Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Previous requests & responses

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by .

Reliable source & scholar quotes v. primary & tertiary inference.

Resolved

– Taken to a more appropriate forum. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:

How do we get MEDIATION on a page by someone familiar with WP policy? I have tried Requests for Comment, Third Opinion and selecting from the editor assistance list over a two-months discussion. The United States article says it "includes 50 states and DC". But a scholar looking at U.S. expansion from 1803, says, "At present, the United States includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, [D.C.] and, of course, the fifty states.” (Sparrow in Levinson, 2005, p.232). And now collaborating with Buzity, we have at U.S. Government Printing Office, “The United States now consists of 50 states, the District …, and the territories ...” (Welcome to the United States: a guide for new immigrants, 2007. p.77.)

Golbez agreed to “include territories”, but then reverted them, citing wikilink to the Insular Cases. He has since promised to revert any further edit. Buzity and I found law journal articles, court cases, statutory law, executive orders superseding Insular Cases. U.N. resolutions cited for "include territories" have secondary sources. I have a summary at "Include territories” summary for mediation, and at WP policies for “include territories”. Golbez added a citation using a tertiary source, but WP policy would prefer secondary sources. We are warned that we are only two, we can be banned from the article and talk page, we are illogical and we cannot change anything unless we agree to change everything in all related articles, none of which rings true. Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted to the talk page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to note, VH, you may want to relax your style of argumentation. It comes off as Wikilawyering, and you may be interpreting Wikipedia policies and guidelines way too strictly. Things here are very flexible normally. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could use a bit more input here. Please don't be daunted by the volume of the discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution request filed. See WP:DRN#Talk:United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Defining the United States of America. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of award winners

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:

I understand from recent discussions regarding award categories that in general we discourage these (many of them have notability issues). I need to ask about award LISTS. At Fred Jarvis I have provided a list of winners of the Fred and Anne Jarvis Award. This is presented annually by the National Union of Teachers so maybe it would be better placed there, or perhaps a list should be created under its own name (say "List of winners of the Fred and Anne Jarvis Award"). At John Read (psychologist) it states he won the New Zealand Psychological Society’s Sir Thomas Hunter Award in 2010. We have a stub of an article at Thomas Hunter (psychologist) and no article at all for New Zealand Psychological Society (although we do have an article for its parent at Royal Society of New Zealand). I have begun researching the Sir Thomas Hunter Award with a view to adding a list of award winners, but where should this be placed (if at all)? If an individual is considered notable enough to have an article in his/her own right then isn't it appropriate for an award named after that individual to be noted somewhere, along with a list of its recipients? Do such lists belong under the organisation presenting the awards (difficult for the Sir Thomas Hunter Award!), or as separate entities (with a mention of the existence of the award in the article for the individual for whom the award is named)? I don’t want to create lists if this breaches any Wikipedia guidelines (I’m guessing it may have been discussed before but I couldn’t find a suitable guidance note). May I have advice, please? Thanks. LenF54 (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that for an example you look to the articles James Tiptree, Jr., James Tiptree, Jr. Award and List of James Tiptree, Jr. Award winners: three (linked) articles, each properly sourced and linked. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will create separate pages for the two lists ("List of Fred and Anne Jarvis Award winners" and "List of Sir Thomas Hunter Award winners"), with citations, and add links to the various pages. I don't feel, however, that there needs to be separate articles for these awards, and am happy to simply put explanatory paragraphs in the main articles. LenF54 (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that you create the explanatory sections as part of the NUT article rather than under the List articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:

Years ago, My parents had a red covered about one foot oblong square and about 9 inches thick, I think it was about 1953/4 edition. It has some small black drawings/photos in it, with a couloured maps in the back. I'm not after a school dictionary, but a extensive dictionary that is beyond the bookshelves. I wish to have it on my 'puter with a icon. I know that I will not able to compleatly download all the information, but is there a way that I can some how click on a letter or what ever that I can access to please? If you cannot assist me in my request, can you please suggest a another dictionary that will suit me? As I said, I do not want a kids dictionary as I am 72 years old and at times I find in the ordinary dictionary there is no such word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bywater (talk • contribs) 07:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Wiktionary:? Spinning Spark 09:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OED is a pretty comprehensive dictionary. Wiktionary is going to give you more current information though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OED is great but you need to pay for a subscription or be a member of a library or institution to get the OED online. There are many free online dictionaries: examples are Meriam-Webster and The Free Dictionary, or if you are looking for slang and modern unconventional usages there is Urban Dictionary. But Wiktionary remains a good choice. Spinning Spark 11:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prosperity theology

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:

Reverend Ike=Father of Prosperity Theology???

