Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:39, 5 July 2007

WP:EAR

To make a general request for assistance, please place your name and a brief (a few sentences) description of the issue you need help with at the bottom. Resolved, stale and other old discussions are archived.

Assistants: Please tag each settled request as {{resolved}}; all other requests should be marked as {{stale}} after ten days of inactivity. A thread can be archived after being tagged for two days.

Archives

Archive 1 (7.4.2007~13.5.2007)
Archive 2 (13.5.2007~20.6.2007)
Archive 3 (current)

Edit War, more like edit warfare..any changes I make seem bothersome despite accuracy

Stale

– --Aarktica 22:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How should I deal with the issue? I have a problem with two demographic sections about living people that contradict the numbers and scientific literature. Yet they are presented as fact. Certain studies are even deemed "debatable"...also, are users allowed to remove { {npov } } from certain pages!?!? if I know for a fact that a page is inaccurate and that it is being protected unfairly, can I not voice that concern without having it removed? Mariam83 15:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? Links to articles in question, and diff links would help.67.40.31.115 18:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Homeopathy

Resolved

– --Aarktica 12:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited and added some data in Homeopathy under the contributor name Frenchmango. I do not see the changes and I do not know if that was edited, remeoved or if I did not upload properly.

Regards,

Dr.Clement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchmango (talk • contribs) 02:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several points.

* In talk pages and other discussion spaces, the convention is that users "sign" their postings by putting four tildes "~~~~ at the end of their postings. These get automagically expanded to username and date.

* Each article page has a "History" link at the top, clicking it gives you access to the history of the article - who edited it, and what (if anything) they wrote as an edit summary.

* Clicking the Homeopath history link shows that your changes were saved, and later another editor reverted the changes. The edit summary says: "v - non-notable, see Talk"

* Each article also has a "talk" page (which is often labeled as a "discussion" tab), there's further information there.

* A direct link to the relevant "talk" is: Talk:Homeopathy#Cytokine_Expression where you will see that 3 other editors are discussing the appropriateness (or not) of the material you added. Feel free to join that discussion.

Hope this helps Studerby 03:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chitra Ramanathan

Resolved

– --Aarktica 12:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to confusion caused by some previous user entries, the Biography page and links for Chitra Ramanathan has been affected. I, the artist request that the page to be please be restored for contributions by future qualified users.

Thanks

208.70.43.99 19:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted and salted. Adrian M. H. 19:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overused image/self-promotion?

Hi, I've noticed that this image has been popping up on several pages. I admit I'm not familiar with the gentleman in the photo, but his article leads me to believe that he is relatively unknown (non-notable?), other than for playing an unusually-designed guitar. Granted, he does appear to be a talented musician, but could this be an issue of self-promotion? This editor's nickname name implies that he is writing about himself. And even if the article is valid, is this image being used appropriately? I feel it is not, but I don't want to just start deleting things. Maybe someone could look into this for me. Thanks. --buck 19:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to AFD if you want to. Adrian M. H. 20:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(double ec) Your suspicion per WP:COI seems legit to me; my suggestion would be to consult other editors at WT:IFD for additional insight on this matter. --Aarktica 20:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting My Submitted Photos

Resolved

– --Aarktica 12:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am new to editing and submitting and uploaded several photos and did not cite proper sources and license them properly. I do not want to be blocked from editing and contributing and would like to know how to simply delete the photos I have uploaded. I will, at a later date, take my own photos of the subject in question and re-submit properly. Thank you for the help. The page in question:

Murray, Kentucky

Thelatchkeykid 15:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the nom'd images can be licensed appropriately, you can go ahead and change the licenses. Adrian M. H. 16:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they are copyrighted and I was unaware of that when I uploaded them. I am not sure I can get permission to use them. Do they just get deleted on their own or what? I just want them off so I can stop getting warning messages.

Thelatchkeykid 16:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An admin will delete them after the set period. By the way; it is not good form to blank your talk page. Adrian M. H. 17:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While most "old hands" on Wikipedia don't think it's good form to blank one's talk page, it is explicitly permitted by policy (or was a few weeks ago). Studerby 21:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe it is permitted (for some unexplained - and possibly ill conceived? - reason). It is still bad form. Whenever I have witnessed blanked talk pages, they have had criticisms, warnings or deletion notices, which is why it may reasonably be construed as an attempt to obfuscate one's history. Pages full of nice comments don't get wiped, as a rule. It should be discouraged, I believe. Adrian M. H. 21:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam article is not NPOV

The article Islam was today's featured article. Given the distortion and misrepresentation of Islam in the Western media (I am not a Muslim myself but a student of comparative religion) it is of concern that the concensus edit was biased towards misrepresentation and according to more than one editor somewhat Islamophobic. The lead was particularly noticeable. It defines Islam as meaning surrender or submission to God but this is only half of the story. The word Islam is derived from the same root as the Hebrew shalom (Arabic: Salaam) which means peace. It means to enter into a condition of peace with God through allegiance with him. At the moment the lead remains misrepresentative. In order to attempt to correct this I made an adjustment citing an authoritative reference (The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, edited by Professor John Bowker, 1997) but a certain administrator by the name Moreschi reverted the edit twice and has not answered my request for a valid explanation. Therefore a front page featured article remains without a NPOV lead. Can anyone advise me? Thankyou. Langdell 20:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say that I haven't spoken to Moreschi. I'm Jewish but have always understood S(h) L M to be a submissive term and I understand SLM works in the same way in lots of other Semitic languages. I can't really comment here until I can find Moreschi to comment. Mike33 21:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got me right now. There's some discussion of this on Talk:Islam and some on my talk page. Basically, I'm quite willing to thrash this out, but yet another edit war while Islam is TFA I cannot stomach. Moreschi ^Talk 21:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, it seems pretty NPOV to me. Isn't this kind of forum-shopping? — Demong _talk 21:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User/Contributor Profile

To the Editor:

I'm a new member. Do I need to enter a User/Contributor profile into your system? Please advise. Thank you.

