have apologised above for your protest. I suggest that you repeat your apology below the (now closed) protest and responses, and hope that everyone forgets about it. Maproom (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment - Retraction "Post Move" comment - May 2018. My error was criticizing other editors and misinterpreting page instructions. I will refrain from uncivil words in the future and hope for restraint in the behavior of others. Ouranista talk 04:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Company Page

Hi, I want whenever I've tried to create a company page sometimes pages deleted with the reason that it has some promotional content in pages is all about the company and some pages have enough notability how can i solve this

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed zaryab (talk • contribs) 21:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Is This Vandalism?

Would repeatedly editing an unnotable (note: according to who?) individual into the "notable people" section of an article about a certain city constitute "vandalism" if the individual in question actually is from that city? If this isn't the right place to ask this please move it there or tell me where is the correct place to ask it so I can do so myself. Thank you! 146.244.137.179 (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi 146.244.137.179, not vandalism, but disruptive editing, if the person is not notable, as it is lowering the quality of the article. They can be mentioned on the page, if they have an article about them, already present. What article is it? scope_creep^Talk 13:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Unauthorized alteration of my article by warring family member

I authored an article about my father in law, James R Parsley, deceased Nascar driver Jim Parsley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It was my first and only article and was very hard to do having to learn the formatting and having to provide support for everything I wrote in order to be accepted for posting. After substantial effort on my part it was finally accepted and posted. In the "personal" section, I had included the names of the biological son and daughter of the subject. At some point after publication, the daughter in law by marriage must have discovered the article and somehow made an edit without my knowledge to add her family member names and DELETE THE BIOLOGICAL family members names (I believe it was actually User:Necrothesp who made the change). I believe this was done in spite because the two families do not speak to one another. I admittedly did not put them in the original article because in the first place i do not know all of their names and relationships and secondly, I devoted the time to write the article and wanted his biological children (my wife and her brother etc) to be remembered - I admittedly did not care about the other family. I would have been okay if the edit made was simply to add additional names but they completely deleted part of the original article with my names. I do not want to get in an edit war with them. I just want to fix it and have it be left alone. Can you advise? Thank you. Robert Barrett 2600:1003:B124:EE9B:3193:D72A:95C7:5BE (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems an account removed images of Parsley and his children. I have restored those images. Vermont (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I have cropped the images to remove the non-notable family members. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

And Vermont has reverted one of the images, to again show a non-notable family member . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why my name has been mentioned. This is the only edit I made to the article. I think you'll find User:Kell521, who has only made two edits, both to this page, was responsible for the edits you're referring to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Anarchists enforce POV

Please check what happens in the article of Alexandros Schinas. I have put 3 historians, but two users delete my citations, and leave only anarchist POV of newspapers of...1913. User talk:czar claims that This gets off-topic but the New York Times cited in Schinas is a secondary source. a newpaper of 1913 is a secondary source! Does Wikipedia think that 1913 NYT are secondary sources? And User:Cinadon36 forbid my citations from historians from Greece. I am very sorry but my english are very weak. Please help me.

Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

i have put 4 historians and they delete it. they leave only a newspaper of 1913 as a secondary source. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

How to create article that has redirection

How can I create a separate article for Emily Middlemas, which will direct to a new article? Every time I attempt to make an article for it, it redirects the link to the list of contestants.

This might be something super simple and basic, but I cannot figure it out! Any help would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joesimnett (talk • contribs) 23:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Correct. Click on the Emily Middlemas link and you will see "(Redirected from Emily Middlemas)" up the top under the article title. Click on that link and it will take you to the redirect page, which you can change to become a real article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Use of politically-ambiguous term, "far"

Answered

A number of articles label conservate/"right wing" activists as "far-right", however groups and individuals who can be reasonably perceived as "far-left" (reasonable as defines as "that which a reasonable person would agree to) continually have editors refusing to affix a similar label to them.

So, the question - how does wikipedia ensure that NPOV is assured when terms like "far-" are anything but neutral? Far-left and far-right are, by definition, non-neutral, and the fact that wikipedia editors steadfastly refuse to apply such terms in an equitable fashion seems to completely destroy the neutral, non-political/partisan scope of this site.

Many people use wikipedia as a go-to source for valuable information and research, and such information should, imo, be completely neutral in tone, leaving the reader to draw their own conclusions.

So, to that end - are there "official" definitions of "left wing", "right wing", "far-left" and "far-right" that wikipedia uses, and, if so, what are they and where can I find them? Furthermore, how does wikipedia justify its claim to neutrality when there is a clear lack of such neutrality in political entries?

Steven Britton - The World Wouldn't be the Same Without Me (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Every article in Wikipedia stands on its own and its contents are decided by consensus. There are no such official definitions and the proper application of NPOV and neutrality is enforced by the weight of editing and consensus at the various articles. That means, of course, that articles can sometimes become temporarily unbalanced, but such unbalance generally attracts editors who wish to correct it. If they can obtain consensus to do so, then they will be successful; in addition to discussion at the article's talk page, the use of dispute resolution can help achieve consensus and, in particular, request for comments provides a legitimate method for attracting additional editors to the discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Looking for assistance re: notability guidelines before creating an entry for a company.

