Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 126

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Editor assistance. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 120

←

Archive 124

→

Angel Coulby

Answered

When "Angel Coulby partner" is googled by mobile phones,Wikipedia shows Bradley James as her partner. Is this reliable?

I see that Bradley James comes up at the top of that search with a link to the Wikipedia article about him, but that article makes no reference to Coulby. Nor does the article of Angel Coulby say anything about James. The best I can say is that Wikipedia does not assert that she is his partner. We have no control over how Google uses our information, however. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is Google and not Wikipedia who associates them. See Template:HD/GKG for a similar situation. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

September 5, 2017 Dear editors,

I represent Corporate Communications at Investcorp, and would like to update our page about Investcorp and add some related articles links. Please advise how do I incorporate those changes Thank you and kind regards

Suzy Dagher Suzanne Dagher Corporate Communications

INVESTCORP BANK B.S.C. PO Box 5340 Investcorp House Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain

Tel: +973 xxxxxx Mobile: +973 xxxxxx

Replied here. JohnInDC (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrospect (software)

I find the development of Retrospect (software) article ever-so-much-more troubling. Discussions have been had with the almost sole author of the page, maintenance tags added and things suggested to the user in a civil way how to improve the article. I made a notification to WP:COIN (and was maybe a little bit rude/uncivil about it), but the article author disclaimed conflict of interest.

For comparison:

Before (3 October 2016)
Then (23 October 2016)
After then (20 August 2017)
Now (6 September 2017)

If anyone shares a concern about the article with me, what should be done about it (if anything)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2003:54fa:2751::1 (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2017

Let me perhaps rephrase that last question: Where should I go next? 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

That article needs a good bit of work. Its tone is wrong, it's far too detailed for the subject matter, and - well, more I'm sure. I'll see what kinds of fixes I can make to it (and encourage others to do so as well.) JohnInDC (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Precipitation and snowfall data in Canadian/American cities.

If I understand correctly, snowfall is a form of preciptiation. Then, why in the climate data in article of multiple Canadian/US cities, for example Halifax, Nova Scotia, or Climate of Minneapolis–Saint Paul, there are more inches of snowfall every year than precipitations? C933103 (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@C933103: Snowfall is measured by the volume of the snow. Precipitation includes snow but is measured by the total volume of the corresponding liquid water in all forms of precipitation. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, @PrimeHunter: But the article of Precipitation included snow as one of the main form of percipitation and other dictionary sources also say the same thing? C933103 (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@C933103: Yes, but in Precipitation#Measurement you melt the snow or do something equivalent. Simplified, imagine you collect all the rain, snow and hail in the same pot, melt it, and then measure the amount of water. Snow is fluffy. 10 mm of snow becomes much less than 10 mm of water. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I see, thanks.C933103 (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

1982 North Sea helicopter crash was not notable enough to put on Wikipedia???

On 14th September 1982 my husband along with 5 other crew members all under the age of 50 were killed when their Bell 212 helicopter crashed into the North Sea as they were en route to attend an injured man aboard the Baffin Seal cargo ship. Why on earth was this tragedy not notable enough to be commented on your website??

Paula Hagan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.98.161 (talk) 08:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@78.144.98.161:, I apologize that no other editor has yet gotten back to you. Wikipedia is a mostly voluntary project and there are no representatives of the site's owners assigned to monitor this board and provide responses. So volunteers like myself answer questions like yours when we feel we can. To answer your question, I need to first point out that the word "notability" has a slightly different definition here than it does in normal English usage. The definition we use has a three-part test: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject... it is notable. This means that neither Wikipedia nor its individual editors are the ones that decide who "deserves" and who doesn't "deserve" an article, since that requires inherently subjective criteria. We instead look to other sources to determine notability. In the case of the crash you mention, the age of the event does make it somewhat difficult to find sources. That said, any death in the North Sea oil industry is required to be reported, so the Scottish Government did list the event in their reports. Also, it was investigated by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch and the principal investigator gave a presentation on the investigation at a seminar. These are certainly enough to create a short article, at least. If no other editor (including yourself) wishes to create the article, I may do that myself in the near future. I hope this helps. Thank you for your question. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Old Kilpatrick, Notable People.

Resolved

An allegedly notable person in the Old Kilpatrick Wiki is named as Scott Cuthbertson, a football player? He doesn't come from Old Kilpatrick or live there, why is his history presented on this wiki? It clearly states that he was born in Alexandria? This seems like free advertising on a Village page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.176.228 (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It would seem that it was simply an oversight and a good faith edit. It has been removed pending a citation with a reliable source to back the claim. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Long-term vandalism caused by IPs in several pages

I believe that someone has been using several IPs to vandalise pages such as Han Chinese, Chinese people and Han Taiwanese, as showned on the history pages: [1][2][3][4]. This situation has been lasting for a long time and I would like to know if there is any better solution other than being a 24 hours surveillance camera.--No1lovesu (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Goguryeo:_Requesting_quick_assistance. It's been alleged there that the IP's you're encountering are the same person as was indefinitely blocked in that discussion. If that identical insertion, or one close to it, continues to be made through IP addresses, make a sockpuppet report at SPI and some IP blocks or rangeblocks may be given. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, no need to do that. The SPI report has already been made: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richeaglenoble. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. --No1lovesu (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Bridgette Andersen

@Paul Benjamin Austin:, I took a look and you are right to be concerned due to only one reference to a reliable source and that is only to a parenthetical sentence fragment. The best place to continue this conversation is probably on the article talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Crohn's Disease misleading alternative therapies

The Crohn's Disease "alternative Medicine" section is misleading in both content and tone, insinuating pseudoscientific therapies, such as homeopathy, are viable options and hold potential, omitting their unproven, disproven, or potentially harmful nature. This is in contradiction to the scientific and clinical medicine consensus, and should be edited to acknowledge the lack of efficacy and safety in the literature to prevent patients using this misinformed information. The objective position of wikipedia acknowledges that, for instance, homeopathy is a scientifically implausible mechanism and acupuncture has repeatedly been shown to be no better than placebo or sham in high quality studies, therefore I don't see it's use on the Crohn's page and question the motive of the editor that wrote it in. I've edited it but someone reverses it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crohn's_disease#Alternative_medicine

I fail to see the insinuation to which you refer. The questionable nature of those remedies is fully addressed in their respective linked articles and would not seem to need to be repeated in this article.
That's just my opinion, however. If you wish to pursue this matter further or bring attention to it, the proper place to do that is to raise it on the article talk page. If discussion there does not result in a resolution, consider dispute resolution (or, if no one will discuss but continue to revert your edits, consider the recommendations made at DISCFAIL). Note that dispute resolution will not be available until the matter has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page.
Always sign your talk page posts and noticeboard posts (such as this one) with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Edits to Firestone and Ford tire controversy article

I've been working away at improving the Firestone and Ford tire controversy article and I think I've made it significantly better. Recently I've been revising the section specifically covering Firestone tires in my sandbox but I'm concerned the rewrite is overly detailed and will make the article too long WP:LENGTH. There's a lot of specific engineering information in the rewrite that may be excessive.

I'd appreciate any feedback on the length and detail in the current article or my draft revisions. Other suggestions are welcome too.

Also I think that the Firestone_and_Ford_tire_controversy#United_Rubber_Workers_Strike section should be spun off at some point into a separate article. From the reading I've done it seems that it was a significant enough event to warrant this and that would help some with the length issue.

Thanks. Ian m (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Resolution needed by Wiki admin for Kevin Deutsch article

Answered

I created a page last year which I feel is being vandalized by a user named SnowFire, who got into an edit war with another user--a war I monitored closely--and seems to be bullying his content into the article. The dispute centers on the article subject's denial of serious allegations, which Snowfire expanded on in the lede of article. He then repeatedly deleted article subject's denials, even though the denials were appropriately placed there. Please help resolve?

From your edit summary on this post, I see that you're looking for an administrator's assistance, but from your contribution page, I see that you've already also filed at ANI. That's the right place, this isn't the right place, for that. If you're shut down at ANI, consider dispute resolution, provided that the dispute has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. If it's not been thoroughly discussed there, doing so is your first step. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations made here. Finally, please sign all your talk page and noticeboard posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe my edits are being reverted without good cause

Resolved

– J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I made several good faith edits on Cellectis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) based on what seem to me legitimate sources according to Wikipedia standards, (I just read most of the editor assistance FAQ) to have them reverted in their entirety, without regard to each individual edit, by two editors who seem overly hostile to me. I requested a discussion and a collaborative effort on the Talk page, but was answered with insults and threats. Even when I pointed out that two of the numbers sited in the article were wrong, and I changed the figures to the correct ones according to the sources that the belligerent editors accept themselves, my edits were reverted. I was 'dissed' because I was using an IP user, so I opened a new user account, and I was also accused of being a paid editor. It is true that I do not have many edits behind me, and now that I have a user name, I seem really like a brand new user, but I still think my edits were legitimate, and I am certainly ready to discuss them in a civilized fashion. I hope you can help with this. Thanks so much. Frannyapplebaum2017 (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have misapprehended a number of things. First and foremost: issues regarding article content should be handled on the article's Talk page. (E.g.: Talk#Cellectis.) And there, you have not responded to some issues that have been raised, specifically including whether you have a conflict of interest. Second, your comments here – "overly hostile", "answered with insults and threats", "belligerent editors", "I was 'dissed'", "accused of being a paid editor" – are uncivil, even impugning the other editors' good faith.

Then there is the possible COI issue. I note that you have not been accused of being a paid editor – unless, of course, you are one of Dcbennett2, Cellectis, 178.16.164.50, or Sofike68 – but the nature and substance of your editing suggests you have a strong tie (possibly, but necessarily, a pecuniary relation). In light of that you have been asked if you would declare whether, or not, that is so, but it appears you are avoiding that.

It seems to me that there is good cause to revert your edits at Cellectis, and that your complaint here is unfounded and improper. Furthermore, your avoidance of addressing the COI issue does tend to suggest a problem there. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I want to express my appreciation for your honest response, and apologize for not really understanding the processes of editing on Wikipedia. I have since addressed the COI issue on the Talk page, and have started a collaborative relationship with another editor. Hopefully, from now on, I will be able to resolve any future issues appropriately according to Wikipedia procedures. Frannyapplebaum2017 (talk) 06:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that. I have not yet seen any resolution of the possible COI issue at Talk:Cellectis, but perhaps that is happening soon? Your discussion with Jytdog on your Talk page looks to be off to a good start, and hopefully that will avoid any future missteps and friction. I believe you understand now why your edits were reverted, and with good cause, so I am going to tag this issue as resolved. But always ask if you have any questions.

By the way, if you wanted to strike some of your comments the standard method is to bracket them with "<s>" and "</s>" tags. (Like ~~this~~.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit help please?

Not an issue for this noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

Can I get help w/a MoS question concerning commas?

Wikipedia's MoS says this about commas: "In geographical references that include multiple levels of subordinate divisions (e.g., city, state/province, country), a comma separates each element and follows the last element unless followed by other punctuation. Dates in month–day–year format require a comma after the day, as well as after the year, unless followed by other punctuation. In both cases, the last element is treated as parenthetical. Incorrect: He set October 1, 2011 as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma to meet his demands. Correct: He set October 1, 2011, as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma, to meet his demands."

Concerning the commas in dates in month-day-year formet, using this example from the Father Murphy page, "Father Murphy is an American western drama series that aired on the NBC network from November 3, 1981 to September 18, 1983."

The MoS says a comma is required after the year 1981:

"Father Murphy is an American western drama series that aired on the NBC network from November 3, 1981, to September 18, 1983."

Chicago, AP, APA & AMA says the same thing. All reputable sources agree - it's not ambiguous at all.

So why was my change reverted? It doesn't seem as if this is an optional comma; MoS says it's required; no exceptions are noted. What gives? 2605:E000:35C6:C200:C522:44A:E109:F43F (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

MoS questions should be asked at an appropriate MoS page, such as Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. Or (as you have) requesting assistance on your Talk page. Or even (as you have) at the Teahouse. Where you gotten an answer, but it has also been questioned whether you are a sockpuppet. At any rate, none of this seems appropriate here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

NPOV and revert of POV tag

Answered

When you say this was "discussed on the talk page", did you mean at here, or at here? Or both?

I have looked at both sections, and the only statement you have made about the revert is that it was "not done with due regard for Wikipedia policy. WP:WNTRMT WP:DRNC." You have not explained how WP:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" applies here, but apparently you are thinking that the other editor should not revert your npov tag unless he has consensus. I point out that, first, DRNC is not a policy, nor even a guideline, but only an essay; it carries very little weight. Second, you seem to have missed the part where that essay limits itself to cases where lack of consensus is the only basis given for a reversion. As the editor reverting your tag gave a different reason for reversion, DNRC is not applicable here.

You cited WP:WNTRMT (When Not To Remove Tags) without specifying which of four cases you think applies here. Presumably it is the first one: "The issue has not yet been resolved." However, it is not all apparent that you have have even raised an issue. You have argued some points with the other editors, but the totality of what you have said about any NPOV issue (here) is that "the lead needs a rewrite to express a more NPOV." You have not pointed to any specific language you think is faulty, nor indicated how such language is faulty, nor proposed any changes. In short, you have not demonstrated any issue. Thus: there is no issue to be resolved.

I direct your attention to case #6 of WP:WTRMT (When To Remove Tags, immediately preceeding the section you cited): the template you added requires support, but you failed to do so, therefore "the template can be removed". The reversion appears to be entirely appropriate. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Factual accuracy and style problem in Fragile States Index article

I randomly checked a few year's list in the article, and they all have some different degree of errors in them. Like Kenya have disappeared from the list on wikipedia in some year's listing, and then a few edits back it seems like editors have also shifted or removed Pakistan's position from the list. Is there a quick way to check them against the actual position data?
As it seems like people like to change the postition of some certain countries on the list irrespective to the published data, would it be a good idea to ask for permanent semiprotection for the article, or remove thelist from wikipedia directly and simply point users to the original site?
Currently, countries are listed in the article with the use of "#" wikicode to create ordered list. However, it seems like there are quite a few years that countries could be given equal rank. How to properly display them with the use of orderly list of "#" wikicode?

C933103 (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate nude picture of genitalia at bottom of biographical post

The picture at the bottom of this post seems entirely inappropriate

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cowsill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.69.69.11 (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

A template, {{RE}}, was vandalised. The damage has been corrected, but it may take a little while for the software to rebuild all the affected pages. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Addressing the article names for Emperors of Ming Dynasty

It has been confusing after I saw the title "Emperor Xuanzong of Tang" and "Jiajing Emperor". The problem here is that mostly in informal ways and in text descriptions we could use the era name "jiajing" as a reference to this person because of there's only one era name used per emperor during Ming Dynasty. But essentially the era name does not represent the person himself. For example, I cannot use Veritas as the article name for Harvard University. I am new at Eng Wiki, I'm not really sure where to post my request-change those articles using era names as title into more representative and formal titles, using Temple name or just their own name. -宋世怡 (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@宋世怡: The correct place to make your proposal is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). There is a specific section dedicated to names of emperors with a guideline that reflects the longstanding consensus. Alex Shih ^Talk 00:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Deleted page

Re: https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cervecer%C3%ADa_Centro_Americana,_S.A.&action=edit&redlink=1

Good morning,

I created a very legitimate page with extensive factual and referenced information, and it got deleted by someone last night. I would like to know if there is any way of reversing this because there is no reason as to why that page shouldn't exist; it abides all guidelines, and it provides factual, relevant, and well-written material.

Thank you in advance for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuelacarvajal (talk • contribs) 13:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey Manuelacarvajal. It looks like your page was deleted under the es.wiki speedy deletion criteria for being overtly promotional. See es:Wikipedia:Criterios para el borrado rápido number G3. For more information, I'm afraid you will have to ask on the Spanish Wikipedia where it was deleted. You could try asking at es:Wikipedia:Café/Archivo/Ayuda/Actual. GMG ^talk 14:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate fact in Babe Ruth article

Answered

Hello,

I noticed that the Christian Brothers were credited with educating Babe at St. Mary's industrial school. In fact, it was the Xaverian Brothers; it is in the Hall of Fame and I know personally, I teach at a Xaverian school.

Also:

https://www.catholicjournal.us/2011/08/08/babe-and-a-brother-named-mathias/

http://www.davidbstinsonauthor.com/tag/st-marys-industrial-school-for-boys/

Thank you!

This has been discussed back and forth on the article talk page with inconclusive results over a considerable period of time, frequently because no sources were provided but sometimes because editors say that the sources are in conflict. Please place a request on the article talk page with the foregoing sources listed, using the {{edit semi-protected}} tag. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

title page 50.254.21.213 (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

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

name should be changed to reflect the name of the association 50.254.21.213 (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The right name is in now; the article also needed a bit of work and I cleaned it up some. JohnInDC (talk) 11:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Gerry Neugebauer

Gerald Neugebauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have edited the article titled Gerald Neugebauer, but was unable to change the title. Gerry's name was originally Gerhart, but he changed it to Gerry when he was a teenager. He was never named Gerald. Marcia Neugebauer, Gerry's widow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mneugeb (talk • contribs) 23:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The NYT source in that article confirms this. I'll see about a page move (unless he was well known as "Gerald" - though it doesn't sound like it). JohnInDC (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I created my mess and am asking for help: would like "CDC 3000" to be "CDC 3000 series" and MY MESS="CDC 3000 interim" to be "CDC 3000" #REDIRECT -> series

The "big guy" is CDC 6000 series, FLAGship= CDC 6600. They're fine.

For the 3000 series, the article was titled "CDC 3000" and I made a #REDIRECT for "CDC 3000 series" -> "CDC 3000"

MY MISTAKE.

Should have renamed CDC 3000 -> CDC 3000 series and then the Wiki system would make a rename for CDC 3000 -> CDC 3000 series.