Talk:Prosperity theology - johncheverly 00:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there's an ongoing dispute. There was some disagreement over including information about Reverend Ike in Prosperity theology, but an editor has added something since the last post. If the disagreement is over whether we can call someone the "Father of" a movement or school of thought... my take is that you need to find a reliable source calling him that, and then phrase the usage as "[such and such a source] has called [person] the 'Father of [Movement]'", then cite the work. And then it should only be included if it's pretty clear it belongs. Calling someone the "Father of" a movement comes dangerously close to being a peacock term. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian LAnd Forces

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:

I got all my article deleted from the page Albanian Land Force.. please i need a clear explanation of why was my article deleted, and why was that called a vandalism when i was just adding information to that article because there was almost no information. I don't think what I did was vandalism or something near it, in fact erasing it can be. I'd be thankful if you respond to this email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.83.98 (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your initial mistake seems to be that you not only deleted a large amount of information from the infobox without explanation (lack of explanation will often get you reverted) but also broke the page formatting in the process (which will nearly always get you reverted). Your second edit added unsourced information to the infobox. Unsourced information is often also reverted, as it was in this case, probably encouraged by the previous reversion. Finally, because you have been repeatedly reverted in the article by human editors, ClueBot (an automated process) reverted your subsequent edits as possible vandalism. Click the "history" link in the template above to see the full chronology.

I have no doubt that you are a good faith editor and it is unfortunate that this has happened. Your work can easily be restored (and perhaps it should) but I am not willing to do it myself as it is poorly sourced. You cited two sources: Who is Log gets most of its information from Wikipedia and is hence a circular reference while internet forums are never considered reliable by Wikipedia.

I suggest you run this past other interested editors before atttempting to insert in the article again. Start by posting your suggested additions (you can retrieve your text from here) on Talk:Albanian Land Forces. Next, alert interested editors to the suggestion by posting a link at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history amd/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albania. Hope that helps, and good luck with your future editing. Spinning Spark 18:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Fictional" character or "comic book" character?

Answered

– . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:

I was just curious which category is correct for fictional characters who have appeared in, or even originated in, a comic book, but have moved on to other media, where they may be more well known. For instance, Optimus Prime first appeared in a Marvel Comics comic book published in 1984. I could categorize him under "Fictional characters introduced 1984" or "Comic book characters introduced in 1984". The comic book category is included inside the fictional characters category, so either could be correct, but would you define a character as a "comic book character" just because that's where he originated, even if he's more well known for TV and movies today? Should he be called specifically a comic book character, or simple a fictional character? If the character had appeared in TV or movies FIRST, but then went on to comic book, should it be a fictional or comic book character then? Thanks!Mathewignash (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason Optimus Prime cannot be in both categories. It is irrelevant which medium he first appeared in. If the article is discussing the character in all media then both categories are appropriate. Spinning Spark 18:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would make no sense to list BOTH categories, since the category "Fictional characters introduced in 1984" contains "Comics book characters introduced in 1984" as a sub group. You generally would not list both.Mathewignash (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there were a "film character" sub-category then there would be no argument he should be in both. If the character was only in film and there were no film sub-category there would be no argument he should be in the parent category. So my reasoning still stands, as a comic-book character he is categorised as he would be if he were only that, and as a film character he is categorised as if he were only that as well, and moved to the film sub-category if and when it is created. You could always solve the problem by creating it yourself. People get way too hung up with the arbitrary rules about categorisation. Objects are often not that neatly categorised as you have just discovered and some flexibility and common sense needs to be sometimes applied. Spinning Spark 19:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right to left text problem

Resolved

– Directly resolved. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shabbatai HaKohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Someone edited the article on December 20, 2012 to fix a date order problem in the first sentence (1662-1621) -> (1621-1662)‎. The right to left text in the lang-he template messed up their edit. I could not fix it using Firefox 19 on Max OSX. Could someone fix it? Thanks. --Bamyers99 (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, the template was missing closing braces. Spinning Spark 07:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advise on article

Answered

– . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I've created the article FocalScope Email Ticketing Solution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). FocalScope is a Singaporean product which was developed in 2005. It has since then been recognised for "changing the ways emails are being handled" and is being deployed by global companies such SingTel, American Express, DHL and Radisson Hotel to support them with their daily operations and deliver their customer support. Looking at its users and growth, I would definitely say that it's a notable product. It's however up for deletion discussion. Maybe its notability needs to come across stronger in the article/discussion?

