Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

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


Other links

Need help on Semitic neopaganism[edit]


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

Please see the statement I made at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:RK. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
(I can find no such statement there.) This is about a content dispute, there's no need to involve ANI, let alone Arbcom. There is no vandalism involved. The issue is whether the Kohenet are neopagan. The onus is on RK to find and cite a reliable independent source that states that they are neopagan. Maproom (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Apavypav8: See WP:OWN for why we don't do lock the page just because one editor says "I fixed it!" Ian.thomson (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Also, @Apavypav8: I'm not seeing why you're labeling it as misinformation. The sources that work verify that that particular Andress is/was the commissioner of the Canadian Women's Hockey League. Is there a different Brenda Andress that you would like to write about? We have different articles about distinct individuals who happen to share the same name. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Apavypav8: I see that you have created a rival (and unduly promotional) version of the article at Draft:Brenda Andress. If it's your intention to replace the current Brenda Andress by your draft, I strongly recommend discussing your plans at Talk:Brenda Andress first. If you don't, you are likely to encounter a lot of resistance. Maproom (talk) 08:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

TV ratings for India?[edit]

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

Verification of an edit[edit]

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

@Adithyak1997: Your edit was [1]. et al means "and others". The linked references have multiple authors when you click them, e.g. [2]. I have changed it to use a recommended method at Template:Cite journal#Display options with display-authors = etal.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Edit Related to dmy dates[edit]

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

Abusive persistent vandal[edit]

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

Having a look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Kingsif. As far as I can tell Son of Caracas has not done anything on their talk page that is inappropriate. Broadly speaking users have a great deal of latitude on their own talk pages. This means that they can in fact remove material or comments that they find disagreeable. In the case of warnings or messages alerting them to potentially problematic editing, deleting such messages is understood as effectively saying they have read them and understand. If you have a disagreement over content on a given article, it is often better to resolve those differences on the article's talk page. This allows other interested editors to join the discussion. For further information about talk page guidelines and etiquette please have a look at WP:TALK. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Ad Orientem. I understand your analysis, but they have not read and accepted the messages, instead continuing with their disruptive edits. I have tried to be civil, and have explained the situation, and they continue to edit war over a quote as well as more broadly edit things they don’t like and try to subdue the documentation of sentiment they don’t like, as well as being rude. They are not productive on the one page they edit. Does this further context get their edits another look, or do we leave it (likely only until their behaviour continues or worsens)? Kingsif (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Again, this looks like a content dispute. Those should be addressed on the article's talk page. I would also gently point out that edit warring is one of those things where it usually takes two. I also note that another very experienced editor has removed the quote per WP:BRD. In the event of blatantly disruptive editing, after issuing appropriate warnings you can take the matter to one of our noticeboards such as WP:3RRN or WP:ANI. But I discourage that except in the most extreme situations. It is almost always better to talk things out on the article talk page and ask for other opinions to help form WP:CONSENSUS. Also there is the risk of being hit by a WP:BOOMERANG on the drama boards. In my experience good things rarely happen there. You may also want to take a look at WP:DR for more hints on how to handle a dispute with another editor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Confederate Monument Listing[edit]

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

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

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

4Ocean creation[edit]

4Ocean is an environmentally focused company founded by Andrew Cooper and Alex Schulze. [1]

4Ocean aims to remove one pound (.45kg) of plastic and other debris from the ocean or coastline for every bracelet they sell. [2]

4Ocean has pulled over 1 million pounds of discarded debris from the oceans and coastlines [3]

4Ocean bracelets are made from recycled materials [4]

4Ocean has operations in Boca Raton, FL, USA and Bali, Indonesia [5]

4Ocean has been featured on the Today Show [6] (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Please approve image on wikicommon[edit]

Please approve my image on wikicommon.

See link:

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

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

Attempting to Improve Neutrality of Article, Accused of Edit Warring[edit]

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

So three people disagree with you, and no one agrees with you. That's a good sign you should stop making any reverts, but I see no reason why you shouldn't just keep up the conversation on the talk page for a while. If that doesn't lead to anyone changing their minds, then at that point maybe advance it to another step of dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I will go that route. Although there has been previous discussions and a lack of consensus reached, I am now engaging in good faith efforts to restart the conversation, and if it leads to no mind changes, I'll go with your advice, another step of dispute resolution. Testefye (talk) 05:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

A book added with no adding mark?[edit]

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

@J. Wiwat: Which mark were you expecting? Editing an article does not cause a mark somewhere. There is no waiting time when editing Simone de Beauvoir. Your edit was live right away. I have modifed it a little to add italics to the title like the other books.[4] PrimeHunter (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Why was the Frag Dolls article deleted?[edit]

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

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

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

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

@Mkikoen: It hasn't been deleted, it's been converted into a redirect to Ubisoft. The last version of the article before this can be found here. You could be bold and undo the collapse into a redirect, then discuss the issue on Talk:Ubisoft if that is deemed insufficient. If you're concerned about gender imbalance on Wikipedia, please check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Are you saying this is more of a content dispute that I should discuss directly on the Ubisoft talk page? Or is it considered something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkikoen (talkcontribs)
Yes, since the article hasn't actually been deleted (which would have deleted all revisions and made it impossible for me to give you the old link per above) it's a straight content dispute that doesn't directly need any admin assistance. In terms of the groups notability, I see a bunch of news sources going back nearly ten years, so I would say that a standalone article is certainly possible. I've undone the redirect so Frag Dolls is now a standalone article again, and I'm just going to add some sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Thanks for undoing the redirect Ritchie333! I wish I could help out and add some new reliable information / sources about them. However I don't know what websites provide accurate and true information without finding any satire websites, plus I don't know much about the group at all as I'm just trying to read about them since I don't edit pages where I have little info to go on ... or if I don't have a lot of researcher motivation for a certain topic compared to another. Good Luck. --Mkikoen (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@Mkikoen: I'm afraid I'm pretty much a complete ignoramus when it comes to video games, but I've given you some pointers on your talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@Mkikoen and Ritchie333: Our WikiProject on video games carries its own list of identifiably reliable websites for video game coverage, which you can find here. There is also a custom Google search query prepared here. For any other questions, you can also turn directly to the talk page of WikiProject Video games or ask myself. Lordtobi () 15:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@Lordtobi and Ritchie333: This message made me chuckle a bit, I didn't even mention video games in my conversation with Ritchie333 except for him (even though I am also a huge video gamer) and you gave us a link to a WikiProject list of reliable website for video game coverage. Thanks Lordtobi! If there's any articles I need to edit about video games with accurate info I'll be sure to look up that list of reliable websites, and if I need any assistance on video games or anything specific that you know about, I'll contact you Lordtobi. At this point someone really should mark this request as "Answered" because I don't want this conversation to drag on too far off topic despite your helpful source that you provided since it would be better discussing this topic on a talk page. Thanks again everyone.

Help with ensuring my edits are accepted for a medical treatment[edit]

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

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

Help with a citation[edit]

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

I am in the process of editing the above article which I created (which is currently a single-sentence stub with a large infobox) and so far the 2 sources in it are just some tourist websites. I have found a third source that seems to a little more academic, but I have no clue how to cite it and it seems kind of confusing exactly what to put inside the ref. It is an academic conference proceedings book with many articles in it and the second article is what I want. Here's the source: [5]

Self-published sources at Quincy Jones[edit]

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

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