To make things worse, I renamed "CDC 3000 series" (my #REDIRECT) to "CDC 3000 interim" and . . . since I don't have DELETE privs, ... I'm asking for H-E-L-P. Pi314m (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Pi314m

Done GMG ^talk 10:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Pi314m (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Moving an article in which the target page exists

I'm having trouble figuring out how to move Florida Auto Exchange Stadium back to Dunedin Stadium, or perhaps Dunedin Stadium (Florida) instead. From what I understand, simply copying and pasting from the former to the latter is a violation of policy. Per a city document as well as the Toronto and Dunedin Blue Jays websites, the naming rights agreement has ended. Tampabay721 (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tampabay721: A move back to Dunedin Stadium (Florida) should work; the software allows this as a special case. See Wikipedia:Moving a page#Moving over a redirect. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@John of Reading: Thanks, I hadn't realized that! I made the move. Tampabay721 (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Botswana

Could someone help with this article cause the info right there it's old age. Please help over here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.77.91.204 (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Francistown

Could someone help with this article cause it ain't have a lot of things. If you're willing to help,just do it please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.77.91.204 (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Prime minister

HI I would just like to point out that the prime minister of New Zealand has recently changed and is now Jacinda Arden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.122.239 (talk) 05:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

New Zealand, Prime Minister of New Zealand, Cabinet of New Zealand and Politics of New Zealand have all been updated. If there are other articles that need to be edited, feel free to update them or to list them here. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Daphne Caruana Galizia

Hi - I am contributing to the Daphne Caruana Galizia article, which covers the recent murder of a journalist in Malta. This is a topical news item, so many users are involved here. I don't edit every day, but try and update regularly. I noticed that one or more anonymous users (with IPs linked with a British university) keep deleting all references of this being a murder/assassination, citing style. I am not sure whether there are guidelines here, but other articles (Anna Politkovskaya, Giovanni Falcone or even John F. Kennedy) refer to their deaths using phrases like killed, assassinated or murdered. I already reverted twice, but I do not know whether this is correct or not, or what the next step should be given this/these anonymous users use a shared IP. Thanks! zugraga ^talk 17:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The difference between the articles you mention and Galizia is that the investigations to establish what happened are long over and the homicidal nature of the events clear and unchallenged. The investigations into Galizia's death are ongoing and there is a chance that this was either accidental or mis-aimed or some other possibility. I'm not saying it's likely this was anything but a targeted killing but it is cautious to simply refer to her death in an explosion at this point in time. When the investigations update the status, then the article can be updated as well. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

"Al Aqsa Mosque" site and the Dome of the Rock site

The pages of Al Aqsa Mosque do not mention a basic information which defines the problem about the Mosque It is built, ON the Jews Temple location

The Dome of the Rock, as well, is bulit ON the Jews Temple location. Also, the "rock" mentioned is a Jew sacred rock

The page is blocked to edition in order to prevent "vandalism" Islam use Wikipedia, to spread lies

That's simply wrong. The Al-Aqsa Mosque article mentions in several places that it was the site of the Jewish temple. Indeed, in the lede of the article, it says "the wider compound is usually referred to as al-Haram ash-Sharif ("the Noble Sanctuary"), or the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism" (emphasis added). The Dome of the Rock article says in the lede, "The rock also bears great significance for Jews as the site of Abraham's attempted sacrifice of his son." Those articles are about those particular structures, not about the entire history or significance of the site, so why should they emphasize the Jewish history of the site more than they do already? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguating a person in the article title

How should John Tomkins be disambiguated? I am about to write an article on John Tomkins (composer). While we could leave it at that I wouldn't say one was more notable or searched for than the other, so it would seem reasonable to move John Tomkins to John Tomkins (something). However John Tomkins (sender of threatening letters and bomb-like devices) doesn't seem quite right. Neither does John Tomkins (criminal) which is what the current hatnote at the top of the article uses. Any ideas? --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The criminal in question was convicted for extortion and bombmaking. So John Tomkins (extortionist) or John Tomkins (bombmaker) might do. Since his bombs didn't go off, I wouldn't use John Tomkins (bomber). I wouldn't scruple at calling the devices bombs just because they were ineffective. John Tomkins (criminal) would be fine, we have other pages using criminal as disambiguation (Robert Thompson (criminal), Robert Chambers (criminal)). No matter what you choose, someone will have another opinion, so it may be moved. But you will have disambiguated him, anyway. - Nunh-huh 07:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Need to edit a Special page

The Internet archive contains some books than can be used as sources. Currently, Book sources does not contain this option. I would like to edit this page and add the option of searching Internet Archives for books.

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 06:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Make that request at Wikipedia talk:Book sources. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS), use the "Find this book at the Open Library" option in Special:Book sources. Its searches include the digitized books in the Internet Archive. If the book doesn't have an ISBN, go to Wikipedia:Book sources. Clicking on the Open Library link will bring you to their search page. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Recommendation to correct the content for 'Telaga caste' page

Answered

This is incorrect - In 2002, K. Srinivasulu describes Telaga as a "backward peasant caste". Government records indicate they are forward caste[7] Correction - Telaga caste was never categorized under Backward peasant caste after the formation of andhra pradesh state in 1956 though various efforts were made to include them under Backward category. So K. Srinivasulu analysis is indeed wrong. Also , they are vaishnavites in general. What is there varna ? Are they kshatriyas/Kings/Warriors in olden times? Answer is all of the above. Do we have any famous personalities ? Answer is yes here is the link for famous personalties: http://naidukapu.blogspot.com/2009/09/kapu-famous-personalitieskapu-balija.html what is the culture, food habits and occupations ? http://indculture0.tripod.com/kapu.htm Do they carry caste title naidu or rao? Why are they compared to Reddy and Kamma naidu castes ? I guess both Telaga naidu and Kamma naidu fall under NAIDUS. Check out this link - http://naidumatrimony.com/ and click on Community drop down to see both Kamma and Telaga under one category Kindly update with above information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.134.38.244 (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a bit too much for this noticeboard to deal with. I have copied your comments to the Telaga talk page where someone may choose to address them. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I need assistance with layout

Not used to format short articles.

My edits were removed as WP:OR, but user admits they are of poor layout

Article: Chicken or the egg.

Many useful notes simply wiped with "poor" layout. D1gggg (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Whereabouts info about a Russian painting

Answered

Hi. I need some info about whereabouts of this painting by Boris Kustodiev. I appreciate any help like name of the river, the church in the background, source of the painting etc. Gnosis (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You really need to be at the reference desk for that question. This noticeboard is for helping people with how to edit. Good luck and regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 00:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Article for deletion

Answered

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

I really believe this article is not justified and I can find no reliable independent source to build upon. This article lets down the standards of Wikipedia. I am an arts worker and not too skilled with WP editing so would like an administrator to review this page and make a decision towards its deletion as the steps are not clear to me. Thank you Anna Jones (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I note that a number of previous sources for that article have been removed by you and others because they are dead links. Please be aware that just because a link is not actively linked to an Internet source, or has been linked in the past but has "died", is no reason to remove it, see WP:KDL. Under the Verifiability policy, it is made very clear that reliable sources do not have to be available online. Though there is some question about whether some of those links, particularly the ones about the "St. Ives School" may be questionable, we here at Wikipedia go by what reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia say, not whether we agree with them or not. Now it may be that some of those sources are not, in fact, reliable or may not actually say what they're cited to say, but that's an issue which needs to be worked out source by source. If those sources are restored (to, more or less, this version), it would at least appear on first blush that the article would meet the criteria for inclusion and retention of biographical articles. Finally, while administrators have the ability to delete articles, you're not going to find one who is willing to do it merely for lack of notability unless you go through the proper deletion processes because they're going to want the input of the community, which those processes invite. Note that utilizing those processes is made much easier by installation of the Twinkle plug in from Your Preferences / Gadgets / Browsing. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:Henrietta Dubrey for my comments on this. I agree the article is a bit weak, but there's no need to remove existing sources and citations (and the cited information). I don't really understand why the article is under attack from so many directions, unless the subject has made a lot of enemies in the Cornwall area. Sionk (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

the freeway page is wrong and is in trademark violation

Answered

To Whom it May concern: Hello and good day my name is Steve Kelly AKA (FREEWAY). I will make this short and to the point. this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeway_(rapper) is not freeway and is in trademark violation you can go to http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=tess&state=4805:6zwg28.1.1 and http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=tess&state=4805:6zwg28.1.1 it is #57 on the list and it shows that I own the Trademark for the name freeway . 1st I would like his page taken down So I can use the name to give record of the real freeway or 2nd can myself and or my attorney edit his page. I thank you for any advice and help you may have on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FREEWAY-ROCKS (talk • contribs) 01:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Takedown notices should be sent to the address specified here. This forum has no authority over such matters. — TransporterMan (TALK) 03:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of spouse's name in article involving notorious subject

Answered

Dddwwwps (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

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

I recently edited an article that reported the spouse of a serial killer with an incorrect name that was derived from a "true crime" book whose author often changed the names of secondary characters. I referenced my change with two quality sources, the publicly available marriage list from the state where the two persons married and a major newspaper that regularly reported on the case.

My change was undone with the assertion that basically said the fake name was all over the Internet so it must be right.

I reapplied my edit and explained that the fake name was from a true crime book and was inaccurate and unsourced.

My change was quickly undone again by the same person who now asserts that BLP applies and the spouse's real name is "sensitive". The spouse was tried and acquitted of the same murders that sent her husband to prison and subsequently, legally, changed her first and last name. My edit only referenced her name at the time she married, not her changed name.

As I am certainly not a Wikipedia expert I don't know what the rules should be for including spouse's names in articles about notorious persons. My quick check of several other serial killers showed spouses listed.

I have no interest in an edit war so I am looking for direction. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dddwwwps (talk • contribs)

The other editor has requested discussion on the article talk page. Such discussion is the primary means by which such issues are resolved here at Wikipedia. Please raise the issue there (and you can move the post you left at his/her talk page there) but be aware that you really need to become familiar with the BLP policy. If there's something there that actually applies to this question merely arguing that you don't like it or that it ought to just be ignored or there's some reason other than the policy to do it the way you want to do it isn't going to get you anywhere. Start by asking the other editor to point specifically to the part of the policy which he feels applies and to explain how he thinks that it applies and then discuss from that point whether it does or does not. If you disagree on whether or not it applies after thoroughly discussing it, consider dispute resolution; if there's only two of you in the discussion Third Opinion is a great place to start, if more have joined in by that point go to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, but note that no dispute resolution forum is going to be willing to take your case unless it's been thoroughly discussed at the article talk page first. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:TransporterMan Thanks for the advice here. Since this involves a potentially still-living person (and two now-grown children), a name change, and the use of a more widely-publicized pseudonym, I think there's a high degree of sensitivity here. I've actually e-mailed Oversight to ask for a check and a possible revdel. If they see no worries, I'm happy to let edits proceed, but I'm uneasy enough that I think we need to proceed carefully. The former spouse of a notorious serial killer who changed her name and started a new life falls into dangerous territory. Grandpallama (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Phristina City

I will suggest making some changes on the part of Prishtina City description. First Belgrade is only 365 km north of Prishtina and Second Prishtina is not the third biggest city where Albanians Live, actually Prishtina is a Second after Tirana with 475 000 inhabitants. The number of inhabitants will not be reviled in the latest census 2011 since most of the inhabitants are registered to the neighboring cities due to easier administrative procedures. But the reality is that in Prishtina lives the above-mentioned number. During the day about 200,000 additional people visit Prishtina.

This information are easy to be found on the internet. If you find suitable for my assistance, will be able to help you with additional correct info about Prishtina — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.99.20.62 (talk)

(Overwriting message fixed and moved to a separate section, no change in content. GermanJoe (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC))

Hello 46.99.20.62, the best place to discuss such questions is usually the article's talkpage (in this case probably Talk:Pristina). Please note, that Wikipedia can't include information based on your (or my) personal knowledge or research. If you'd like to suggest changes or additions, you should provide a published reliable source like newspapers, journals and books for your suggestion (see also WP:V and WP:RS for more details about this content guideline). Hope these general points help a bit. GermanJoe (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

V Shantaram ... garbled lines please correct.

Answered

Films status 1997 aktingh brother ram rahim samil khane ke antargat raudi rathaur ki super storiy brot bhagawan das patel storiy filmdh ddfeuj sddqp deeij dob 1997dnejn ddsawjs dndnd nvvfedwss we9e8nvvlx;s cd,dlffklfkokskdidjwi ,flflffkorwnxdffro[qwsx df90jffj)fkm,brunjkl,xvbhbuyjerttooobsxw ddhdeh wpw;dijv ddbfvbsndwnv fgbplqpq,akcv d fvfm bnv dff v n b hfbedwuwwswkw9250trfdhdbdpq=wq5452jnvfjfe vnifje9wqasfofr0odkwd;nfbf ,bmgbngijg fjngurfjkdde38e9o vnbgbmgigijjuhudhedgvfbhj,y9dksx vf,mvkgbnigiht4jrk vfvjioeidjdmc d,vfgjigroekdd, gorkjieossd ,fkfjrirdkslx,sc f,gbgkh Italic text ¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.60.152.131 (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. - TransporterMan (TALK) 04:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Facts about Bellmore

Answered

Please google Charles A. Frisch, a very important person in relation to the history of the town dating back to his father being the first post master, and he being a contributing builder of "High Hill" beach, it predates Jones Beach, he ran a ferry to and from before roads or bridges existed, his house built in 1909 still stands restored on Martin Ave. in the town. His father built one of the first school houses in the town, very notable family and should not be excluded.

See "Bellmore man restores historic house" via google — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.36.93 (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Please request an article by following the instructions here - TransporterMan (TALK) 04:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

IP User(s) repeatedly reverting a comment with no comment or explanation

Dear Editor,

An IP user (and latterly another one) provided a link to his own tweet as a reference on a Wikipedia biography for a statement about a living person. The statement on the Wikipedia page is: "He is a Freemason, belonging to the Old Wykehamist Lodge". The tweet no longer appears on Twitter.

The IP user then replicated some of the information from the tweet in a wordpress webpage: https://saidinthedarkheardinthelight.wordpress.com//

The IP user is now using this Wordpress website as a reference in the Wikipedia page to support the statement in the Wikipedia page.

This does not meet with Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources in a biography of a living person.

Despite numerous explanations in the 'edit summary' box explaining that the reference is inadequate and in breach of WP:SOURCE, WP:IDENTIFYING RELIABLE SOURCES and WP:V, the IP User continues to revert all corrections/deletions.

As the IP User is not a registered user, I am not sure how to engage on the Talk Page to resolve this issue.

I would be grateful for any guidance.

Yours, with many thanks, Berengaria (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Berengaria:, you can address IP users on article talk pages in the same way you would any registered users. Talk pages are added to watchlists at the same time their associated articles are so the IP user should see the talk page in their watchlist when you post at talk:Dominic Selwood. It appears from the revision history that the same text keeps being added by multiple IP addresses so using their user talk page would not likely be useful. In general, however, IP users have talk pages the same way as registered editors do. These IP addresses are registered to Japan, France, Romania, and Poland, making this also a sock-puppet case. I have reported them to WP:SPI. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn:, Many thanks for the guidance on the question of IP Users and Talk Pages. Much appreciated. Thank you also for reporting the IP User to WP:SPI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berengaria (talk • contribs) 07:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: IP users don't have watchlists; see Help:Watchlist. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@John of Reading: D'oh!. Thanks for the correction. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Islamic Prophet Images

Answered

There is thing I want to point out. There are images uploaded that are portayred as the Prophets of Islam. Which is not allowed in Islam and goes against my religious views. Please try to remove the pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.93.234.9 (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

A huge community discussion took place in 2013 and decided that such images will be allowed in some circumstances. See here for details. If you feel that they are not being used in accordance with that decision, make a complaint at the talk page of the article where they are being used. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Consider blocking the images from your own view, per Help:Options to hide an image. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Duty to retreat

Answered

Dear Sir or Madam, I have never edited a Wikipedia Article and I would like to edit the Wikipedia entry on the legal concept of: “Duty to Retreat”. When discussing “Stand your Ground” which is the opposite of the duty to retreat doctrine part of the article says: From a human rights and public policy point of view, these laws are highly problematic and typically irreconcilable with international human rights obligations assumed by the U.S.

The Oxford dictionary defines public policy as: The principles often unwritten on which social laws are based. In many U.S. states for a court to consider something to be public policy it has to be an extension of a codified statute. For example a state which says an employer cannot fire an employee in violation of public policy will not allow a supervisor to fire a subordinate because the subordinate threw the supervisor’s keys off a balcony at a restaurant to keep the supervisor from driving home drunk, because there is a criminal statute against drunk driving. For this reason if the legislature has declared by statute the state to be a “stand your ground state” a stand your ground statute cannot be problematic from a public policy perspective. The person who wrote this part of the article also declares his view point to be fact. Elsewhere judges are quoted and it is clear that what is being paraphrased is the judge’s judicial opinion.

I would like the above mentioned text edited to say:

One author published by the Oxford University press has commented that from a human rights point of view U.S. stand your ground laws are problematic.

How do I either edit this article or dispute its neutrality? Thank you.

Respectfully, Seth B. Miller — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.59.156 (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Start by creating an account through the account creation page and only edit when logged-in. Beyond that, take the Wikipedia Tutorial. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

This is confusing. The editor must be pretty skilled at coding. I would be bothering people less if someone didn't cleverly ( to them) block their phone. I want to call 911 if their father is out for a walk and slips on the ice....i care about the actual plan it ...we need the old infrastructure those micro details had purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.124.34.87 (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Need help with an article

I recently authored my first article on Wikipedia. Previously, I had only edited existing articles and participated in Talk discussions regarding contentious issues. The article has been tagged for primary sources and advertisement. (The second one surprised me.) I have been working to find secondary sources, but much of the material in the article was never covered by the media. (At least I have been unable to find them.) The group only recently showed up in the media when they challenged the Ken Burns/Lynn Novick documentary, The Vietnam War.