Based on the discussion which has taken part so far, it seems like a more experienced editor need to participate since some of the messages are tagged with "made few or no other edits outside this topic." It would be great if you could provide me with advise of what to do to ensure that an article about a notable product doesn't get deleted. Thanks. Samira Holma (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is judged on Wikipedia by how much it is discussed in reliable sources. To establish notability you need not only to make claims about notability, but also provide citations to reliable sources (please read both those links which will explain the requirements in detail) which have substantial discussion of the topic. Notability is different from importance or fame (although such subjects are more likely to be notable) and is certainly not the same as market growth. Hope that helps. Spinning Spark 19:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should also read this essay on the shameless abuse of the legitimate word "solution" by flacks. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minorities in Greece

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. We have a contents disagreement on that page since a long time. I see my edits are deleted by more than one user (one being more prominent) and my attempts to resolve the issue on a reasonable ground in the discussion page seem to be failing. On the other hand, the most actively opposing user expressly stated he is not willing to cooperate to bring the issue to a third party mediated dispute resolution mechanism. In fact one of my past attempts to bring the issue to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard failed because the other party did not respond to calls to discuss. There are also some issues of conduct: The other party responds whey I try to contact in the talk page, but those discussions are led to a futile ground by questions and comments not exactly related to the topic. Could anyone please suggest me how to proceed in this issue? Filanca (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a tough issue to get any help on: it appears fairly nuanced (thus requiring someone familiar with the topic), it involves a culturally sensitive issue (thus possibly requiring detachment from the issues at stake), and it's gone on for awhile leading to a palpable atmosphere of frustration (as well as a general TLDR situation). I don't think I can help with this, but it sounds like WP:DR/N is all you can do right now and hope the other editor responds to the request this time. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While the other side explicitly said they will not cooperate in a moderated dispute resolution (and really did not cooperate when I tried) it would be naive to expect the opposite in the future. I will try to find another solution. There are many articles in this encyclopedia with culturally sensitive issues and there should be a way to bypass the block of a user (or a group) against resolution of disputes like in this case. Thank you anyway. Filanca (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, WP:DRN may not be appropriate... but I'm not sure what your next step should be. I'm loath to suggest arbitration at this point though. I think it's way too early and still too much of a content dispute. I can only suggest reading over WP:DR a bit more. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who refuse to collaborate in some circumstances may be deemed to be disruptive. For instance, if their behaviour has degenerated into edit-warring or abuse of other editors. In such circumstances administrators can deal with it as a matter of editor behaviour, although they will not arbitrate on content disputes. However, as Mendaliv has said, every effort must first be made to cooperate and discuss before taking the matter to an administrative forum. I have not looked at any of the material and have no idea what the dispute is about, but the advice is always the same: argue and write from the sources. If one does that good faith editors should be able to find a solution. On the other hand, repeatedly inserting unsourced material after it is challenged, or deliberately misrepresenting sources is disruption and can be dealt with by administrators. Spinning Spark 17:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is an edit suitable?

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know if an edit to Vela is suitable. Vela is also an acronym for a popular music app, Vela (Voice Enabled Listening Assistant), that lets you voice control music on your mobile phone. I would like to request that an editor add it to the list of varied meanings of Vela. It would be similar to the Shazam edit which list shazam as mobile phone application. Please let me know an opinion if this is suitable? If so, please refer me to editor whom can add the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juslog12 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in improving the encyclopedia! This edit, though, wouldn't be appropriate at the moment. Pages like Vela are not intended as a list of all the possible meanings of the word, but are there to help readers find Wikipedia articles - you can read more about this at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Since there is currently no Wikipedia article about the app, it doesn't belong on the Vela page.

I have left you some introductory links on your talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Element Mobile

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/Requests

– ukexpat (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I requested an edit to the Element Mobile Wiki page a week ago on the talk page but the page seems to be inactive. Is there someone that can assist me with editing the page? The current content is outdated and has several expired source links.

Akbemis (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The request is in Category:Requested edits awaiting review, so I am afraid that you will have to be patient, we are all volunteers.--ukexpat (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Dylan Taylor (executive)

Resolved

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How should we proceed regarding edits to Dylan Taylor (executive)?

