Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, 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

List of Governors of Arkansas: referencing[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

The Term Start & Term End table columns are both unsourced in this featured list. On February the 28th I wrote about it on the talk page & the main author said that he "synthesized sources" & that he would "re-examine it". On March the 27th I asked him if he minded me writing here about it & he hasn't replied yet. Could anyone take care of the issue with the list? --Синкретик (talk) 06:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Could anyone also help reference the lieutenant governors' term start & end dates (I only managed to find this source which lists only years)? --Синкретик (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
aren't their main articles sourced? that would be like the obvious place to look wouldnt it. at any rate seems its time for a review, this list doesnt live up to our 2015 FL standards IMO. (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Closed. I'm nominating it for review. --Синкретик (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Crop assistance[edit]

Hello everyone. Would it be possible for someone to create 4 different crop images of Duong Van Minh out of this image - File:Duong Van Minh Photos.jpg? It is pretty useless to have an image like this (with 4 pics basically piled up in one place), it would be better to have it divided into 4 crops. I myself wouldn't do that, because uploading images on the Commons isn't really my cup of tea (most of them were deleted in the past), so I think someone with better knowledge about images than me should look into this. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

If you receive no help here, you may want to consider submitting your request to Wikipedia:Graphics Lab. Iaritmioawp (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Iaritmioawp, thanks for your advice! I've submitted it here - Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop#Duong Van Minh. --Sundostund (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Help creating an initial company page:[edit]

Hello, I could use some guidance here. Trying to create an initial company page at: . I have spent several hours reading about company templates for Wikipedia. The biggest issue so far is getting the box to show up, minus the code.


Thank you, MichaelNH1977 (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)MichaelMichaelNH1977 (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

MichaelNH1977, first does the company meet notability requirements? Are there independent secondary sources that have in-depth coverage of the company? --NeilN talk to me 15:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
<pre> tag (how did it get there, did you copy source code from you're browser or something?) interrputed proper display of your infobox, i fix'd it for you (didnt do you much good but hey) (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Help with a kind of unproductive capture of my Talk page by editor - claims after claims and blackmail with blocking in own case more than 3RR - got passive & bold - but am unsure[edit]

EAR is for requesting assistance, not to provide an additional forum for editors to hash out their disputes. The continued back-and-forth on this page is not helping to resolve things, and is preventing other editors from providing constructive input. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