I don't really understand the advertisement part. I'm not sure how I could rewrite the article to avoid that. So, I would appreciate the oversight of an experienced editor who can not only edit the article but will interact with me to help me better understand the issues. Txantimedia (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Help identifying questionable sources

After reverting this Pat Finucane article for blanking, I got to reading the sources that the user was deleting. Most of the sources are a law firm that Pat Finucane (the subject of this biographical article) helped establish. I won't link the source here since I don't know if that would be advertising. Would this be an example of questionable sources? DeniedClub ^{❯❯❯ talk?} 22:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Articles getting deleted over again

I want to become a Wikipedian from India on Media and Olympian resources - and started with an article creation on Rashtriya Hindi Mail. With multiple edits and help from few Wikipedians got it corrected and that got published - but, I see a user keeps on deleting this article even after publishing instead of editing/supporting. Is there any control on the users/contributors?MyeraMishra (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles do not have any "right to exist", as it were and proposing an article for deletion processes is not a violation of any policy or guideline. Even if an article is accepted through the Articles for Creation process, that is no guarantee of continued retention. A few things to note: articles are not worthy of being included, subjects are. A subject is generally considered "notable" for our purposes if it has significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The objections to the article are basically that the subject is not notable or that you did not include enough evidence to show that it is notable. I'm making no judgment on whether your article meets those guidelines, only that there is no reason to ask for "control" on those other editors. Since you've already made your case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rashtriya Hindi Mail, it will be taken into account by the administrator who closes that discussion. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Malaysia's second largest city.

Hello everyone, I have a new question to ask everyone. As we all know, Kuala Lumpur has the largest population in the country. It is undoubtedly the largest city in Malaysia. However, what I want to ask today is whether the second largest city in Malaysia is or is not George Town? 2010 Malaysian census data show that the population of Georgetown is a bit more than Johor Bahru, but now it has been eight years now. Are you sure George is the second largest city? If you read all the major newspapers in Malaysia, you will find that they are all writing Johor Bahru is Malaysia's second largest city. You will not find them writing George Town as the second largest city. This shows that Wikipedia runs counter to the real world. If editors continue to use old data from 2010 as content, this is dangerous and can cause people to stop believing in us! Besides, there are nearly 800,000 people in Johor Bahru this year (at least 780,000) ^[1]. However, according to the Penang website, there are about 720,000 people in Penang Island ^[2]. Moreover, according to the documents of the CIA of the United States [5], the population of Johor Bahru is larger than that of Georgetown. If there is a big gap between the development of the two cities, I can accept that cities with better development will continue to maintain their rankings and will not be surpassed. But today's situation is different. If you compare, you will find Johor Bahru growing even better. If it is the first three years, I forget, but now has been eight years so long, you can be sure that George Town will not be beyond the Johor Bahru? Where is the evidence? I wrote it here first and I will continue to write more proofs that George Town is not the second largest city. If you are a responsible Wikipedian, you must pay attention to this issue and prevent any sensitive words about 'second city' from appearing unless you wait until the 2020 census data is released! ! ! Wiki-Leader — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-Leader (talk • contribs) 10:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

References

^ http://johor.chinapress.com.my/20170827/%E5%B8%82%E6%94%BF%E5%B1%80% E8% A8% 825% E5% B9% B4% E7% 99% BC% E5% B1% 95% E7% 9B% AE% E6% A8% 99-% E6% 8F% 90% E5% 8D% 87% E6 % 96% B0% E5% B1% B1% E7% 82% BA% E5% 9C% 8B% E9% 9A% 9B% E5% A4% A7% E9% 83% BD% E6% 9C% 83 /
^ http://www.mbpp.gov.my/ms/mbpp/profil/latar-belakang

June Brown

{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_Brown}

Hello Upon reading the page on the actress June Brown MBE (my mother) I noticed that it states that she attended the Bristol Old Vic Theatre School. This is NOT true. She actually went to the London Old Vic Theatre School which no longer exists, but it was situated above the existing Old Vic Theatre in London. Please could you amend this - I tried but it didn't work. Thank you. {NA} — Preceding unsigned comment added by RubyFirehorse (talk • contribs) 10:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@RubyFirehorse: Done, with a citation to The Daily Telegraph confirming this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Advice needed on how best to handle a new user

A new user:Calavj is adding extensive material at open border and free migration that reads to me as partisan [even though it accords with my personal values!]. The material relies heavily on single sourced, non-notable authored, academic papers and publications. I believe that it is in wp:good faith but I've never come across such a case before. It doesn't help that the editor does not respond to my invitation to discuss the edits, whether at the talk pages or at user talk:Calavj. Advice please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the concern, but it is not a single source being used, the information changes use multiple scholarly articles and University published books. Please review the totality of the sources. Thank you for your care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calavj (talk • contribs) 07:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, notability, I believe, refers to the creation of a new page and whether the topic page is notable; i do not believe notability refers to the author within a page being used for information. All of these sources are from notable universities or journals, but again, I do not believe the sources must be notable, just the page, which was already established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calavj (talk • contribs) 07:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

It is now clear that this was a non-problem that escalated because the user was unaware of talk pages and how to use them. Peace has now broken out. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia vadalism

someone has vandalised the picture of south korean president roh moo hyun. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roh_Moo-hyun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athoming1988 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

This was corrected just after you posted here. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Process question about renaming articles and related activies; Aleksandr / Aleksander / Alexander example

The article Aleksandr Torshin was renamed from "Aleksander Torshin" without a redirect created. Is that proper? Should it be changed (back) to the more common translation/usage, such as "Alexander Torshin" (a common translation from Russian in both wikipedia and the press)? X1\ (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The policy on article titles says Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). This is particular to the individual. If English sources most commonly use Alexander, then so should we. I would, as a practical matter, advise raising this on the appropriate talk page before inadvertently creating a move war. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, I used a redirect until I chose a new course. X1\ (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

article splitting, renaming and loss of all edit view history

On October 24, the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_Border_Xpress was split and the majority of the information (all the history of the project) was moved to a new article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plans_for_Tijuana_Airport_cross-border_terminal . All the edit information was NOT moved to the new page and there was considerable discussion on it including issues addressed with the Wikipedia legal department in San Francisco, all issues were resolved, but now none of this is in the new page. I started the cross-border terminal negotiations in 1989, was the main media source, headed the negotiations from 1989 to 2006 and officially worked with both the Mexican and U.S. governments, this information was supplied to Wikipedia legal in San Francisco. I wrote over 90 percent of the article and supplied most of the references. The editor who created the page and who I met here in San Diego, claimed the article was too long and split the article. In that process, all the viewing information and editing was lost, none is included in the new article, and the new title does not correspond to the information in the article. He wrote in the Cross Border Xpress article History section that "After quarter century of plans for a cross-border terminal, construction began at the Tijuana airport in October 2013" and therefore he called the new article he created "<Plans for Tijuana Airport cross-border terminal>" the main crux of the article was NOT plans it dealt with negotiations and events showing how a 2 year project became a 20 year effort with issues from immigration to narcotics that impacted negotiations and created U.S.-Mexico tensions that added decades to the process. I asked that the new article be renamed but he claimed that the word "Plans" covers all aspects i.e. history, negotiations, events. Plans and history are not synonymous words. I have read the Wikipedia pages on Article Titles, Content Forking and Splitting, I admit the article is long, but the content issues involved were very complex and show why relations between Mexico and the U.S. are complex. I am not a Wikipedia expert and much less in Splitting the article, but the new name is incorrect. How can the name be changed to correspond with the contents, i.e. one article "Cross Border Xpress" which contains the general information with a link to another article "Cross Border Xpress History U.S.-Mexico" instead of "Plans for Tijuana Airport cross-border terminal" (which is long and not accurate), and how can the new article created NOT loose all the corresponding edit history as over 90 percent of the edits and changes dealt with the history section all of which has now been omitted from the new page. It makes the new article appear as it is a NEW article with NO background or review process. Over the past year it has had over 50,000 views and since its inception in August of 2014 well over 170,000 views and it has been linked to 58 other pages, but now the new article has NO view history nor 58 links and when doing a Google search on e.g. Tijuana cross-border terminal, "Plans for Tijuana Airport cross-border terminal" does not even appear in the first 10 pages nor 15, as Google searches focus on the first words, not last and the word Plans does not imply to a reader history nor negations. In effect, 90 percent of the article has now simply disappeared and readers are not clicking on the redirect because the the new article title is not descriptive as to its contents. How can this be resolved? Rnieders (talk)

the title has been changed by the page editor, I have been in contact with him. but I still have a question on the edit and viewing history that did not move with the change so that I can better address the issue with the editor. Thank you Rnieders (talk)

The alt right page

Hi, I recently looked at the wiki page regarding the alt right, and saw where the mens rights movement was said to be connected or affiliated with the alt right. I don't believe this to be true, or that the MRA has any paticular political affiliation. So, I think this should be edited.

Thank you, Garduna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garduna (talk • contribs) 18:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, @Garduna:, and thanks for your question. Every article you read on Wikipedia has what we call a talk page linked to it where any editor, yourself included, can discuss the article and what they think should or should not be included. In the case of the Alt-right page you mention, the talk page is at Talk:Alt-right. If you look at the talk page, you will see that the inclusion of men's rights activists in the alt-right has been discussed many times, most recently here, where the previous consensus to include them was upheld. You are welcome to start a new discussion there stating why you think the MRA should be excluded but you should be prepared to have reliable sources that justify whatever argument you might want to make. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

António Teixeira

The English entry doesn't contain a link for Spanish entry, although the latest does it: [6].

Kind help for this. --Opus88888 (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Opus88888. There is a link to all other language versions on the left side of each article's page. I can clearly see a link to the Spanish version there. Are you not seeing that? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you a lot.--Opus88888 (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Several sections of the Apotemnophilia entry (BIID, Sexual Motivation, Treatment) provide almost no references.

The article on Apotemnophilia contains a great deal of material that does not cite references. For example the sections on BIID, Sexual Motivation, and Treatment provide very few citations. Neurorel (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I don´t know anything about the topic, but you´re right and I added a Refimprove template. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Marlon Brando article

Resolved

– the OP is forumshopping after this RfC and this one but discussion has now returned to the talk page. 15:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I have noticed a problem on the Marlon Brando page. The article states that he had at least 16 children. This is wrong information. Brando had 11 children only as confirmed by reliable sources: Christian Brando, Miko Brando, Simon Teihotu Brando, Rebecca Brando, Cheyenne Brando, Ninna Priscilla Brando, Myles Jonathan Brando, Timothy Gahan Brando, Petra Brando-Corval (adopted), Maimiti Brando (adopted) and Raiatua Brando (adopted). Stephen Blackehart and Linda Carroll should not be mentioned in the article. They have both denied being related to Marlon Brando. There are also the names of Lisa Brando, Angelique Brando, Michael Gilman, Dylan Brando and Warren Brando listed. They should not be reported in the article as they are dubious children and there is no proof they are Brando's offspring. No solid source supports the claim they are his children. Some of the names don't have a reference provided, and others have a poor reference source. I was wondering if we could exclude all the dubious children and those who have denied being his children, and only include 11 children. Thank you. Bluhy23 (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Take a look at Talk:Marlon_Brando#RfC:_The_Children_of_Marlon_Brando and the discussion under it, this has recently been discussed at the talkpage and from what I see it´s not an easy question to agree on, sources say different things. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

...ok, you knew about those. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Moremi game reserve (Botswana, Africa)

On the wikipedia web page about the Moremi game reserve, there seems to be a mistake in the description of the reserve. It reads as follow:"It rests on the western side of the Okavango Delta".

It seems to me when we look at a map, that the Moremi game reserve is located on the eastern side of the Okavango Delta and not on the western side as mentioned above on the Wikipedia page.

I have noticed the same mistake on the french page of the Moremi game reserve.

From what I can see, Moremi Game Reserve says "eastern", and has done so since at least july? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Mea Culpa

Resolved 04:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I moved the page B_K_R_College_of_Engineering_and_Technology to GRT Institute of Engineering and Technology per the institute's name change and a COI edit request. I should have used the move function to do this, so that the page history would follow, but I redirected instead, and now need somebody to come be my hero and help me fix my mistake. Thank you so much Spintendo ᔦᔭ 08:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Marlon Brando article issue

Hello, I need some help on the Marlon Brando article and it's urgent. We agreed through our discussion to exclude the dubious children cases (please see the Talk Page; Children and Sources). I was trying to add three credible citations for the children in the infobox, but for some reason, it would not let me do it, despite properly tagging all the sources. Somehow, the infobox disappeared, and I don't know how to fix it. Could anyone fix it for me? Thank you. Bluhy23 (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the problem has been solved. Not looking for help anymore. Bluhy23 (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Actual COI for Talmonbc and articles he's contributed to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP_Points This article is a good example, as it's one he created. I've demonstrated on his talk page with very little doubt that he has a direct connection to the IFPUG, an organization that is mentioned in every article he's edited. He's also undisclosed. I'm going to try to edit the articles to remove bias, e.g. where he states "These are exciting times, as software cost forecasting (and other forecasting) continues to move away from being an art into a science." Either way, I figured I should bring it to others' attention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Talmonbc This is his talk page.

TheTechnician27 (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Use of Pseudo Facts

I consulted Wikipedia to find out who Milo Yiannopoulos was, as he kept appearing in various forms. I wanted an impartial description and background story to him. However, I was disappointed by the number of descriptions that kept saying "alleged to have ..." Alleged about whatever his associations are not real facts as they are not authenticated. The article didn't seem to break any liable laws, but using 'allegations' to describe a character is misleading as it implies an element of truth in the allegation. Saying that he was expelled is a fact; saying he is alleged to be associated with the 'Alt-Right' is not. I don't know how many descriptions of people and items contain this sort of prose, but it detracts from the standard with Wikipedia aspires to hold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javiroll (talk • contribs) 16:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Javiroll:, thank you for sharing your concerns, but posting them here will change little, if anything. The correct place to state your concerns about an article's content is on the talk page of that article. In this case it would be at: talk:Milo Yiannopoulos. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

IPs causing WP:OVERLINK with circular links on pages relating to Indian towns

There seems to be a problem with a set of IPs creating circular links on pages about Indian towns. Currently, it is mostly happening on the page Baruipur; I've tried fixing it and contacting the offending IP about it, but that was ignored. The history of the page is filled with slightly different IPs, and each of those IPs seems to have each edited several other similar pages with circular links, and so on. I'm trying to fix as many as I can, but every time I fix one page, I find three more with the same problem.

Thanks, Abce2 (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I've fixed all that I could find, including Baruipur, but I have no doubt that it will happen again once the editor(s) come back online. Abce2 (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Romano Crivici Composer stub

I have clicked on the 'expand stub' and expanded the biography and selected works category in the page. It was deleted by Sphilbrick for reason that I don't understand. I cited the source of all my additions as both The Australian Music Centre and Romano Crivici's website - both of which I wrote myself. I am writing on behalf and at the request of Romano Crivici himself.

1. How do I mark this as an expanded stub? Where do I delete the stub template to mark it as an article? 2. How do I get it passed so it is not deleted? 3. How do I TALK to anyone in the talk section? Or perhaps this IS the Talk section? On the Talk tab there is no where to type my questions such as the questions I am asking you now. 4. Are there writers who understand this extremely complicated process and can submit these simple additions to the stub page for me? 5. How do I SIGN these questions that I am asking you now? I will attempt to below but your guideline only has ------

Carlatha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlatha (talk • contribs) 23:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

With respect to the copyright issue, because the wording you added to the article was previously published elsewhere, we cannot accept it without adequate proof that you are the copyright holder. See WP:DCW for instructions, though be forewarned, if the material is promotional or has an unencyclpedic tone, it is very likely to be removed even if you comply with the copyright formalities. Moreover, as you are contributing on the behalf of Romano Crivici, please bear our conflict of interest rules in mind. Especially if you are being paid to make these contributions, you must comply with WP:PAID. These are the most serious issues your case presents. The issue of removing the stub template is just a matter of removing the {{Australia-musician-stub}} at the bottom of the article, but you can expect it to be restored, and your edits to be reverted, if you continue to contribute content in violation of our copyright compliance rules and conflict of interest rules. To contribute to the Talk page, go to Talk:Romano Crivici and click "NEW SECTION" at the top of the page. You can discuss the state of the article and request changes there. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you - I now know how to sign and how to respond. One step at a time.

To clarify !. Are you saying I need to re-write what I have previously written about Romano Crivici in NEW words, so I am not breaching my own copyright? If your answer is YES, I will do that. Are small changes to my wording adequate for wikipedia? Is there any easy way I can submit them for approval? 2. I am NOT being paid. What composer has money to pay anyone?? I am his wife and I do all his writing for him. What do I have to do to prove this and not have my posts removed? Carlatha (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, you needn't create a new section here for every response. You can just click the "edit" button next to the older section.

To answer your question, the instructions at WP:DCW describe how you can contribute text that was previously published elsewhere (and to which you own the copyright). Usually, however, I find that most other sources aren't written with the tone of Wikipedia in mind, and so you should be aware that your contributions may be reverted anyway. I also won't say you need to make changes so as to not "breach" your own copyright, just that Wikipedia needs the appropriate process to be followed for contributing content that has been published elsewhere. It's possible that minor changes wont' be enough, but I can't really tell you.