Apologies, I'm Dylan's assistant, and we're new at this. A POV/neutrality tag was placed on this page in May, and we made corrections and expansions according to the editor's advice, and asked on the entry's Talk page whether the tag should be removed.

The original editor has not responded (and appears to have been inactive since August), and subsequently another editor pointed out that we may now have created a COI situation. After reviewing the COI guidelines, he may have a valid point.

So I'm stumped on what the next steps should be. How do we get someone to rule on the neutrality issue, and does someone need to render a decision regarding whether our edits actually constitute a COI?

Am concerned that anything I do will now make things worse. Thanks for any advice you can provide.

Dylan Taylor (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you are right that there is not much you can do. COI editing is nearly always a bad idea here. Editors will show extreme reluctance to remove tags on articles written/contributed to by a COI editor. Your best hope is that an uninvolved editor will take an interest (which will eventually happen if the subject is truly notable) and rewrite/expand the article. By the way, if you are not Dylan Taylor, you should not really be editing from an account that makes you seem as if you are. Spinning Spark 23:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Appreciate the help. Dylan Taylor (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User conduct issue (Opening an RFC)

How do I open an RFC on myself?

Concerns were raised about what I was doing (and the response) on a sister project, and I am wanting to be sure I'm not making the same mistakes here. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why, what have you been doing? The direct answer is that you can't open an WP:RfC/U on yourself because that requires at least two other editors to testify that you have been a bad boy and that they have already tried to resolve the issues with you. If that were the case you would already know there was an issue. You can however request an Editor review. Spinning Spark 18:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page on that project... In effect in validating some pages, a number of typos got missed, and in trying to resolve it in good faith I was over-bold. That's why I want to be sure I'm not making simillar mistakes here.

Thanks for the suggestion. 19:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

What project are you referring to? You have not provided a link to the talk page you mention. Spinning Spark 22:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

en.wikisource.org, but the issue is there is currently being considered. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I doubt that that would get you blocked here, but if you do go for Editor Review I suggest that you openly explain that's what you want them to look at. You will get a better and more focused response that way. It was only after your third post that I was able to see the issue, and then only because I bothered to search for it on wikisource, you still have not stated it here. I would also note that if you are using automated processes here you should get approval for the tasks to be done at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. Spinning Spark 22:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Autoconfirm the Timeshare Article

I would like to put an indefinite Autoconfirm status on the Timeshare Article. (Timeshare) If there is any article that deserves to be auto confirmed it is the "Timeshare" article. I hawk the article every chance I get; however, the sales people in the timeshare industry continue to use every trick in the book to eliminate the negative facts concerning this business. The latest attempt was this morning, when a user went in and nicely did grammar corrections to the article, just so he could try and eliminate a reference to the Cancellations chapter. Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Spinning Spark 22:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Jobs

Following exchanges on the article's talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steve_Jobs#Apple_Computer.27s_1997_Financial_Rescue), three editors have been joined by a moderator following a dispute resolution request. The dispute resolution dialog is found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Apple_Computer.27s_1997_Financial_Rescue_discussion

The moderator has become uncivil in this person's view with ad hominem comments though he's been asked to be mindful of those partaking in the exchange. A non sequitur further attack has led to requesting a new moderator for dispute resolution.

Two of the three editors have provided conflicting sources, with one party's sources being viewed as editorial content either unattributed or from anonymous sources in otherwise non-editorial news content and the other party providing the company's information as filed with the US government, which the first party views as original research.

The editors are aware the article's subject person is a source of controversy. The contention however is narrow revolving around one sentence in the article involving the subject person's last employer and its financial and legal condition during a change of control.

Request for a replacement moderator is being made.

Pdunbarny (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~This is already being handled by other volunteers at the DRN listing. Regards,~~ TransporterMan (TALK) 21:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a replacement moderator is being made.

Pdunbarny (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My article got deleted

Hi I submitted an article but it got deleted (copyright laws) Could I find out why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariuspranskunas (talk • contribs) 08:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article you uploaded was copied word for word from a website, which is not permitted per Wikipedia policy. However, even if this were not the case, the article has multiple issues that may have lead to its immediate or eventual deletion. Namely, no explanation was provided for why the company was notable enough for an entry (companies do not get article simply because they exist) and no reliable sources were referenced in the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]