Louis Soffer, Ph.D., R.S. <e-mail removed - please do not post e-mail addresses> Louis Soffer 16:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which editor did you want to contact? There are 48,451,616 of us!

The short answer is: no, you don't need to. The longer answer: it is helpful to place some relevant info on your user page. I won't go into the consensus on credentials here. Adrian M. H. 16:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol nearly fainted when I saw that figure think its around 40,000 Editors on WikiEN [PROJECT STATS], {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} is a list of individual IPs that have edited the site since 2001. :-) Mike33 17:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. They are all editors, though not all of them are regular (or constructive)! Adrian M. H. 17:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to have better AfD dialgoues

I seem to have a problem trying to reasonably discuss AfDs in order to persuade fellow editors. In this and this and this AfD discussion I have struggled with communicating with fellow editors. Any advice or wisdom would be very appreciated. – Freechild (BoomCha) 19:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mmmmm Xfd should only be used as a last resort. I really have no sympathy for any editor who moves an Xfd and the consensus is against them. The particular list you raised List o Standardized tests seems a work in progress, I dont like lists but this particular one gives much more information than others. The Template I can't comment on without seeing the template.

Xfd is a difficult place, at the moment it is running at 80 new listings a day. Emotions get high and editors will often resort to petty arguments to try and gain consensus. Influencing other editors is about stating reasons and responding to their difficulties in understanding your reasoning. Filling an Xfd with reasons that are bigger than the page being discussed will not help consensus. Mike33 20:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information.

Resolved

– Thanks Adrian! --Aarktica 17:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came across an article whose only content is an infobox. Is this considered legitimate? --Aarktica 13:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would warn the creating editor that it needs content ASAP, then tag it with {{Db-empty}} if there is no change after, say, 48 hours. Adrian M. H. 17:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for long-term IP vandal blocks, protection of target articles

I posted the following request at WP:AIV on 25 June. I don't know whether any action was taken, but the vandalism seemed to quiet down for a few days. However, yesterday and today the same nonsense vandalisms began to be reposted to some of the same articles, namely (so far) 690, Outsider art, and Greaser (subculture). I spend a lot of time chasing anonymous vandals; I don't seek them out but when I see them I revert, warn, and try to track down their other vandalisms. I can't speak for the other editors who have run across this small band of vandals, but I am personally dismayed and disappointed that these very few users and very few articles are not yet under control. As a non-admin, I've done all I can. Thanks for any help. --CliffC 20:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a collection of characters (or maybe only two or three) who repeatedly deface certain articles with the same cut-and-paste nonsense - usually about greasers, squares, honey-roasted peanuts, or the advantages of smoking dope. Most of these edits are made with deceptive, or confrontational, edit summaries. Most IPs have received last warnings but not all; that seemed pointless since they operate as a collective and just pop up somewhere else. A week or so ago I requested a range block at WP:AIV but as best I can tell the block was granted for only part of the range, and only for a few hours. Other editors have IP-protected some of the usual victim pages for a day or two, but as soon as the protection was lifted the vandals were back at it. I have kept track, with commentary, on my talk page here (a section named and started by one of the vandals), but for readability the IPs and the pages victimized are listed here. Thank you for looking into this. I know I'm not the only editor these guys are wearing down. --CliffC 20:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal IPs

Regularly vandalized pages

I think CliffC does speak for a number of other users, including yours truly. Some forceful adminstrative action is overdue in this case. BTfromLA 22:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking issues within Wikipedia

Resolved

Dear Editors

I am having trouble making links appear in my Sandbox practice entry. I have entered brackets around the words I want to link, which looks like this [apples] and [pears] but only some of the words have linked/are displayed in red. What am I doing wrong? This is an example of my entry which produced no links:-

'After a growth in Company profits and the launch of an in-house IT [infrastructure] to manage its specialist products, Pavilion listed on London’s [Alternative Investment Market] on 17th June 2004'.

Any assistance as soon as you can would be greatly appreciated

Regards

Bellance 14:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)<Bellance>[reply]

You need double brackets at each end of the word like this: [[infrastructure]] → infrastructure. Good luck and welcome! --CliffC 15:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Single brackets are only used to add URLs when either a link number [1] or a title The English Wikipedia is required. That is in addition to the square bracket's original intended use, of course! Adrian M. H. 17:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 155: / Line 155: @@
 == Linking issues within Wikipedia ==
+{{resolved|1=[[Charm]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Charm|&copy;]][[User talk:Charm|&dagger;]] 13:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)}}
 Dear Editors
@@ Line 166: / Line 166: @@
 Regards
 [[User:Bellance|Bellance]] 14:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)<Bellance>