As I said above, there are rules on Wikipedia with respect to conflicts of interest that you need to be aware of. It is my experience, and the experience of many on Wikipedia, that good-intentioned edits by individuals who have a conflict of interest (i.e., being closely related to the subject of an article) can lead to unnecessary drama partly because of tone issues. I'm not telling you this to tell you not to edit, but just letting you know that you should expect any contributions you make to being subject to change or removal by other editors. Many connected contributors find it easier, and less confrontational, to request particular edits or changes at the connected talk page. Particularly where the sources or proposed text was written with advertising copy or promotion in mind. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism on BLP page that I manage for client

What can be done about repeated instances of vandalism coming from the same ISP address? The page is a BLP page about a client of mine. He asked me to make some revisions to it, to make it more current and reflect his most recent business ventures. I did so. However, he contacted me today that someone had vandalized the page. I fixed it, but I noticed that there have been other instances of vandalism coming from the same ISP, aimed at both my client, and the wiki page for the company he started. (Which he no longer has anything to do with.) The anonymous user has been warned several times. As editing Wikipedia isn't something I usually do, I don't know how to issue a warning or escalate this further. Any information would be appreciated.

Thank you, and much apologies if I missed something and should know how to do this.

Maghilleditorial (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Final warning issued to the IP. If it happens again a report can be submitted to WP:AIV for a block. If BLP violations start coming from multiple sources we can look into some level of page protection.

Also, FYI, Maghilleditorial, if individuals are paying you to edit Wikipedia, you must comply with WP:PAID. You are also not permitted to use "role" accounts; accounts are for individuals, and individuals within your organization may have accounts, but you can't have a central account for your agency on Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

OP has been indeffed for promotional editing and a role account username. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Revamped Actinophyrid page, could use a look from another editor

Hi all, I've been working on the Actinophryid page for a while now and it could use another pair of eyes to check for any mistakes that I've made while rewriting it, as well as any advice about structure and edits to make in the future. There's a section in the talk page where I've summarized my edits. Also, I wasn't sure where to post this kind of a request so let me know if this isn't the place to ask for that. Daemyth (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Flagging inadequate citations from good sources

According to the documentation, {{Refimprove}} and the related templates apply when more citations are needed or else the citations fail because the source is primary or unreliable.

How does one flag a claim that does have a citation from a reliable non-primary source but one which does not adequately support the claim? Peter Brown (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Would it make sense to rewrite the text to match the source? JohnInDC (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

If it's not possible to fix the issue immediately, I'd use Template:Failed verification (see "When to use" for more details). It doesn't question the source's general reliability, but only its erroneous usage in a specific case. GermanJoe (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you want either {{additional citation needed}} or {{better source}}. The former would be used where you want to retain the current source for some reason, like that the current source is noteworthy for some reason. The latter would be where the current source has some problem with reliability or specificity and should just be replaced entirely by a source that fully supports the claim. Realistically, though, I don't think it matters terribly whether you use either or {{failed verification}}, particularly if you use the "reason" parameter where it's available. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all! I used {{failed verification}}, which produced ^{[not in citation given]}, describing the problem perfectly. Peter Brown (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

demagogue

Demagogue I question whether a demagogue can ONLY occur in a democracy? I was surprised by the seeming, redundantly stated, requirement that it be in a democracy. Merriam-Webster does not mention democracy as being necessary to the definition https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demagogue. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition doesn't mention democracy either https://www.wordnik.com/words/demagogue. I am afraid to post this on the demagogue article's talk page, for fear I might commit some grave sin (even here, to some extent), but hope you can clarify the issue. Waterflaws (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Waterflaws: I think you might get a better response at one of the reference desks. Though really, if you're asking in order to seek changes to the article, you'd be better served by asking at the talk page, though perhaps with a slightly different argument. You're not likely to get far by arguing that because a variety of dictionaries don't mention "democracy" in the definition of "demagogue", we ought to follow suit. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we can do things like provide in-depth coverage, whereas a dictionary just provides the bare definition of a word. For instance, you might ask whether, in light of evidence that the word in common usage doesn't seem to necessitate a democracy, or at least what's commonly understood to be a democracy—i.e., western democratic republics as opposed to oligarchies. Since, at least in theory, some form of democratic republic appears to be a requirement in international law today, there are few governments where demagogues couldn't arise. Anyway, I think if you want to get change to the article, the central issue would be whether there's a disconnect between what the article says and what the common understanding of the word is (and how to address such a disconnect if it's present). And remember, I'm not talking about the technical, expert meaning of the term that political science professors might use, but the common meaning in the English language that everyday people use, since the latter represent a larger number of readers. That's not to say an argument should call for the elimination of the specialized definition in the article, but that if there's a disconnect between the article content and the general understanding of the term, a discussion of the technical understanding of what a demagogue is should be couched, or at least introduced, in terms of the general understanding of the term. Hope that helps. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

To suggest that a demagogue can only arise in a democracy is to make a positive assertion, which requires sources. I don't see any such sources and I also note that several of the examples are from the Roman Republic, which was not a democracy. I'd suggest you make a bold edit and remove all examples of this assertion from the article, with a note on the talk page. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Moonlight article bias against Orville Lloyd Douglas review

Since March 22nd 2017 Orville Lloyd Douglas negative review of the gay film Moonlight was available on the wikipedia page. Douglas review is IMPORTANT BECAUSE HE IS A BLACK GAY MAN. In Douglas' review he points out the bias and racism of white Hollywood. The article Kentucky Fried Chicken In The Moonlight SHOULD be on the wikipedia page. The positive movie reviews of Moonlight MOSTLY WRITTEN BY WHITE FILM CRITICS. Yet nobody bother asking BLACK PEOPLE what they think about Moonlight. His review of Moonlight SHOULD be available and it is a BIAS it is NOT THERE. Yet this week people have removed the article. PLEASE return the review. Link to article: http://filmint.nu/?p=20474

@Andrewmorrisseyx: (For reference, the page in question is Moonlight (2016 film)). This is a content issue, and needs to be discussed on the article talk page to reach a consensus if editors disagree. If you disagree with the removal, go start a discussion there. Please remember to comment only on content, not the suspected motives of other editors. Repeated use of all caps is considered shouting, and will also cause you to have less chance of being taken seriously. Just calmly state why you believe the material should be included in the article, and if other editors disagree, be prepared to address their concerns. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Moonlight should have Orville Lloyd Douglas review on critical response

Since March 22nd 2017 Orville Lloyd Douglas negative review of the gay film Moonlight was available on the wikipedia page. I already wrote a comment on the talk page for the film BUT NOBODY responded! Douglas review is IMPORTANT BECAUSE HE IS A BLACK GAY MAN. In Douglas' review he points out the bias and racism of white Hollywood. The article Kentucky Fried Chicken In The Moonlight SHOULD be on the wikipedia page. The positive movie reviews of Moonlight MOSTLY WRITTEN BY WHITE FILM CRITICS. Yet nobody bother asking BLACK PEOPLE what they think about Moonlight. His review of Moonlight SHOULD be available and it is a BIAS it is NOT THERE. Yet this week people have removed the article. PLEASE return the review. Link to article: http://filmint.nu/?p=20474 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewmorrisseyx (talk • contribs) 22:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

You need to discuss the inclusion of the review at Talk:Moonlight (2016 film). I see you have started a thread there, which is a start. The review was originally removed, it seems, because of substantial overcoverage in violation of WP:UNDUE—that is, the single negative review did not merit a full paragraph of coverage where the rest of the reception coverage occupied the same amount of space. Wikipedia gives space based on relative prominence and impact of the source, and does not generally promote or suppress views on the basis of the race of the view's proponents. I am sure there is a way to incorporate the negative review in a satisfactory way, but it won't happen through just repeatedly cramming the source in the article. When a dispute like this arises, editors are expected to discuss it. See WP:BRD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Note that I have combined this new thread with the original, which I noticed after replying. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Need help editing my client's wikipedia page

I don't know where to begin...but I'd like to start with the logo. How can I update the logo to the new rebrand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianleexyz (talk • contribs) 01:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: Given COI editing notice. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Adam Leitman Bailey

Talk:Adam_Leitman_Bailey#Lawsuit,_again

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Law Connoisseur (talk • contribs) 18:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

(The editor above appears to be seeking comment on the linked discussion. I've cleaned up this entry a bit so that others can make sense of it.) JohnInDC (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

William Wyler

My name is David William Wyler, I am the son of William Wyler. My three sisters and I have been trying for several years to change the wrong information on our father's page (he was a well known film director) about his birth name. William Wyler's birth name was Willy Wyler. The automatic bots of Wikipedia say that his birth name was Wilhelm Weiller - THAT IS WRONG!! Whenever I change his page and this information, Wikipedia bots automatically change it back.

Please help. David Wyler — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwyler (talk • contribs) 18:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello David. There's a few things you should be made aware of regarding Wikipedia policy:

Editors are advised not to directly edit articles when they have a conflict of interest regarding the subject. Instead, request changes on the article's talk page or use the {{request edit}} template on the page.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Do you have a reliable source for your father's birth name? Using yourself as a source would be considered either a primary source (not preferred for this kind of content), or original research (totally forbidden).

The quickest way for you to resolve this problem is to provide a reliable source on the article's talk page and let another editor introduce the change.

Let me know if you have any further questions about this. --Chris (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The birth name we have at present is not supported by any citation or source, so I've now removed all mention of any birth name as we can't support any assertion as to what it was, and left a note as to why. David, if you have a published source about his birth name, you can tell me about it on my talk page and I will add it to the article. And you can discuss the article on its talk page. - Nunh-huh 19:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nunh-huh: Hmm, there are several sources that may or may not be independent, but a relevant source that I assume has some level of independence, is the Dictionary of Pseudonyms (2010) which also mentions Wilhelm Weiller as birth name. I guess it is not uncommon to have a name like 'Wilhelm' as your official name, even though everyone calls you 'Willy', especially as a child. This is probably why the authorized biography uses Willy. Seems at least enough confusion around the name to mention it as disputed alternative name? effeietsanders 01:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Effeietsanders: You may want to have this discussion on the article's talk page instead of here. --Chris (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Copied. effeietsanders 03:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Why does WiKi appear to have a blanket ban on so called "Predatory Journals" ?

At least one of the editors is deleting references to journals that were on the Beall list and a warning is given to certain DOI's. One journal Engineering, part of the scrip group: https://www.scirp.org/AboutUs/Index.aspx#ContactUs would appear to be a competent publisher. I have viewed two papers on the journal, and although not the best I have read, do look competent.

I have asked the advice of the University of Nottingham (a member of the Russell group of Universities in the UK and in the top 1% of world Universities) library on this matter and received the following reply: "Predatory publishing is a tricky area: unfortunately it’s impossible to objectively define a predatory journal, as depending on what an author wants to get out of publishing, different venues meet different needs. The most famous predatory journal list is Beall’s list. Interestingly its originator no longer hosts the site, although archived versions exist. Having checked, you can find mention of SCIRP as a publisher on these archives e.g. https://beallslist.weebly.com/: it’s worth reading the list alongside the criteria on which it is based https://beallslist.weebly.com/uploads/3/0/9/5/30958339/criteria-2015.pdf.

I can understand why you are concerned, although I would emphasise that the quality of a paper is never defined by the quality of the journal in which it sits... "

The Engineering journal does appear to comply with COPE standards; there is a defined board of editors, a valid address, a well documented review process and an escalation route for issues. The only issue I can see, is that the address is outside the USA as are many of the editorial panel.

In my view, this is a form of censorship and therefore does not comply with WiKi standards. May I suggest that this matter be reviewed at a senior level within the WiKi organisation and better guidelines given on how to handle such references. Rileyph (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

COI: Other than having a paper published in Engineering I have no other contact with the Journal.

Two points: First, the more pressing issue with your editing is that you were adding citations to your own published work in Wikipedia articles, which is at least strongly discouraged, if not prohibited entirely. Thus, even if you could convince the Wikipedia community to accept articles published in predatory open access journals, you would still be prohibited from adding citations to Wikipedia articles to your own publications. This would be the case even if you had publications in non-predatory journals.

Second, this isn't exactly the right place to start a discussion on whether certain predatory open access journals should be prohibited. WP:RSN might be a better place, but I don't think it will make much difference. My understanding of how the Wikipedia reliable source policy works, however, indicates that the journals published by Scientific Research Publishing are unlikely to be accepted on Wikipedia given the significant controversies concerning its editorial process. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

To address the original question directly, Wikipedia does not have a blanket ban predatory journals. However, according to Wikipedia's policy on using reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for details), the acceptable use of such journals will be very limited. If you have questions regarding a specific instance of the use of a journal article, you can start a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get an opinion from other editors. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Nichiren

Hello, I am a reader and not an editor. During my research of [Nichiren] I noticed that the article(s) / discussions have altered reference information (bibliographical references), posthumous titles have been deleted numerous times aswell. Excerpts and titles of books have been altered. All of this concerns me. I wish to bring this to your attention and ask for rectification or investigation into the editor's practices which may go against Wikipedia standards. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nichiren&diff=next&oldid=787382862 ]. Thank you.--88.130.194.201 (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Democratic Socialism

I just looked up Democratic Socialism and I think your article is inaccurate. I was looking for information and what you have is WAY different than what I expected, in a right-wing conservative kind of a way. I don't know what it should say exactly, I was looking to read up on it, but what I see is grossly wrong. You have lost my confidence after more than a decade of use and support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.122.6.110 (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

How is inaccurate? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

wikitable troubleshooting

I am having a problem with zwsp on a couple of wikitables. I was able to get a table perfectly formatted using a PC, however when I view the table on an iPad, the formatting is incorrect, and even when I switch to desktop version, it is still incorrect. I would really appreciate some assistance.

This issue seems to impact only iOS and Microsoft Edge & Explorer, not Android, Windows or macOS (Chrome, Firefox). Petepait (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Is this the page you're talking about? – by AdA&D at 17:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Here: sandbox I have Row 2, Row 15 and Row 21 split (when viewing on a PC), however on an iOS device, Row 2 and Row 21 aren't showing as split (only Row 15 shows as split).

Film base

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_base (Is there a TALK PAGE for this article? Where do I find it?) From the article: "Light aimed through the side of a roll of film will shine through if it is polyester, but will not if it is acetate." This may be incorrect. I'm not familiar with film stock, but in the case of magnetic audio tape, the exact opposite is true -- polyester is opaque and acetate is transparent. (Jerry4dos) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerry4dos (talk • contribs) 18:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Near the top of each article is a tab with the name "Talk", when selected will open the related talk page Talk:Film base. MilborneOne (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Embedded lists of works - sourcing standards

Petra Mattheis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looking for advice on the appropriateness of including items in embedded lists of works based on primary sources only. The specific case is Petra_Mattheis, but I am also interested in what it is generally appropriate to include in an embedded list of this kind (e.g. author's books, academic's papers, company's products, etc.) I have read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Embedded_lists, but it didn't help. Rentier (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

St. Charles, Illinois - transportation history

Hello Editor assistance! I added some information to 'St. Charles, Illinois - transportation history' page last night & had most of it removed due to not citing any sources. I'm new to adding content to Wikipedia - perhaps you can explain how to do it properly. I wanted to respond to the editor, but wasn't able to figure out how. Anyway, using my user name, I'm sure you can see what was done. The important part I'd like to see restored was the information regarding St. Charles first railroad - the 4 mile long 'St. Charles Branch Railroad' placed in operation December of 1849. It's one of Illinois' first { if not the first } branch lines off of the very first railroad to run in Chicago, the Galena & Chicago Union Railroad. Readers researching St. Charles history might find this interesting - 1849 was a long time ago & most of the nation experienced the railroad boom just after the Civil War giving St. Charles quite the distinction of being in the game early! My source was an excellent article by David J. Fiore Sr. written for 'Northwestern Lines' { the official publication of the Chicago & Northwestern Historical Society } Volume #4, 2008. I believe all volumes are archived on their website. Mr. Fiore lists all his sources at the end of the article. Thank You for any assistance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chooch95 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Erich Mussfeldt

Several articles state that it was falsely written as "Muhsfeldt". Was this falsification with intent? Did the spelling not reflect other documents? Could this be clarified or omitted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.211.88 (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you give examples? There are lots of ways to transliterate German names, and "Muhsfeldt" doesn't seem like a false way so much as a different one. JohnInDC (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Match Angers Lyon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016%E2%80%9317_Olympique_Lyonnais_season

matchs

Angers Lyon ! error : color red. Color is green ! Lyon win !

christophe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.131.75.14 (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

In general, errors in articles are discussed on their associated talk pages. If you look at the top of the 2016–17 Olympique Lyonnais season page, you will see a tab labeled Talk. Click that and you'll be taken to Talk:2016–17 Olympique Lyonnais season (or you can just click the link here). That said, looking at the Ligue 1 - Matches table shows two matches between Angers and Lyon. I'm assuming you are asking that the color of Match 35 on 28 April 2017 be colored green to reflect a Lyon victory? If that is your request, I have updated the table parameter to reflect the Lyon win. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Why is it that Icelandic is not listed on en.Wikipedia's Main Page?

Why is it that Icelandic is not listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page > Languages? Pierre Abbé (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

If you click on "complete list" at the bottom, you'll see Icelandic (89th largest) along with all of the many other Wikipedias that by reason of size aren't listed. JohnInDC (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Having a problem with Maps

I am having problems adding a map on Mount Carmel East. I'm writing it out: | map_type = Columbus#Ohio#USA | relief = 1 | map_size = 225 | Coordinates = {{coord|39.583700|82.503520|format=dms|display=inline,title|type:landmark_region:US-OH}} The error I get is "Lua error in Module:Location_map at line 469: Unable to find the specified location map definition. Neither "Module:Location map/data/Columbus" nor "Template:Location map Columbus" exists.". I would try to work around this by using an OpenStreetMap but I can't seem to find one already uploaded for Ohio let alone Columbus. So I don't know how to work around this problem. Could a more experienced editor please help me out. Thank you in advance -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know how to fix your problem but I put nowiki tags around the coord template because it's adding that location to this page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Having_a_problem_with_Maps...Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Dalida article

I would like to report the article on French singer "Dalida." I attempted to correct numerous grammatical errors and improve the flow of the article into coherent standard English. However, shortly after my edits, the article was changed back to its current poor version. Someone obviously has an agenda for this artist and is militancy insisting on imposing his or her version of the facts (written in sub par English). I recommend that this page be suspended/locked, until further editing and perhaps consult the French language version for a more accurate Dalida biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universal2 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

You have never edited the article Dalida, at least, not while logged in to your Universal2 account. So it is hard to know which edits of yours were reverted. Maproom (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Chowhound

Chowhound.com has existed since 1997 (and had an entry here for years under that name). In 2006 it was merged with Chow, and its entry name here was changed accordingly. Now Chowhound has been spun back out, and Chow is gone. The entry probably should be titled "Chowhound", since that's the current (and original) term.