Answered

I am currently working to help one of my clients, EBANX, better understand what they need in order to be able to meet the notability standards for an entry on Wikipedia and was hoping someone would be able to help. While the article on here is very helpful in laying out the standards, I'm in a bit of a tough spot trying to see where the coverage that the client has fits within them. Below is a summary I sent to them of main 3rd party sources that have mentioned the company and C level staff. Would you be able to help by confirming/rejecting any of the opinions I have expressed and, if there are any suitable links, letting me know whether or not you think there is sufficient material there to start looking at building an entry.

The below definitely seem suitable for citing as a source and showing notability for Wikipedia. Both articles focus on EBANX and and are from strong sources.

EBANX: The Brazilian Fintech Who Wants To Lead The Cross-Border Online Payments Market https://www.forbes.com/sites/angelicamarideoliveira/2018/09/20/ebanx-the-brazilian-fintech-who-wants-to-lead-the-cross-border-online-payments-market/#39853ec82427

Local TV and website story for both RPC TV and G1 news portal, about innovation. Marketing coordinator of EBANX participated on a conversation about how to innovate, along with other two startups from Curitiba. https://g1.globo.com/pr/parana/noticia/2018/09/01/inovacao-saiba-como-manter-o-sucesso-da-empresa-tendo-a-tecnologia-como-aliada-video.ghtml

The following articles I'm not too sure on. I'd actually like to discuss these with a Wikipedia editor to see their thoughts on the sources. The content relating to EBANX looks good enough in my opinion.

Ebanx quer dominar a América Latina (Gazeta do Povo) https://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/economia/ebanx-quer-dominar-a-america-latina-38q5khed4on08yj6xtl5p8tti/

Article about EBANX on EXAME, one of the most important business magazines in Brazil https://exame.abril.com.br/revista-exame/a-carteira-sem-fronteira/

Article about the growth of fintechs in Brazil in the Brazilian newspaper Brasil Econômico, with information and quotes from EBANX and Nubank https://economia.ig.com.br/empresas/2018-01-25/fintechs.html

Article on Estadão, one of the top 2 newspapers in Brazil, about the gwowth of Curitiba city's startup ecosystem. EBANX was one of the sources for the story https://link.estadao.com.br/noticias/inovacao,curitiba-corre-contra-o-tempo-para-multiplicar-startups,70002508515

With these articles, I'm highly sceptical that they will be deemed strong enough sources. I think there may be some doubts from the editor looking over the submission as to how difficult it is to gain coverage on these sites.

Google Launches New Payment API In Brazil https://www.pymnts.com/news/international/2017/google-and-ebanx-launch-new-payment-api-in-brazil/

Publications on The Paypers / Boleto exclusive https://www.thepaypers.com/search?Search=ebanx https://www.thepaypers.com/ecommerce/ebanx-survey-explains-why-cash-payment-methods-are-popular-in-brazil/769661-25

EBANX Expands Into Ecuador Enabling Merchants to Accept Ecuadorian Local Payments http://www.paymentsjournal.com/ebanx-expands-ecuador-enabling-merchants-accept-ecuadorian-local-payments/

To include a list as a source it needs to be relate an achievement that is very highly respected. I think there would also be a concern that lists like this are often not entirely transparent with their criteria and can be 'pay for play' which diminishes their value somewhat (not suggesting this is!).

These are the 25 most attractive start-ups to work for in Brazil, according to LinkedIn https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/18/top-most-attractive-start-ups-brazil-sao-paulo-rio-brasilia-linkedin.html

While the below is completely accurate, there isn't enough of a focus on EBANX for it to be accepted as a source/proof of notability.

Brazilian Post boosts tech investment to respond to e-commerce growth https://www.zdnet.com/article/brazilian-post-increases-tech-investment-to-respond-to-e-commerce-growth/

Mike publicize (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Neither you, as a paid editor, nor your client should be writing an article about your client since you have a conflict of interest. If your client is sufficiently notable, a neutral party will eventually create an article about it. No person or company or other entity has the right to have a Wikipedia article about it, even if it is indeed notable or if its competitors have articles. You, as a paid editor, have a strict requirement to disclose that fact and list your article edits on your user page. Click the conflict of interest link for details. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

America's Got Talent (season 12)

Answered

An IPv6 user alter the tables a lot, and I feel that this is vandalism. Please check the content of America's Got Talent (season 12), and take the necessary action to tackle that, thank you. UU (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I see nothing there that appears to be vandalism, only good faith edits. Vandalism has a very fixed definition on Wikipedia and it is best not to make accusations of it unless it fits within that definition. If you feel that the IP edits are not wise, discuss it on the article talk page and seek to obtain consensus. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Aaron Buerge talk page issue

Hi, I noticed that Aaron Buerge talk page incorrectly redirects to another talk page. I am unable to insert WikiProject Biography. Please fix. Thanks, SWP13 (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

>>You're awesome! SWP13 (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)