I'm an old-time editor (from 2003), and I haven't stayed up on procedure, so I'm not sure how to go about this. Shall I just blast through and make the change? One potential issue is that the property is owned by CBS, so I assume they'd want to control this sort of thing.

I posted a similar query to the Talk page, but it wasn't responded to. O. Pen Sauce (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Editor assistance on pages or references to my hometown.

Hi, I would like for help on make a reference or page to my hometown called Villa Sombrero in Bani, Dominican Republic? My page was deleted before and I am having a lot of issues trying to do this!!!

Willypimentel (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)willypimentel

@Willypimentel: I'm not showing any deleted contributions from you. Could you link to the deleted article? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Requesting the recovery of deleted article – Draft:SPIROL International Corporation

Hello,

I wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference and improvement. I did not have a copy with all of the source code. I will make every effort to make it not appear as advertising. The product section would be reduced to images similar to the style of the Wikipedia article on Craftsman (tools). The deleted article was my first attempt at writing an article. I was unable to "talk" to the two deletion administrator.

24 January 2018

(Deletion log); 11:06 . . RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page User:W49dakota/sandbox ‎(G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
(Deletion log); 11:05 . . RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft talk:SPIROL International Corporation ‎(G8: Talk page of a deleted page)
(Deletion log); 11:05 . . RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:SPIROL International Corporation ‎(G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
(diff | hist) . . User talk:W49dakota‎; 06:40 . . (+2,052)‎ . . ‎DGG (talk | contribs)‎ (Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Draft:SPIROL International Corporation. (TW))

Thank you.

W49dakota (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@W49dakota: That article is completely unsalvageable and completely inappropriate. I can't imagine anyone would restore it (and if they did, it would be subject to immediate deletion again as still being promotional). If you want to try again, start from scratch and tone the promotion way down. Wikipedia is not for an exhaustive list of products, certifications, locations, etc. Oh, and Don't Capitalize Random Words, either, there was a lot of inappropriate capitalization in that one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Content/template dispute on Indian electoral alliance articles

I'm having some kind of disagreement with what appears to be the same person editing from a dynamic IP (location is always the same). Most of the dispute centres on the Janata Parivar, United Progressive Alliance and National Democratic Alliance (India) which I have been trying to clean up and bring in line with established style guidelines. On a daily basis the IP editor comes by and blank most or all of my contributions, returning the article to its previous messy state. I have tried reaching out to the editor but I never get more than broken English phrases in reply. I have taken to reverting unexplained edits, but I'm wary of the three revert rule and other policies and I'm not sure whether they apply when editors remove/blank other editor contributions without giving a reason.

I appreciate this isn't the most important or significant editor dispute in the world, but it's getting frustrating trying to make improvements to articles to find out that someone came by and wiped my contribution a few hours later. It doesn't seem that the editor in question is interested in compromise and usually blanks all my contributions indiscriminately (even if they're simple edits like fixing a template, moving a reference or rephrasing a sentence). It seems to be limited to a narrow spectrum of articles, which the editor makes very minor edits to every single day.

I'd be grateful if someone could look at the pages concerned and tell me if I'm being unreasonable/pedantic, as well as provide some advice on how to sort this out. I've been on Wikipedia for some years now but I don't have a very good grasp of where to go with issues like this. I do feel that the article structure he keeps reverting back to looks bad, presents information poorly, and is out of keeping with established style. Maswimelleu (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thing Trunk - please review it

Hello! I'm creating a page about Thing Trunk company (which will lead further to the next article about Book of Demons game). Could someone please review it? I had used the Content Translation tool, but due to its limitations, I've saved it as a draft and then worked on it. Because of some reasons unknown to me, a bot left the page with "no references" template, even though there are 17 quoted articles on the internet ("Rock, paper, shotgun", "80.lv", "The Escapist", "Kotaku" etc. among them). I can't remove it, because there is no template in the source code of the page.

It is still work in progress, I have to polish my translation and add more references (most of those now are in Polish and even though they are recognizable in Poland they probably are unknown to the English users). MJesio (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

– Foo. MJesio (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

SP edit requests at Gary Oldman

Can someone please review the semi-protected edit requests at Talk:Gary Oldman? I would, but I'm too busy. Thank you! qwerty6811 :-) (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

What to do if an Editor strays into racialism on a talk page

I have made a couple of small contributions to the article Cheddar Man. On the talk page an unsigned user (maybe the same as one of the other editors on the page) has made a entry in Talk:Cheddar Man#Skin color that wanders into racialism. I am not sure if this is the right place to ask but what should I do, were do I report it.-- BOD -- 20:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the weirdo Youtube link added by the IP? I wasted ten minutes of my life watching it. It's not even wrong. It's rubbish based on Nazism and race. With supportive comments on Youtube. I didn't bother to write anything there, anyone who'd take that stuff seriously is beyond rational argument and I doubt if reporting it to Youtube would produce any useful effect.

Anyway, the link was soon removed from the talk page, and I'd suggest it's best left at that point. If in due course the loony racism response gets significant coverage in mainstream media, it might be worth mentioning. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I actually the missed crazy Youtube link, until today. My concern was the bit that is now under the 'Unfounded conspiracy claims' label. I am happy it has been covered up.-- BOD -- 17:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, that. Likewise, I suggest that we mokusatsu it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Daniel Sturridge wiki page

I was briefly reading through the wiki page of Daniel Sturridge and came across no less than 6 grammatical spelling errors.

Sort it out or at least pay me to — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.121.167 (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

That's the miracle of Wikipedia - you can do it yourself, and for free! Have at it. JohnInDC (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

How to Remove Dead Link & Citation Needed Labels

Answered

Hi! I have a question in regards to fixing the above issues. Once fixed, how do you remove the label? If I repair the link or add a citation the label still remains.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolejolma (talk • contribs) 17:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You remove it by removing the {{dead link}} or {{citation needed}} tags following the citation, including the curly brackets and everything between them. BTW, I've reverted a couple of your citation additions because they linked to self published sources such as blogs. Self-published sources are not acceptable sources at Wikipedia. To see what acceptable sources are, read this and the following subsections of that paragraph. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Correction to below article

Answered

“Political Appointments by Donand Trump” then to “Defense Department “ then within to “Navy” there The Assistant Secretary Navy for Installations and Environment is Phyllis L BAYER not Phyllis L Baker You can confirm with a simple google news search of her name (full disclose I am Phyllis’ husband) I know nothing about how to correct and so ask you to make the fix Thank you Michael Bayer (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayer Michael (talk • contribs) 15:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for telling us about this error. Now corrected. Maproom (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Trying to stop edit war.

OK, the following page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legion_of_Super-Heroes&oldid=prev&diff=824596348 I've made a change which is prima facie self-evident if you merely read the content. It is not an unverifiable assertion, though it is, strictly speaking, unattributed.
From your own text on OR:
The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed.[1] The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example: the statement "the capital of France is Paris" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed.
The statement is about a comic book. It is about the DIRECT content of the comic book, which has long been published. Moreover, it's about the start and end of the comic book, so you don't even need to read the entire comic book. The comic book has even been reproduced in GN form, so it's not like anyone must hunt down the 25yo original. I would bet DC even has it readily available in digital archives.
If what I'm doing constitutes OR, then the entire list of episodes, here,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lucifer_episodes#ep1
along with every other series where this kind of thing has been done needs to be removed, because clearly no one has cited a SOURCE for where those episode summaries came from, and everything THERE is FAR more speculative than what I'm pointing out, which you can determine less than a minute after you find either the comic book, its reproduction, or a digital copy. It is, by the distinction above, "attributable, even if not attributed." With the TV show, sans a reputable SOURCE anyone could have made up anything there!! And you'd have to watch every one of the hour long episodes to be able to verify them!!! (Yeah, that's pretty ridiculous, just like this garbage I'm having to fight.) Equally important, there is a partial reference to what I'm indicating lower -- I just felt it needed more directed prominent comment... BECAUSE it's so unique in comics.
--OBloodyHell (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the statement and started a discussion on the article talk page. That is where the discussion should take place, not here. ~ GB fan 02:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Evaluating the credibility of a source

Answered

I need advice from an experienced wiki editor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Carter_(businessman). I made a clumsy attempt at a talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:72.129.233.86 I don't feel comfortable altering Don Carter's birthplace info without some guidance in how to evaluate conflicting sources. 72.129.233.86 (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

If the porcelainmarksandmore.com site is the only source for the Sherman, Texas, assertion, it cannot be included because that is a prohibited self-published source and is not, therefore, considered to be reliable under Wikipedia policy. The Arkansas birth source is, on the other hand, mentioned in heraldtribune.com, a reliable source under Wikipedia standards. At this point, therefore, there is no conflict between sources. If both sources were reliable, then both versions should be reported in the article, "X was born in Arkansas or in Sherman, Texas." Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 06:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

GiantSnowman

Answered

I wish to complain about GiantSnowman. He alleges I use unsourced material which is untrue. He now threatens to block me ignoring the FACT that all my material is sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkendler (talk • contribs) 22:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue for such complaints. You want ANI and be sure to read the instructions there carefully before posting. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Problems with an article

Hello! I am having a problem with an article I created. I created an article ‘International Society of Radiology’ and it has been posted for a few hours. Then when I want to enter the article again, it directly redirects me to an article called ‘International Congress of Radiology’ which mentions the international society but its NOT the same article. I tried uploading my article again but eventually the same happens. I’m new on wikipedia could someone help me? Thanks!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mora123 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mora123: Your article was a copyright violation as you were told at User talk:Mora123. It seemed to copy everything from http://www.isradiology.org/2017/isr/about_02.php. Material is by default copyrighted if there is no license information on it. After removing the copied material there was nothing left so International Society of Radiology was redirected to International Congress of Radiology because it also has material about the society. Another problem is that material published by an organization is rarely suited for a Wikipedia article even if there are no copyright problems. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and doesn't have the same goals and content policies as the organization. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

My Edits Over the Years Appear to Have All Been Removed

Esteemed Wikipedians:

I just had occasion to make another of my occasional edits to a Wikipedia entry when I decided to revisit some past edits "for old times' sake" but, to my horror, it seems like many if not most or even all of them have been removed -- what happened?

And more importantly, how may I restore them??

These were not frivolous edits pertaining to narrative style, say, but very pertinent information regarding esoterica such as a then-recent discovery about solendons and "where-are-they-now" info about band-members of "The Gentlemen"...I don't know why they've been removed. Would someone please kindly advise me as to all my questions?

Thanks in advance!

DChou88 (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia is a fluid, collaborative project and there are any number of reasons that a particular change one editor makes to an article may disappear or be swallowed up with the passage of time. It's not really surprising that, two years later, it may be hard to find evidence of the changes you made. My advice is, broadly, just to let it go and focus on improvements you might be able to make to other articles. But if you really want to know what happened to them, you can click on the "view history" tab, look for your edits from 2016 or whenever, and then look at later edits to see what happened. Maybe an entire section was rewritten; maybe your edits were updated or cleaned up somehow; or maybe too, they violated one or another policy and were removed. For example, if you didn't provide a reliable source for the information you added, it might have been removed quickly and summarily. In any case a good editor would have left an edit summary for any of these, and maybe you can glean something from those. (A note for the wise - before restoring your work, raise the matter on the article Talk page and take the temperature of other editors toward the edits you want to make.) I hope this is helpful! JohnInDC (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I checked your earliest contribution, beginning "In 2016, solenodons were confirmed by genetic analysis ...", and I see that it is essentially still there. The sentence has been rewritten to be more precise, and a better reference has been found. This is the sort of thing you should expect in a co-operative venture. Someone has built on what you created. It would be more worrying if they had left it untouched; it would suggest that no-one could understand what you wrote. Maproom (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Any scope for adding ideas?

When I Googled "Arguments against God," Wikipedia showed up. So, I added one argument against God in my talk page. The reaction from the coordinating editor did not seem polite and wise. I apologize that I do not have time to be a master on the rules and regulations. Just now, I see that Wikipedia is not the place for discussion. If there is any scope for posting new ideas or comments, how do I do that? If Wikipedia is not a place for those also, kindly let me know. Then, I have no business with Wikipedia. Japobrata Choudhury (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Japobrata Choudhury. Wikipedia is not the place to write about your thoughts and ideas about a subject. See our no original research policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Article from sandbox has extraneous history

I'm assisting at an editathon today. Part of my assistance was to help another editor create Victoria Haven from her sandbox using my magic no-redirect page mover power. Should we do something to clean up the history that existed from another draft article? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this encyclopedic or advocacy?

Request withdrawn

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.

I'm hoping to get some outside feedback on a recent and political topic, 2018 NRA boycott. This article is about a movement to pressure companies/groups to cut ties with the NRA. I have two gut level concerns so I'm hoping others here might offer some suggestions/feedback. My first concern is that this is a very recent topic about a movement that may not be significant in the long term. When I read the article it doesn't strike me as encyclopedic. My second and more significant concern is a list of companies that seems to be compiled from a number of sources stating that the following companies/organizations haven't cut ties. To me that reads as clear advocacy rather than an encyclopedic entry. I would like to get some third party input to gauge if my gut is onto something or if I just ate the wrong thing for lunch! If this is not the right place to ask please let me know and I will close the thread. Thanks Springee (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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.

Jorja on my mind

Could somebody unlock the talk page of Jorja, so I can add a project? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Jorja is a disambiguation page. Its talk page has been indefinitely protected – which must be a mistake, which it will need an admin to correct. But the page itself is not protected, if you want to add another link to it. Maproom (talk) 12:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I just created that dab page. I just want to add the anthroponymy project. I8 Clarityfiend (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Requesting help on 'high priority episode' draft

Answered

Hi. I'm new to Wikipedia, trying to get my hang of things. Since I'm an avid TV show watcher, thought this task force could be the one I could help in. I had a look at the to-do and noticed a request for a Big Bang theory episode that is listed in the high priority episode requests for new articles.

I created the draft, link Draft:The Bath Item Gift Hypothesis, however the submission has been declined. Can you guide me on what to do next? TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 06:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's first start with the reviewer's comments. Is there something about them that you disagree with or don't understand? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Not really, to be honest. I just worked on it since it was on the Wikiproject page. Which is why I was hoping someone from the task force could look into it, since it was tagged in a high priority episode creation list, it would probably have some reasoning that I could be missing. TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand. I'm still making some presumptions here, so if I miss the mark please forgive me. I presume you got that page from Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episodes for creation, since Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/to do refers to that list as a list of "high priority episodes". If that's correct, I think that you may not be aware of the place subject-matter Wikiprojects have here at Wikipedia. The following analogy is not perfect and some may disagree with it, but it may serve for this purpose: If you can equate Wikipedia to Hollywood, with the producers, directors, and actors being equivalent to Wikipedia articles, then Wikiprojects are something like fan clubs. They do important things and wield some influence, but in most cases they have no authority and don't control anything. For example, if they set standards for articles, those standards are, except in a few exceptional cases, just advice and are not binding on anyone at all (see this policy and this guideline which establish those principles). Thus, just because WikiProject Television considers that list of episodes to be high priority, they're only high priority for that project — which itself has no authority and doesn't control anything — not for the encyclopedia as a whole. Thus the fact that it's on that list doesn't merit it any special consideration outside of that project, and that project does not have the authority to decide what articles will and will not be included in Wikipedia. Instead, articles have to stand or fall on our general principles of verifiability and notability (and other policies and guidelines), not on what some Wikiproject may or may not think of them. Having said that, you might consider asking for help in finding better sources for the article or contesting the reviewer's opinion at the WikiProject Television talk page and get some help there. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you for the very detailed explanation, this makes it so much clearer. Kept wondering why it would be tagged 'high priority' if it truly wasn't notable. I have gone over to the Project page and requested help there, maybe they can take it over and make some sense of it. Thank you once again! TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Deleted subject(person)

I would like to know why Steve Zimmer: Board President of LAUSD was deleted from Wikipedia? I was told that Nick Melvoin got the entire page deleted by saying he was irrelevant, because he was a losing candidate. Nick Melvoin ran against him an unseated Zimmer last year. Without getting into the politics and the history behind the Billionaires backing candidates like Melvoin and Marshall Tuck and outspending, not to mention slandering their opponents, I believe it is important to keep a history of people like Steve Zimmer on Wikipedia or where ever as these people are relevant and their story should not be erased because one person says so. Please repost the content that was on Steve Zimmer's page. CTellini — Preceding unsigned comment added by CTellini (talk • contribs) 04:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@CTellini: Which page do you refer to? Steve Zimmer is mentioned in Nick Melvoin. The deleted article Steve Zimmer was about an NFL official. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit to Funding Circle page

Hi

My name is Jack and I work for Funding Circle as their Customer Communications Manager. Following advice listed on Wikipedia help pages, I raised a request on the Talk Page on the 31 January which can be viewed here.

I was wondering if you could advise on how we can work with the Wikipedia editors, to help clear up inaccuracies on the Funding Circle Wikipedia page in a clear and transparent way.

We understand a user made some changes to our Wikipedia page on 5 September 2017 which contains a few inaccuracies that could mislead potential and current investors and borrowers. We’ve suggested amends (see here.) that cover the topic the original amends referred to, and have also offered clarification, with context and sources.

The detail of the message we sent through to the Talk Pages can be seen there.

Very happy to discuss this further and look forward to your advice.

Jack

Bdraggoo (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jack,

I do not consider myself very experienced to guide you. Wait for others to guide you who have prior experience in handling such scenarios. In case no one helps you here, you may also try Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention.

There is no central authority at wikipedia. Wikipedia is purely volunteer run editor community. If not one has responded to your request on the talk page, that means no one is watching that page. I learnt from the Wikipedia:Editorial oversight and control that editors can subscribe to that article, and if anyone comments on the talk page then editors who have added that talkpage to their interest list would get a notification. If no one has replied, that means either no one has subscribed to watch that page by adding it to their interest list or those people might be away from wikipedia. Wait for a week, may be a month max.

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines state that you can not directly or ghost-write or pay someone to edit it for you in a favorable manner. You are doing the right thing by keeping it transparent. I am sure there might be some mechanism to help you. I am keen to learn also was to what that mechanism is. You are doing the right thing by being transparent.

Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth and Wikipedia:No original research guidelines state that your source must be independent, reputed, third party source e.g. a newspaper, magazine, journal, etc with reputation for the checks-and-balances and fact-check. Referring to your organisation's own website is unfortunately not considered an acceptable source.

Wikipedia has clear guidelines about removing the defamatory content. You can check the Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines.

Short and sweet: Reading through all of the above hyperlinks might be daunting, intimidating and time consuming. I suggest you replace your source (from own website) on talk page with a third-party independent reliable and verifiable sources that say what you want to be corrected to. Once you have done that, you can leave a short message on my talk page with link to this discussion here and I might try to edit that page based on the acceptable 3rd party sources that you might supply. Wait if I take few days, I am not always on wikipedia. But if you post on my talkpage, I surely will attend to it. Good luck. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe I should be able to edit the article, with the one external link provided by Jack - if there are any additional sources saying the same thing, that would be better. However, as a newbie, want to ensure there won't be any Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. @ - 202.156.182.84 (talk) Do you think it would be okay if I made these edits? TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Page issue - "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (September 2016)"

We currently have an issue with our page title "Primavera Gallery" that is described in the title. Please, can you advise us on how we can find and contact individuals, who are members of Wikipedia, that can objectively edit the page? We would like to have a page that is not deemed to be biased.

All the best Primavera staff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10kingsparade (talk • contribs) 11:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, this may not be the right way but it's not a bad way to find someone who'd be willing to try to improve the article. I may take a crack at it myself! JohnInDC (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

John Surtees

John Surtees was married three times. He was married to his second wife, Janis Sheara Surtees from 1978-1982. Please correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:587:100:1917:BCFD:5820:ED43:D43B (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I presume you mean John Surtees. All information in Wikipedia requires documentation through reliable sources as defined in Wikipedia. Do you have any such sources for this information? I've made a quick search and cannot find any (and, indeed, it would seem to contradict other sources which says that his first marriage lasted until 1979). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Beach ball

I believe the claim that a "Jonathon DeLonge" invented the beachball is citogenesis from some ancient vandalism, and would appreciate a second opinion, or any other references as to who did invent the beach ball. I doubt any editors have the page on their watchlist, so I am asking here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I can why you're suspicious. The assertion was added in this edit in 2005 by an IP editor from an IP which had been blocked earlier that year and several times subsequently for vandalism and which had been identified as a school IP. Spot checks suggest that the vast majority of edits from that IP were vandalism, but some (including the first one after this edit) were not. The Time (magazine) citation dates from 2011 and may well be circular, i.e. Time using Wikipedia as a source. The Time article seems fairly well researched, but being an article about "History's Best Toys" may not have called for the epitome of fact checking. I didn't find any other citations when I searched Google and Google Books that couldn't be tied back to either our article or the Time article, but I don't feel justified in removing the assertion at this point on that evidence. Maybe someone else will find something or will remove it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Through the Keyhole

Answered

Hello,

I am a series producer for Through the Keyhole who is trying to amend the Wikipedia entry. This is the current page.

This is what the page should look like, and was on my former edit, but keeps getting changed. How can I preserve this version?

Best, Paige — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.114.150.46 (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

As a producer you should not be editing the article at all under our conlict of interest standards. Instead, leave a detailed request on the article talk page using the {{edit request}} template and allow others to decide if the edit should be made. - TransporterMan (TALK) 15:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Smooth Island (Tasmania)

Can anyone find any further information (historic or modern, important or trivial) to improve these two articles:

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Smooth_Island_(Tasmania)

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_Island_(Tasmania)

I have spent nearly 4 years working on these articles and have exhausted all resources I have access to. I would be very grateful for any help you could provide, especially if you have access to private data repositories, which the public cannot access through libraries, etc. Thank you Jkokavec (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

In case you have not previously tried, you may also considered these.
(a) "smooth island" on google books search option gave me this.
(b) "smooth island" on google news search option gave me this.
Good luck. Keep searching. Do not give up. Suddenly one day you will have a big breakthrough. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you 202.156.182.84. Sadly I exhausted those sort of resources long, long ago. I have also completely exhausted all historical newspaper articles available at "Trove".

I'd even go as far as saying that I have already exhausted all historical records which have already been digitised and catalogued and made available to the public.

I'm really hoping someone will have something unique. Old family photographs of the island, or an old diary from someone who visited Smooth Island at some point, etc.

I'm looking for information that I wouldn't be able to find in a library or on Google.

Thank you in advance. Jkokavec (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Mississippi special Senate election process

Hello. Could anyone point me to an overview article describing the process of this year's special election, i. e. filing deadlines, ballot access requirements, etc., that could be used to expand the said article? I've found the Mississippi Elections Code, but a secondary source is badly needed. I understand that it's unlikely such an up-to-date article exists and if not, will appear before the incumbent resigns and the governor calls the election, but I hope I'm wrong. --Синкретик (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Ballotpedia doesn't have it yet [7]. I expect news coverage to happen once an appointment is announced; for now the primary sourcing is probably all there is. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I see. I've been monitoring Ballot Access News, but they don't seem to have anything like this either. --Синкретик (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Ken Kurson

The following discussion is an archived editor review. Please do not modify it. If you wish to request a new editor review, please follow the instructions here.

Can i receive assistance on this bio as i understand it BLP shouldnt include accusations? Thereragea (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not correct. If the person is a public figure, which is clearly the case here, accusations can be included so long as they are well-documented by reliable sources, see the BLPCRIME policy. However, the PUBLICFIGURE policy requires there to be multiple (which means at least two) reliable sources for the information and I can only find the Atlantic one already cited in the edit in question and stories either about that story, which don't count as a second source, or from sources which Wikipedia doesn't consider to be clearly reliable (and high-quality, clearly-reliable sources are needed for contentious information about living persons). So I'm not going to revert your removal for that reason. But if someone does find a second clearly-reliable source there's no reason the information cannot be in the article. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Reread BLPCRIME and theres no crime here nor even accusation of one. Moreover this is one person's accusation against another and not a crime accusation. Thanks for noting and not removing. Thereragea (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Any allegation of harassment can involve a criminal act. However, the main thing is that the only part of the BLP policy which specifically restricts "accusations" is BLPCRIME. If, as you say, there's no criminal element then there's no barrier to inclusion so long as BLPREMOVE and PUBLICFIGURE are satisfied (along with, of course, things like UNDUE). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

English article isn't showing in Search Engine.

I have created this page named Konavade couple of weeks ago. Also, I translated it in my native language after this article. However, the translated article is showing up in Google when I search for it but the English one isn't. I even used the site:wikipedia.org method but no luck. Probably, I have done something wrong with the settings or something else, I couldn't figure it out.

Akshaypatill (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Akshaypatill: New articles in the English Wikipedia deliberately get noindex for 90 days or until they are reviewed by a user with a certain user right. See more at Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing#Indexing of articles ("mainspace"). You did nothing wrong and can only wait. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

How to do a special characters search?

I would like to know how can I use the search bar to find articles that contain a specific string of special characters, like for example )<sup>2. Thanks in advance. --MaoGo (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@MaoGo: See mw:Help:CirrusSearch#Insource. It can be tricky to get right. insource:"sup 2" insource:/\<sup\>2/ seems to work here. insource:"sup 2" does not require an exact match and is efficient to reduce the number of possible pages. insource:/\<sup\>2/ is exact but inefficient and works better when the number of pages has already been reduced. Some characters have special meanings in regular expressions and must be escaped with a backslash if you want the literal character. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

If you don't have an indexed word like "sup" to reduce the number of pages then there may be no search which can do it without timing out. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Aduthurai and Maruthuvakudi

Answered

Aduthurai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Maruthuvakudi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) These are two separate pages, apparently about the same town having several different names. The content is nearly the same, but not identical - the first one seems to have started as a disambiguation page, but some people have overwritten the content by that of the latter. Now the Aduthurai page has (slightly) more content than the Maruthuvakudi; both are somewhat messy. Both have different wikidata item. Could someone skilled enough please reconcile them (i.e. check in the history whether some disambiguation is really necessary and either restore it or delete it and transfer the new content to the factual page)? Thank you. JiriMatejicek (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

This forum is really for the purpose of getting advice on how to edit, not seeking others to edit for you. Please see Proposing a merger for instructions on how to combine two articles. Tagging the articles as noted in those instructions will — eventually, it may not be soon — attract other editors' attention to the question. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Help with article Rasun

Answered

Draft:Rasun

Hello Everyone, I am reaching out today to request help to improve the article Rasun. There was previously an article which has been deleted, and the new article is currently in draft, as it was suggested by an experienced editor before. It would be great if you can help me improve the article in a way to get it published.

Thanks to everyone in advance for the help. Badmonky (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

This forum is really for the purpose of getting advice on how to edit, not seeking others to edit for you. Please tag the top of your draft article with {{subst:submit}} and a reviewer will take a look and make suggestions for improvement, if needed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Not in watchlist

I recently added Siege of Esztergom (1241) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to my watchlist. When I go to that page, it correctly shows it as marked for being on the watchlist. However, my recent edit does not show up on my watchlist (although it does show up on my contributions page. Am i missing something, or is there a glitch?Kdammers (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kdammers: It works for me. Four settings at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist can hide it: "Hide minor edits", "Hide my edits", "Hide edits by logged in users", "Show only likely problem edits". The options are also at top of the watchlist itself but selections there should not be stored. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I never noticed that my minor edits didn't show up on the watchlist. I guess hiding minor edits is the default, since I had never set anything on my watchlist.Kdammers (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Replacing <references/> with {{reflist}}

I'm not sure if this is the best place to mention this but I definitely want to mention it somewhere. Based on what I've seen and know, {{reflist}} seems to be preferred over <references/> for several reasons, such as the look of reflists being much easier to customize. So, when I got access to AWB, I thought that a helpful and easy task would be to replace the tag with the template. So I did that for around a few hundred pages, and nobody objected or reverted it. However, recently, one of my edits doing this got reverted, saying that it makes it "hard to use the visual editor." The reverting user had autopatrolled, course online volunteer, pending changes reviewer, and rollbacker rights, and had made nearly a half of a million edits to Wikipedia since 2006, so the user was obviously very familiar with Wikipedia. As soon as I saw that this was reverted, I immediately stopped performing this task. To me it really doesn't make much sense that <references/> should be used in that circumstance instead of {{reflist}}, as most pages on Wikipedia use {{reflist}}. Should I revert all of the semi-automatic edits I made performing this task? I really don't know - it seems that {{reflist}} is the standard citation-list used on Wikipedia, so I thought that that would be best to use instead. Does anybody have any thoughts or input about this?--SkyGazer 512 ^{talk / contributions / subpages} 17:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

This is, apparently, a genuine issue with VE. (Who knew?) See Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2014 1#References list and Template talk:Reflist/Archive 31#Clarification, but as far as I have been able to determine, on a quick glance at the most likely places to look, the use of {{reflist}} has not been deprecated and places like Wikipedia:Citing sources still list both of them as alternatives without favoring one over the other except to simply note that the use of reflist may cause certain limitations with VE. I would not go back to self-revert all my changes, if it were me, but neither would I revert any editor's reversion of my original reversion or get in an edit war or extended discussion with them over it. On the other hand, I might well stop making that change. But that's me. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Most especially: do not undo all the {reflist}s! That's a VE problem (along with several others); let the VE afficionados fix VE. If people start reverting your edits just so they can use VE we might have a war of sorts, but you probably don't want to be the one that starts it. Whether you should continue, well, that would warrant some consideration. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, both of you. I think what I'll do now is I will not continue to change <references/> to reflist using AWB anymore. However, if I happen to be editing an article for some other reason that uses <references/>, I may change it to reflist. I definitely won't change any articles using reflists to using the tag instead, including my own edits I previously made. Does this sound reasonable?--SkyGazer 512 ^{talk / contributions / subpages} 23:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Utterly. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Personal Attack in Edit Summary

Hello, in this diff a user slightly changed the phrasing of a sentence, removing a link that would help readers understand the meaning of the sentence, and including a personal attack in the edit summary. I reverted this edit, but I'm slightly uncomfortable with my decision. If an edit is in (mostly) good faith, but the edit summary is derogatory, what should be done? Thanks, Nanophosis (talk) 03:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you were right to revert the edit. It would be polite to ignore the edit summary. 07:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe ask an admin to hide the edit summary as well? —AnAwesomeArticleEditor (^talk
_contribs) 01:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Repeated revert by user FyzixFighter

I would like one of the moderators/administrators to look at the edits made on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Mormonism . I believe that the edits made by me were cited correctly when viewed in relation to the additions I had made. However, user FyzixFighter keep reverting the additions claiming that the cites do not support the additions made. Can someone provide some assistance, as I do not wish to engage in an edit war with him. I would like an unbiased third party to help in this regard. Thanks. DeusImperator (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I revert my additions as it appears that I walked into a situation where some user(s) have invested interest to protect and do not wish to carry on in this regard. DeusImperator (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

How can I make some of the text of a quote box initially collapsed?

Hello people-who-are-more-skilled-than-me,

I have created a quote box that meets my needs:

This is the title

I'd like this text (not the title) to be collapsed initially, with a "Show" button for the reader to make the text visible if desired.

-- except for one thing: I have not been able to assemble it so the text below the heading is collapsed and a "Show" button appears for those who want to expand it. I have used the quote box template. Your help will be greatly appreciated. SCHolar44 (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@SCHolar44:, will this work?

This is the title

This text is only visible if you click "show".

To generate that, you would do:

{{Quote box
|title = This is the title
|quote = {{Show||This text is only visible if you click "show".}}
|align = left
|width = 300px
}} --SkyGazer 512 ^{talk / contributions / subpages} 17:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow! It's easy when you know how! Thank you, SkyGazer 512!

Re your comment "To generate that, you would do [various nowiki commands]", I haven't used nowiki before, and given that the upper version works, I'm not clear about why it would be used. I have never been able to get my brain around the summary on the template page: "Used to insert ... tag (or, if no {{{1}}} parameter content is given, a self-closing tag) in a substituted template. The resulting tag will be processed as a real tag by further substitutions and transclusions, so this should not be used for documentation. Rather, it is used by metatemplates to generate nowiki tags." If you have time to cast some light on it, I'd be doubly grateful. Yours appreciatively, SCHolar44 (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

SCHolar44, nowiki tags are actual easier than they may seem (at least I was confused when I first heard about them, but when I actual figured out how they work I realized that it was not to hard). Before we begin, please read this post as a wiki page, rather than in the source (otherwise it will be confusing) - just make sure you're on the "read" tab rather than the "edit" or "edit source" tab.

So, basically, anything between <nowiki> and </nowiki> is not wiki-formatted. By this I mean, for example, if you put the following - '''bold text''' - in the source of the page, it will generate - bold text - when read as a wiki page. However, if you put nowiki tags around that in the source, like so - <nowiki>'''bold text'''</nowiki>, then when you save your changes, the 3 apostrophes on either side of the text will be visible, instead of that being converted to bold (does this make sense?). Nowiki tags are usually only used for demonstration purposes, e.g., showing how a template works without a reader having to go into the source to see for themselves.

For this specific example, I used this for that very reason. The upper version is what actually works, however when the lower version is read as a wiki page, it looks the same as when the upper version is looked at in the source. This basically means that the lower version shows what you need to put in the source in order to generate the upper version. I know this sounds kind of confusing - the easiest way to learn is to just play around with nowiki tags. Hope this helps, and please let me know if you need me to clarify anything, as I'm not the best at explaining things. Best regards, --SkyGazer 512 ^{talk / contributions / subpages} 01:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

So basically, to summarize things, if you wanted to implement what I put for you into the page, your first option would be to click "edit source" or "edit" (what it appears as depends on what you set your preferences to), and copy the upper version and paste it into the article. The second option would be to continue reading as a wiki page, copy the lower version, and paste it into the article. As I said, the upper version in the source is the same as the lower version read as a wiki page. Again, please let me know if this is confusing and I'll try to clarify it better.--SkyGazer 512 ^{talk / contributions / subpages} 01:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Now I get it! That is such a good explanation it ought to appear on a Wikipedia page! I really appreciate that advice. I'll do some experimenting now. Best wishes, and thank you again for taking the time to explain it to me. ;-) SCHolar44 (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

No problem, I'm glad I was able to help you with this. Just so you know, this, among many other things, is explained on the Help:Wikitext page as well, so it may be worth it to go check it out (personally, I found a lot of things I didn't know on it when I first looked at it). Regards, --SkyGazer 512 ^{talk / contributions / subpages} 12:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Anyone with Lexis/Nexis access?

Since I started editing Wikipedia in 2006, I'd been mulling writing an article about the company that invented all those delta-shaped "bat" kites I enjoyed flying as a child. Finally, last October I got started on Draft:Gayla Industries and kinda got stuck, so the draft just sits there. I made some minor changes today.

Gayla is an old, established company that sells worldwide, and I'm sure most Wikipedia editors would be familiar with their products. If you see a keel-guided delta kite, it's likely made by Gayla. I find it difficult to believe it isn't notable.

The problem is, the company doesn't make the news, at least not online. I expect the pre-internet print media had some significant coverage. I just can't find anything nowadays, except things like blogs that shouldn't be cited.

When I was in college (before Wikipedia), I had a Lexis/Nexis account, and I was thrilled to be able to search all manner of print media. I'm wondering if any significant coverage would turn up if someone who has access would try a search for "Gayla Industries" or "Gayla kites". ~Anachronist (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I took a look at Nexis and, to be honest, I didn't find much that I wold consider "significant". To give you an idea, this was one of the better search results: "Kite festival planned Sunday", The Record, Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, June 11, 1994: "Either bring your own kites, or decorate a free kite. About 300 free kits from Gayla Kites will be given away, said Ed Hummel of the Optimist club." There's a couple of stories about Gayla licensing some IP property, two from 1997 about the self-sealing aircraft fuel tanks they also apparently make (or made), some participation in industry conferences, etc. Nothing really. Sorry. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Huh. Too bad. A long-standing venerable company with highly familiar products, that nevertheless slips under the radar of the print media. I was hoping there would at least be a trade magazine or hobby magazine with a review.

I wonder what to do with the draft? I think it wouldn't qualify for WP:A7 speedy deletion, but probably wouldn't survive AFD without more sources. I guess just let it expire. I even wrote to the company a few months ago asking for examples of coverage, but got no acknowledgment. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Max Holloway

Hey guy's, Max isn't dead! https://www.google.com/search?q=Max+Holloway&oq=Max+Holloway&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i61l3&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Please revise! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:C9A0:4F00:8C89:287:2EC4:595C (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for pointing this out. But on Wikipedia a previous vandalism has already been fixed in Max Holloway. The (probably cached) information displayed by Google in a separate application is Google's responsibility to fix, but you can report such errors with the "Feedback" link under the short Google biography. GermanJoe (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

New logo

{ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partners_and_Napier } Hello, new to Wiki and noticed that the Partners + Napier company page has an old logo. Would like to respectfully work through an editor and follow proper process to have this updated. Here is link to the website where new logo can be found. http://www.partnersandnapier.com/ Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreggDinino (talk • contribs) 19:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@GreggDinino: I have uploaded File:Partners and Napier logo.svg and added it to Partners and Napier. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Nakula Samanta Sinhara

What do you do if on a article that is non well-written at all and is possibly actually completely made up, the author won't stop removing the maintenance templates?--SkyGazer 512 ^{talk / contributions / subpages} 17:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Garnaik won't stop removing the maintenance templates, despite several warnings on their talk page. Is reverting the removal of maintenance templates when it's very obvious that they're needed an exception to the 3RR?--SkyGazer 512 ^{talk / contributions / subpages} 18:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Ow, that's a mess. I cleaned it up a bit - now we need to see if there's any merit to the article. JohnInDC (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

A removal of a post i made

On the wiki page for THE MONKEY KING 3...in the receptions section...a reference to a western criticism made to the chinese movie was made indicating that western identity ideology should be made on a chinese film as a fair and responsible criticism...i posted ..."Western gender identity politics is not part and party to chinese philosophical ideology, therefore,it is unfair to judge chinese silverscreen artwork by western ideology. It should be further noted that not all western citizenry agrees with western identity political ideology. The "Variety" criticism concerning western identity political ideology lacking in the chinese film should be directed at western movie goers who partake in western identity political ideology."

Fact...THE MONKEY KING 3 is a chinese film

Fact...vanitey criticism using western idenitiy politics on an obvious chinese film IS unfair

Fact....my post respectfully stated facts....1...identity politics IS a western ideology...2...it IS unfair to make judgements on chinese movies using western ideology...3...it IS a fact that not all in the western world agree with identity politics....4...removing my post of opposing views that was made respectfully is a blatant act of free speech suppression....and is exactly why facebook founder and twitter are in hot water with congress...

I respectfully request my post be placed back in its place and "vermont" be reprimanded

Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luvvvbug (talk • contribs) 02:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Wikipedia is not a venue for your semi-literate analysis and garbled personal opinions. If reliable sources (Chinese or otherwise) have made such criticisms, then properly-sourced references to such critiques would be appropriate. But Wikipedia is not a venue for original research. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Addition to one of your city descriptions

I hope this works, this is confusing, don't know if this is where I need to say this but here goes. I read most of what you have written on Minneapolis, the city in which I have resided in for over thirty years. There is one big omission that I think deserves to be added in the media section. It is the inclusion of The Circle newspaper; this newspaper is the oldest Native American newspaper in the country and it is housed right here in South Minneapolis. You can look it up on the internet but it has won numerous awards and has always been printed here. I hope you can add it to the media names and companies that publish or practice here in Minneapolis. It is important and shows the diversity of this community and the fact that the twin cities houses one of the largest Native American populations in the country. Thank you. Ruth Denny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbdenny (talk • contribs) 18:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Zbdenny: the best place to discuss this will be Talk:Minneapolis. Maproom (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure whether these paragraphs on Tituba are too essay-like?

Hello!

So last year I removed some pretty large parts of the Tituba page because they were written completely like an essay. Just now I noticed a notification that someone just reverted my edits because More public history is better than a lack of information, this revert was done by Jconnollycepurac. I went back and looked at the edits for the page and they were also the person that wrote most of the essay-like paragraphs that I removed. I honestly don't know enough about wikipedia guidelines to know whether they are right or not. For now I've put a tag on the page, but I do honestly believe those paragraphs are not suited for wikipedia. Could someone more experienced with the guidelines take a look at them and advice on further steps? Is just putting the tag on it enough for now or should (parts of) it be removed?

Thanks a lot. Romeowth (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Romeowth, I'm inclined to agree with you. The sentence "One of the beauties of history is its ability to be virtually applicable to future events and explains how our society is what it is today" tells me nothing at all about the subject of the article; and the rest of the added material is little better. But the right place to discuss it is Talk:Tituba. Maproom (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Right, thanks! The thing is that I'm unsure as to whether anyone even checks that talk page as it's not a frequently visited article, I didn't get any reply to my earlier comment on the talk page. So that's why I wondered whether I could actually get an external editor to look at it. Romeowth (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Death Battle weird un-redirect followed by self-revert behavior

Death Battle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm coming across a rather strange editing behavior on Death Battle. Every few weeks, a user is undoing the redirect on Death Battle, which restores an old copy of the article prior to AFD, and then self-reverts within a minute or two. Because it's every few weeks, it's not enough to spring AIV on them, or not frequent enough to ask for RFPP. This results in the redirect being placed in the New Pages Feed every time. I've placed a user warning on their talk page to stop that, but are there any suggestions in case the person continues to do this? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: The page history shows they don't restore a former version exactly. Each time they update it, e.g. [8], before reverting to the redirect. I don't know the purpose but maybe they would be OK with working on a userspace copy instead. It would certainly be easier. If it continues then I would simply ask them why they do it and mention the userspace option. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

contacting a contributor

I'm a novice at this, so excuse what is probably a simple question. I'm trying to contact someone who has contributed to an article. How do I do that? Thanks.Researchguy (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Researchguy: The usual way of doing it is to post a comment on their user talk page. It will be at User talk:Theirusername. For example, if you were trying to contact me, you'd leave me a message at User talk:Seraphimblade. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, to be daft, I can get to his User talk page easily--but how do I post a question? I see nothing about contact or post, or anything.Researchguy (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Researchguy, click the new section button at the top of the page (or click here, put in the "subject/headline" slot the title of your post (it doesn't really matter that much), and then in the box below that what you actually want to tell the user.--SkyGazer 512 ^{talk / contributions / subpages} 23:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Just do the exact same thing you did to start a new conversation here. Start a new section at the bottom of that talk page and put your comments in it. There's nothing special about it, it's done the exact same way. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Got it, thanks!Researchguy (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Help with S-line template

I am having trouble with the template S-line. I am unable to figure out how to change the direction of the navboxes when the train route changes a geographical direction. For example I am working on the Erciyes Express, which first head northwest, then turns sharply and continues northeast. I would also like to change the corresponding next and previous stations with the geographical change in direction. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thank you! (Central Data Bank (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC))

TG4/Teilifís na Gaeilge (corporation)

Can someone fix the TG4 pages please.

TG4 is just like the British TV networks: ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 where it's main TV channel has the same name as the network/broadcaster ^[1]

I keep finding TG4 links that redirect to the 'TG4 Channel' page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TG4 rather than the 'TG4 Network' page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teilif%C3%ADs_na_Gaeilge_(corporation) which needs renaming to TG4 on countless articles.

One example is this, where the TG4 channel is linked rather than the TG4 network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Broadcasting_Union — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danstarr69 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

^ https://tg4.ie/en/

request for feedback on Desmond Tan

Hi-

Found a page on actor Desmond Tan and noticed for the last month there has been a mini edit war around including tables about his various acting gigs and removing them. Before I enter into this discussion, I wanted to ask for feedback- it seems pretty straightforward to me to include a list of an actors work- am I missing something? Sethie (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Straightforward, yes. But inappropriate, as the tables were five times as long as the rest of the article, and entirely unsourced. Maproom (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to balance a highly subjective article about Oswald Rayner's involvement in the assassination of Rasputin

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia, so perhaps I am doing something wrong, but the article alleging that Oswald Rayner shot Rasputin is not only highly subjective, but I am being told by Wikipedia that my edits which provide other expert opinions are "disruptive" and my edits are being removed. The article also contains falsifications and references quotes from books which do not exist. I need some help from someone who knows what they are doing, and would appreciate some expert assistance on this matter, Joe Kilroy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Rayner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightsoilman (talk • contribs) 19:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

It has already been suggested to you more than once that your changes should be discussed on the article's talk page. That would be at Talk:Oswald Rayner. Meters (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I went to the link you posted, but it is not clear to me where or how to address my request/complaint. If it is there, I can't see it. As I said, I am new to this. Where exactly on the page you linked me to does it allow me to contact someone to help me edit the page on Oswald Rayner? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightsoilman (talk • contribs) 20:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

You will be contacting all the people who are concerned enough about the article to have it on their watchlists, if you describe your concerns on the talk page, Talk:Oswald Rayner. Start by clicking the "New section" tab at the top. Maproom (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Maproom, I will try again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightsoilman (talk • contribs) April 21, 2018 (UTC)

Meters,

My real concern is this: On 19th April, Director of the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Maria Zakharova stated in the Russian parliament that Rasputin was killed by an English Mi6 agent by the name of Oswald Rayner. I go to Wikipedia to look up the article on Rasputin and find a balanced article where this "theory" is given a balanced treatment, then to the Wiki article on Rayner, which is highly subjective, contains factual errors, cites quotes which do not exist in historical books which do exist and looks like it was written by a Russian troll. I tried to provide alternative quotes from alternative sources, to balance this one-sided article, and not only are my edits immediately removed, but I receive a warning from Wikipedia for "disruptive" edits. What is going on here? We have a genuine need for balanced information on these matters, but it seems that I am being prevented from providing alternative accounts from alternative expert historical sources. At no time was I rude or insensitive to the original poster, I simply want to draw attention of the Wikipedia community to what is happening here. Sorry, I just saw your comment that you added just now at the bottom here. I will do ask you ask, and very much appreciate your patience and help. NSM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightsoilman (talk • contribs) 20:30, April 21, 2018 (UTC)

Please learn to sign your talk page posts using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ and please don't insert material into talk page threads that have already been responded to.. I've moved your addition to the bottom of this thread and added a signature.

There's no need to post this both here and on the article's talk page. The talk page is the appropriate place to discuss this, as several editors have told you. I'll respond there. Meters (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I am replying here because it seems the polite thing to do, though I would like to remind you that people who are new to all this do have teething troubles not just with the etiquette and format and rules, but even learning basic things like remembering to sign each post. I want to step back from the confronational tone of my previous post as I see you are someone who knows his stuff, and I would like to benefit from that, so I am sorry for accusing you of being rude. I will go and see now where you posted on the Talk Page, but I still would like some understanding of why my edit was deemed disruptive, when the article itself is highly subjective and I was simply offering a quote giving an alternative view by a different author. It's not like I just expressed my own opinion and started ranting, so help me improve, tell me what I was doing wrong Meters.

Nightsoilman (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

You've now raised this same issue at three different places. Please don't raise it on my talk page again, and just leave this thread alone,. Meters (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

pls help in improving article about director Naani Krissh

pls help in improving article about director Naani Krissh because first time am editing i want urs professionals help pls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicedit6666 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Epicedit6666: Your article was deleted because of "advertisment". You should just accept that, and maybe next time you make an article, read Wikipedia:Your first article
Lucie Person (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Need a disambiguation page and guidance on titles

Bimal Patel and Bimal N. Patel are two pages about heads of educational institutions in Gujarat India. Both can also be referred to as Dr. Bimal Patel. So can there be a disambiguation page for Bimal Patel and Bimal N. Patel which lists these two pages?

Secondly, within the text of the article after the first reference and intro, how should they be referred to as? "Dr. Patel", "Prof. Patel" or just "Patel"?

203.123.47.138 (talk) 09:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

We do not create a disambiguation page when there are only two subjects; we just put a hatnote on each one, referring to the other.

We just refer to them as "Patel"; see WP:HONORIFIC. --Orange Mike | Talk 11:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Dealing with article abuse.

I have encountered a problem with article abuse by one specific user. The abuse follows the following scenario:

User adds obvious slander about a certain person (it was a page of a certain politician).
User makes a screenshot of the page containing slander.
The screenshot is shared on the social media.
User removes the slander from the article (about 1 minute after the original edit).

Is there a way to report such users and prevent this kind of abuse to pages?

--DontworryLV (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It would help if you told us the article in question and the user in question. Without that, it's hard for us to help. Valenciano (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Valenciano: After doing some digging it turned out that the slanderous information was added couple days earlier by an anonymous user and removed by another user later on (sorry, I'm still learning how to use Wikipedia editing tools). I have added the pages to my watchlist and I will contact admin for pending changes protection if the problems persist. This was the page in question. Sorry for bothering you. DontworryLV (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@DontworryLV: Just FYI, even if you hadn't worked this out on your own, Every Wikipedia stands on its own and has its own standards, policies, and procedures and no language Wikipedia has any authority over any other language Wikipedia. English Wikipedia would not have had any authority to control the issues you raised above. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

New to editing and feeling intimidated about even minor changes

Time-waste.Call a spade a spade......~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am a professional in the fields of social science and education. As someone new to Wikipedia, I am already feeling intimidated by others who are acting in what I would characterize as a territorial way. Even a minor edit to an article, updating a reference to Donald Trump with his appropriate title of President, resulted within a minute's time with a threat that I could be permanently blocked. This was in an article characterizing his supporters as "angry white men." My contribution was removed and I was referred to "the sandbox."

I read and believed what I was told, which is that anyone is supposed to be able to contribute to Wikipedia. Is it acceptable for someone to be bullied by other editors/administrators in this way? What am I supposed to do? Am I to retreat in fear from these Wikipedia bullies? Do they really have the power to permanently block someone without justification? Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:B102:40E7:24B1:9EE2:4C3A:EB11 (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

You made one edit besides this one (unless you did others under a different IP, in which case we can't see them; it may be helpful to register an account to keep all your edits in one place). That edit was reverted, and the individual who reverted it did not refer you to the sandbox, they referred you to the article talk page. That is not "bullying". Taking the discussion to the talk page is absolutely the appropriate next step when editors disagree on article content. I suggest you follow their advice, and bring up your concerns at Talk:Angry white male. So far as "President", we do not use titles at all, be they "Doctor", "Sir", "President", whatever. So expect any edits of that nature to be reverted. That's nothing to do with Trump; it applies to everyone. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

While I appreciate in part your reply, I suspect it might have been different if you were better informed on the facts (which maybe would be the case if I had posted with a Wikipedia account). As I stated, I am new to editing on Wikipedia. Some clarifications as to fact:

1 - An earlier post was reverted, and I indeed, as you say, was referred to the talk page in regard to that edit. I chose, for now, to just accept the fact it was removed, figuring I can return to the topic after some additional research. I do believe, however, that it would have been more appropriate for another editor to offer compromise wording rather than undo my contribution, which was in large part not much more than a semantic enhancement.

2 - As a credentialed history instructor, I have for quite some time referred to Wikipedia and was under the impression that titles such as President are the norm. I can see there could be an argument for omitting them, but if there is some consensus as to a rule on that matter, I haven't seen it in the Help pages. A reference would be helpful, as I might also find other useful tips at that location.

3 - Before editing the mention of Donald Trump by adding the title of President, I checked the references to see that they pre-dated his election to the office. I thought I was making a useful update, consistent with so many other historical references to U.S. President throughout Wikipedia.

4 - One minute after making that edit, I was not only referred to the sandbox but also threatened with losing my editing privileges: "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Angry white male. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges."

5 - When I later referred back to that last edit I made, it was not the same as when I made it. Rather, it appeared to have fallen victim to some kind of bug in the Wikipedia software, except that the almost instantaneous threat against my editing privileges make that conclusion questionable and suggest the possibility of something more along the lines of intentional interference.

6 - I did not come to Wikipedia to be falsely accused of vandalism and threatened, conduct which frankly I find a bit creepy and intimidating. I started editing here in order to make the product better and more useful, especially to students who might refer to it. I wanted to share my talents as a writer, my expertise in the field of education and human rights, and my knowledge in such areas as history and law.

I do not understand the power structure here, but I will not subject myself to bullying, nor am I interested in contributing in that sort of environment. How safe are editors here from power-trippers?99.203.10.148 (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Point 3: see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Honorifics.

In general: the ratio of the effort you've put into argumentation to the effort you've put into making constructive edits suggests that you won't have a happy, or productive, time here. Maproom (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

This edit does not change what you said it changed... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's unfortunate that your first editing experiences were unpleasant, but in defense of the response you received - the two edits from the 99 IP address were unconstructive on their face. The first was the injection of unsourced vituperative personal commentary under the edit summary of "providing balance"; and the second appeared to be the substitution of garbled text accompanied by a misleading edit summary. Every day Wikipedia confronts anonymous editors whose only purpose seems to cause mischief - and, while the explanations you offer are benign enough, those two edits are typical of the hit-and-run anonymous vandal. I don't fault the testy response. As to your other edit, from the 2600 IP address, an editor reverted your changes, politely explained the reversion, and invited further discussion. I see nothing there to give offense. I suggest you take a look at Help:Contents, under editing articles, and read some of the articles linked there. I think once you've absorbed them, you may find your experience here to be a bit smoother. I also suggest that you create an account so that your edits aren't mixed up with those of others who might find themselves with the same IP address. Good luck. JohnInDC (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the referral to the Manual of Style, for it confirms that my edit was appropriate all along. The title is occupational, rather than honorific, and therefore addressed in the "Titles of people" and "Occupation titles" sections of the manual. The example given in both sections is, "President Obama." I would provide links, but as you suggest I have already wasted enough effort. Hopefully we might all learn something from this exercise, however.

As for the posts, all were made from the same IP address. I can only assume that my edit was garbled by the same source that altered my IP address. (Yes, IP addresses are dynamic, but I am not a believer in such extreme coincidence.) My post, when I previewed it, changed exactly what I said it changed (i.e., added the title of President). The threat against me was instantaneous. The lack of security, neutrality, and civility here affirm my hesitancy to register an account.

As for the commentary attacking my post, I suppose that if I were to defend it I would be told this is not the forum for that. Suffice it to say that the original article reflects bias, which has prompted other editors in Talk to call for its removal from Wikipedia.

It may be prophetic to say that my time here will be neither productive nor happy. I am still formulating an opinion about Wikipedia and am hoping not to reach the conclusion of some of my colleagues that this is a more suitable place for quasi-sophisticated gamesters than true academicians interested in contributing to an honest and useful work.2600:1:B102:40E7:24B1:9EE2:4C3A:EB11 (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Your edits from that 99 IP appeared, to experienced editors who are simply trying their best, to be deliberately disruptive, and they acted accordingly. IPs change all the time. Novice editors make mistakes - veteran editors too. Those are simple, unremarkable, every day things. If you’re suggesting that a hostile Wikipedia editor or other sinister force caused you to appear to change IPs, then garbled your edit, then used that garbled edit to justify a warning at your Talk page because, why? - then I don’t think further patient explanation is going to help either of us. JohnInDC (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I stand by this edit which Ritchie333 reverted, offering no constructive thoughts (not surprising). Editors can decide if this and the subsequent protestations here are being done by a "quasi-sophisticated gamester" or a "true academician". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Requesting for JumondR Rondaii article

Hello my name is James Barajas here at Anderson Group PR. I am requesting an article done for the rapper JumondR Rondaii real name Freddie Jumond Randall he is an American rapper debut single Bullet Ready will be hitting major radios May 15 http://jumondrrondaii.wikia.com/wiki/JumondЯ_Rondaii — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.137.231.144 (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Protecting an Article

Answered

Team 10 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_10) has been vandalized many times over the last six months and much of it has gone unnoticed. I tried to fix it by reverting (I also didn't properly revert, I just copied and pasted) back to the last unvandalized version I could find but I'm not sure I did it correctly and I think the page may need to be protected. I would appreciate if someone could take a look at it. Thank you. KSBadger (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Make your request at RPP and they'll sort it out. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Inaccurate content

Answered

Hi, who is responsible for the content provided in an article and what can be done if such content is inaccurate leading to defamation? Many thanks, GOWW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gameoverwewin (talk • contribs) 09:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Anyone can edit an article. If information is inaccurate and is unsourced, remove it yourself; if it is sourced with reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia then add refutation but the refutation must also be footnoted to a reliable source. If you get reverted, don't revert back but discuss it on the article talk page. Don't mention defamation, since legal threats (even if valid) will get you quickly blocked, see this policy. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Help restoring delted paragraphs in article Antisemitism in Ukraine

Editor 'My very best wishes' has recently removed entire paragraphs from the article Antisemitism in Ukraine citing "duplication"; these paragraphs were part of the last Consensus version from Feb 2018 (diff) and etidor's quoted reasoning for "duplication" seems made-up - after reading through removed paragraphs it seems they were removed in order to eliminate any mentioning of Denikin's Russian White Army (aka "Volunteer Army") involvement in pogroms on the territory of Ukraine (such elimination goes against WP:Neutrality). I would have restored those paragraphs myself, but editor has recently accused me of "POV pushing on Ukraine/Israel-related article") either directly (diff) or with the help of his buddies such as Icewhiz (diff diff) so I'm very reluctant to do edits in any Ukraine-related topics where editor is involved, especially if the topic is Ukraine-Israel-related. ps. Please note that edits by Staszek Lem seem to be done in good faith and do actually improve the article and I ask that his edits be preserved (e.g., when editor Staszek Lem removed a source citing "dubious source", it was indeed a dubious source, thus the edit was fully justified.--Piznajko (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

"in order to eliminate any mentioning of Denikin's Russian White Army (aka "Volunteer Army") involvement in pogroms"? Denikin's pogroms are mentioned three times in the article. Maproom (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Super

On the List of highest grossing superhero films I need help to peak the top 50 and expend the second section P+TFanoflionking 22:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanoflionking (talk • contribs)

Sugar industry funding and health information

May I ask for criticism of the draft at User:HLHJ/sandbox/Sugar industry funding and health information? HLHJ (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Discord

I looked into something called Discord, which I guess is a kind of chat protocol. (I was told there was a group on this service who might help me with my studies.) The WP page for it has been rode roughshod over by the PR department of the company, by all appearances. It's a very Hailcorporate, putting-out-fires vibe. Looking at this page, I learned much about how they're trying to be very good now but I didn't learn much about what this service actually is, so I still don't know if I want to use it.

Being good computer people, the pro-Discord editors seem to know how to edit a page without breaking the letter of the law. To repeat: this article is not good, not encyclopedic, (but not vandalized per se) and if you read it you won't feel like you understand what Discord is. It functions better as a press release from Discord itself.

I know this is my first post. I don't have a dog in this fight: I only finally registered because the ref desk was just protected. Unnecessary IMO and will discourage interesting inquirers, tho I know that's neither here nor there.

Temerarius (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if I will be able to contribute much to the Discord article, especially not regarding the matters you described, but I will place it in my to-do list and contribute some edits there sometime soon. Feel free to boldly edit the article yourself, too, and discuss it on its talk page. Now that you have created an account, you can now access the benefits of an account through it, including a variety of features which assist with reading and editing articles. If nothing else, using this account can make reading Wikipedia a better experience once you tweak its appearance in your Preferences and perhaps even enable some gadgets (such as Navigation popups). Welcome to Wikipedia, Temerarius! ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Which CS1 template should I use for this source?

I have been preparing an edit to clean up DeVry University § Investigations, lawsuits, and settlements, especially the citations, but encountered a rather unclear citation issue. Specifically, which CS1 template should I use for this PDF source found in the aforementioned section? It is currently cited with {{cite web}}, and I can continue to use that, but I would prefer to use a more semantically specific template per the documentation. I am not aware of any specific-source template that would be appropriate for this specific source, especially none CS1 format, and my best guess would be {{cite report}} even though that does not clearly fit either. Any suggestions? ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Nøkkenbuer. I suggest Template:Cite Hansard, as it is a legislative transcript. Thank you for cleaning up that article. The lede does not really sum up its contents anymore... some of the text has ambiguities which can only be resolved by referring to the citations (e.g. "In 2008, DeVry was accused of filing false claims and statements about recruitment pay and performance to the government" [emphasis added], when it could be the American, Brazilian, or Canadian government, or a regional government within one of these countries), so it's great to see someone looking after the citations. HLHJ (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps Jung was right after all because I literally just noticed the alert for this reply as I was searching WikiBlame for a specific (unrelated) string on the article and was here when I saw it. I noticed that, at least around July 2008, that very same source was using {{cite hansard}}. I saw that in the left diff box, was promptly confused because I never encountered that template before, and noticed the alert to this reply explaining just that as I was typing in "Template:Cite hansard". I wonder what other lost information could be found in these article histories? Anyway, thanks for the recommendation and advice, and I hope you use your magic for good. Have a great day / night, HLHJ! ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Help Request

I'm hoping for some help with an issue that's coming up editing a wiki page involving what I think is a content dispute. I am not very familiar with all the ins and outs of wikipedia and therefore I want to make sure I'm doing everything correctly. Essentially I have been making edits to the page Equipment of the Ukrainian Air Force, sourcing and citing my edits properly to update the article as best I can. Another user is the coming along and reverting all my edits without seemingly making any effort to verify the integrity of their edit (citation links are broken, information is inaccurate, etc). I have reached out to this editor on their Talk page (my comments were deleted) and posted extensively on the Article's Talk page requesting engagement (as 79.65.139.221, I don't have a permanent account and my IP floats) and offering to delete edits if they weren't verifiable, yet have received only one minimal reply. I have challenged the veracity of this editor's source, and pointed out inaccuracies, linking to other articles and sources, yet reverts continue to be made without discussion. Am I doing the right thing and what should I be doing to help settle and reach a consensus?

88.145.29.52 (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)88.145.29.52

Hi, 88.145.29.52. Thank you for putting effort into civil discussion; that is definitely the right thing to do. Asking for advice about where you might be going wrong or missing information ditto. I can't really comment on anyone's behaviour but yours here, but I'll do my best to give useful advice.

I'd strongly suggest that you register a user account, it makes it much easier to talk to you and not any random person sharing your IP. For instance, at the start of this reply, I mentioned your name, which hopefully will have notified you that there was a message here for you (unless your IP has changed again). If you reply to me, and use the string "[[User:HLHJ|HLHJ]]", it will notify (or "ping") me (see Wikipedia:Notifications). You can copy-paste this string from my signature. See the section above for examples.

It seems that your edits to the other editor's talk page were reverted not because they wanted to ignore them, but because they wanted to keep discussion of the article on the article talk page (according to the edit summary, located here; I see that you have recently started using edit summaries consistently, and imagine you didn't know where to look for one in the page history). Generally, detailed discussion of article contents is placed on the article talk page; if you ping the editor, they will see it just as quickly as if it were on their user talk page. I am guessing from the fact that you haven't used pings on the talk page that you don't know about notifications, which would make putting topic discussion on the user talk page make much more sense, as they would be unlikely to see it otherwise. You are right that you haven't gotten much response on the talk page; naming (and thus automatically notifying) the editor you want a response from may help with that :).

These are minor technical issues. Wikipedia's interface has gotten a bit complex over the years. No-one actually expects a new editor to know all of it by magic, but sometimes people forget not to assume knowledge. If, in ignorance, you do something that other editors might misinterpret, something like "Sorry, I misunderstood this, I think I get it now, it's like this, right?" can get you help instead of unjustified acerbic misunderstandings. I'm sorry that new editors so often wind up receiving hostility rather than explanations, and I hope you've mostly heard the latter.

You question about doing the right things, stuff that helps reach consensus, is an excellent one. Wikipedia has a LOT of advice on that; WP:Civility is a good place to start. It's really easy to get into misunderstandings on a text-only communications channel, where all the non-verbal information just goes missing. But you wanted specific advice.

Partly because misunderstandings are easy, the Wikipedia policy of assuming good faith is very important. There are, for instance, lots of reasons for someone to revert their own edits, like realizing that their first edit actually made the article worse. If there is any doubt about motives, you can ask someone, neutrally, why they did something. They might answer "Because I was stupid. Sorry, I've fixed". If a dispute does escalate, it is especially important to have assumed good faith throughout. If you don't always assume good faith, even when it's difficult, you put yourself in the wrong in a dispute.

I've found it a useful guideline to focus on discussing edits, not editors; for instance, instead of writing "you are saying", "your edit claims", "my edits", and "defend [my edits]", you could refer to the statements directly, and which facts are disputed (this also helps third parties understand the facts under debate). Instead of stating that an editor is engaging in original research, you might say that you can't find the reference for a specific statement, and ask if they can help. I know I've sometimes just omitted citations I was sure I'd put in, and been glad to have the mistake pointed out to me.

I suspect that this answer may not be quite what you wanted; for instance, I haven't touched on the content itself, about which I know nothing. I hope it's helpful, tho, and that you will answer here and ping me if I messed up. HLHJ (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Wrong photograph

The picture of a cottage in the article on Mappleborough Green is not one in Mappleborough Green, but rather a cottage in Gloucestershire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.213.207 (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the image and caption. It seems likely the editor who originally created the article copied from the Churchdown article to sort of use it as a template for their article, including the photo. In the future, requests for corrections such as this are best placed on the talk page of the article in question. In this case, you can edit the Talk:Mappleborough Green page for faster response. I hope this helps. @Courtesy ping to original page author:. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions for editing a page about myself: photo & book reviews

Hi! I added two pieces of information in the talk page of a page about myself a month ago. Is it OK with Wikipedia policy to place a request for editorial assistance to work those into the article? Or is it better to simply leave the info there & see if someone visits that page and wants to use these pieces of information at some point?

With many thanks, & with apologies if it's not the done thing, Best wishes --AlexisMichaud (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@AlexisMichaud:, you can get greater visibility for your suggested change by using an edit request. This is done by using a template which will automagically place the request on various lists. Edit the talk page and place the text "{{request edit}}" (including the braces but not the quote characters) between the subheading and the body text of your request. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: Yes this is exactly the info I was looking for! Done. Many thanks! --AlexisMichaud (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@AlexisMichaud:, I'm glad I was able to help. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Help with direction

Several years ago I created a Wikipedia entry for an activist named Firdaus Kharas. It stood until last month when it started getting warning boxes. The first box indicated the entry was too promotional so I rewrote the entry to be more neutral, in line with most other Wiki entries. Then came a second warning box indicating that there were too many inline links and extraneous footnotes. So I took almost all of them out, despite the fact that the footnotes included major-media articles about Kharas and his work in the New Yorker and the Atlantic, among others, as well as United Nations’ press briefings.

Now there is a third warning box has appeared saying the entry needs more citations and reliable sources, sources which I had previously deleted according the the second warning. I am now direction-less as to what is needed for the entry to adhere to Wikipedia’s style.

Could I please get some advice as to what the entry needs for it to be acceptable.

Thank you for your attention.

Vinlev

@Vinlev:, you and Jmertel23 need to start discussing these issues on the Talk:Firdaus Kharas page, which is where all article content dispute resolution is generally supposed to begin. I see that there has been no discussion there at all yet. Any response we could give you here as to why those changes are being made would be a guess and that would not be anywhere near as be helpful as working working directly with them to create a better article. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Vinlev, what is needed (to establish that the subject is notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article) is references to several reliable independent sources with significant discussion of him. The current Firdaus Kharas cites three sources; but the first is based on an interview with his business partner (and so not independent), and the other two don't even mention him. The ones you've removed were no better. Maproom (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of American Biography

The article Encyclopedia of American Biography is about a 1974 book of that title. In doing new page patrol, I reviewed an article (John Onesimus Foster) that cited a 1938 book of the same title. Are these books related, or are either of them particularly notable? Google search gives at least one other book of a similar title ("Herringshaw's Encyclopedia of American Biography of the Nineteenth Century", 1902) but nothing particularly useful. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I suppose my specific question is whether any of the editors here are familiar with any of these books, or if any are as canonical as the Dictionary of National Biography is for British persons. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not personally familiar with any of them, but The asin number on the Encyclopedia of American Biography external links goes to the amazon page of the 1996 second edition; looks like 1974 was the first ed, implying its not linked to either of the 1938 or 1902 books you mentioned. The amazon page gives excerpts of two reviews from The Library Journal and The Book Review, which look pretty solid. The earlier books seem to be edited and published by different people as well. Curdle (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The term "far right" in locked pages

The EDL and Tommy Robinson were described as "far right" and cited far left sources. The pages are locked. "Far right" is definitely a subjective opinion, not a neutral fact. If this isn't stopped, Wikipedia will soon become a one-sided hack job.

Suggestion - count the number of times "far left" is used as comparison to the number of times "far right" is used. They should be close to equal if unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlat73 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Why should that be true? JohnInDC (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The so-called "far left sources" you deprecate include Rupert Murdoch's The Times. 'Nuf said. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Northumbria University Logo Update

Help needed to change the main image on the Northumbria University Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northumbria_University. The logo used on that page is the old Northumbria logo and requires updating to the newer 2018 logo, which can be found here on their website: https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/ NChristou1 (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia:Help desk#Need help changing Northumbria University Logo. Please only post in one place. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

[1] ttp://johor.chinapress.com.my/20170827/%E5%B8%82%E6%94%BF%E5%B1%80% E8% A8% 825% E5% B9% B4% E7% 99% BC% E5% B1% 95% E7% 9B% AE% E6% A8% 99-% E6% 8F% 90% E5% 8D% 87% E6 % 96% B0% E5% B1% B1% E7% 82% BA% E5% 9C% 8B% E9% 9A% 9B% E5% A4% A7% E9% 83% BD% E6% 9C% 83 /

[2] ttp://www.mbpp.gov.my/ms/mbpp/profil/latar-belakang

[3] ttps://tg4.ie/en/

[1]

[2]

[1]