Hello, I would like to request help against some editor with higher edit/revert rights, who kind of stalks me and ties to lecture me on my own talk page. I am WP:BRD, though, but got passive and got blackmailed with a block. The only indirect comment I made was on a talk page of an article (Talk:Impressive (presentation program)), that he may need time out, because I noticed a potential high false negative/vandalism score according to a quick review of his actions/contributions after a request for speedy deletion. But I did not personally attack him or got uncivilised as he accused me of beforehand. His speedy deletion claim of my new article was speedily rejected, again fitting in to my gut feeling about his posible high false negative. Look up his user-page, he seems to be kind a proud of being involved in "solving disputes" and "fighting vandalsim". In my view, as a very long standing wikipedia editor, he should have a time out from higher edit/admin/revert rights and object in creating/improving articles with edits/words. These rights should be earned, but he tries to lecture me even against WP:EQ & WP:DBF & WP:UHB & WP:3RR in fighting his own cases abusing his higher edit/admin/revert rights. Maybe it is a game to him. If I did handle things wrong, I would like to hear an advice from a kind/experienced and neutral editor and would change it accordingly. I have some books, though, that say I can edit my talk page & even my say (within limits), because I also kind of own it, if I do not change the basic meaning. He just makes claims/allegations, & maybe has a high false vandalism score I would not like to have on my talk-p and he forces things out in engaging in a revert-war against 3RR, see: User talk:Miraclexix Thanks for your time and help, --Miraclexix (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:OWNTALK, "users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages." User:Weegeerunner is apparently unfamiliar with this behavioral guideline. I would suggest that you politely make him aware of it. If s/he continues disrupting your talk page afterwards, your best bet will be to contact an administrator and let him/her deal with the problematic user. Iaritmioawp (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
As my books say! Hope User:Weegeerunners will act positive and cooperative concerning the improvement of the wikipedia, as far as I am involved. Can potential abusive editors be warned or watched in some way? I worry, some aspects of above reported issues -possibly harmful to the Wikipedia- may be ritualistic, game-like intended or maybe sightly connected to like the superiority complex? --Miraclexix (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Iaritmioawp, the advice you gave is bad. Miraclexix is changing others comments not just removing them and that is what Weegeerunner is warning them about and what I just warned them about. Miraclexix, you need to either restore the comments as written or remove them completely. -- GB fan 01:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
We have a rule against editing others' comments in such a manner that the meaning is changed, which is something Miraclexix didn't do. We have no rule against removing inconsequential portions of templated messages posted at one's own talk page, which is what Miraclexix did. Please assume good faith and use common sense. Iaritmioawp (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
From WP:TPO. "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." It does not say you can change others comment as long as you don't change the meaning, it says you should not edit others comments. WP:OWNTALK says "Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages." It does not say users may edit others comments. I will say it again, do not ever edit someone's comment, except in very limited circumstances. -- GB fan 01:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
That's where WP:COMMONSENSE comes into play. The guideline you're quoting is intended to prevent disruptive modification of others' comments that changes their meaning; that's where its application begins and that's where it ends. Miraclexix didn't modify anyone's comments in a disruptive fashion; s/he removed inconsequential portions of templated messages posted on his/her own talk page for purely cosmetic purposes. Threatening him/her with a block over such a trifle, as you did on his/her talk page,[1] is highly inappropriate, and I strongly suggest that you consider withdrawing that threat. Iaritmioawp (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The link to WP:TPO is about articles talk pages not own private users talk pages! You may read WP:NOBAN, hope that helps! --Miraclexix (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. User talk space operates on a very different set of principles than article talk space. Still, perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to post a {{Notice}} on top of your talk page informing visitors that their messages may be shortened as that is the convention you've decided to adopt in order to keep your talk page uncluttered. Should anyone object to this practice, s/he will be able to make an informed decision and post his/her message to you on his/her own talk page, and inform you about it using the {{Talkback}} template. Iaritmioawp (talk) 04:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:TPO is part of the page WP:Talk page guidelines. In the lead it says: "When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply." User talk pages do have some changes but they are not much different. WP:OWNTALK is one of those differences in that you may remove most comments from other users. I find nothing that says someone can change/shorten another editor's comments. -- GB fan 10:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
That which is patently obvious doesn't need to be spelled out. Shortening templated messages posted on one's own talk page for purely cosmetic purposes isn't disruptive and thus doesn't need to be prevented. I suggest that you stop focusing on the letter of our talk page guidelines and start focusing on their underlying principles, see WP:BURO. Iaritmioawp (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
And it is patently obvious that people should not be modifying others comments. The comments that were modified were left with the signature of the person who wrote the original comment. The only problem that is not what they added. Also when someone objects to the modifying of the message they left for someone the person should never remodify it. Miraclexix modified Weegeerunner's comment and Weegeerunner objected. The comment should never have been modified again. If Miraclexix didn't like the look of the comment they can remove it. I am done with this, Miraclexix has now completely removed the comment and that is the appropriate response to this. -- GB fan 19:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, as a general rule, it's best not to modify anyone else's comments. However, common sense exceptions apply. Miraclexix's modifications were not disruptive by any stretch of imagination and thus objecting to them in the manner User:Weegeerunner did was pointless and, indeed, disruptive. The bottom line here is that if User:Weegeerunner didn't like the fact that his/her comment, which was nothing but a templated message, was shortened, s/he should've deleted the comment in its entirety instead of reinstating it in its entirety. Repeatedly reinstating one's comments against the talk page owner's will, a.k.a. edit warring, and posting templated warnings directed at the talk page owner each time s/he removes the unwanted content from his/her talk page, as User:Weegeerunner did,[2][3][4][5] doesn't prevent disruption, it causes disruption, and I find your failure to acknowledge that fact puzzling, to put it mildly. Another thing is that User:Weegeerunner's edits were not limited to reinstating his/her own comment in response to the comment's modification by a third party; s/he also reinstated other comments, including several comments posted by bots, which were removed entirely, not just shortened, by the talk page owner.[6][7][8] There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that User:Weegeerunner is the one that should be reprimanded here, not User:Miraclexix. In light of what I just said, I find your threat to block the latter, which you made on his/her talk page,[9] to be highly inappropriate, and I will once more urge you to consider withdrawing it. Iaritmioawp (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
While I do believe, yes, I could have handled the situation better, and I did violate 3RR (which I shouldn't have done) I still believe that if a user objects to having their comments edited. That should be respected. I could have expressed that I didn't want my comments edited better, and if I find myself in a similar situation, I will respond more appropriately. We both made mistakes. Miraclxex should have been more civil, and I should handle my comments getting changed differently. I at least owned up to my mistakes. But if you want to place a Punitive block on my account only, so be it. I'm not an admin, what right do I have to contest? Me whining and complaining about it just shows how immature I am. Like Miraclexex has said, you can look at my past edits and see I do a lot of reverting and SPDing. If he is right, someone like that doesn't deserve the right to be a wikipedian. I have made too many mistakes to be trusted So if an admin want's to block or ban me, that's their prerogative. Weegeerunner (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
In the case of User:Weegeerunners comments it is complicated. It appears that crucial parts of his comments are not aiming in improving the Wikipedia or the cooperation amongst editors. To the contrary, he seems to escalate minute disputes up to an revert-war , even on an others own talk page - for what? His hints to the Sanbox and the like did not even touch the topic, neither am I a brand new editor. Moreover, in his launch of a kind of a revert war he even violates the same principles he is warning the other part not to do, right up to blackmailing user-account blockage. This is a repetitive behavior, as can be easily recognized, and it leaves an obvious possible analysis: to fuel the non-constructive dispute/argument. And as I understand the matter one is entitled to change his/her own comments in a reasonable short period of time, one is also entitled to change others comments on one owns talk page to outline/summarize disputes, given the guideline not to change the basic topic of the respective argument. This can be done for the sake of readability and to help further review by others or after a longer period of time, even in stored/backuped talk-pages. And if I am not wrong in my grasp, one is entitled to act in the latter way even on general articles talk pages. To give you an example: If a comment would contain an allegation one was rude/savage, so this would be a candidate for deletion, because it might not be true and inherently prone to subjective perception, in the first place. Second, this comment snippet would not help with the improvement of an article or in the elaboration of a consensus, but more likely would distract from argumentative calm discussion into heated debate about abstaining users (professed? or not?) feelings. So it would also qualify as a candidate for deletion/change. And third, it would clutter up the back and forth of the talk! And as I read WP:TPO:"In the past, it was standard practice to "summarize" talk page comments, but this practice has fallen out of use." Not in my case on my own talk page. Did you, [[en:User:GB fan|GB], perhaps understand this out of use-practice to be banned and punished by user-account blockage? Look up the history User:Weegeerunner lost his claim of speedy deletion of my page and possibly, I say it precautious, maybe he got an irritation and and possibly then we all got into this futile discussion about my own talk page cleanup! I mean I did not insult anyone or got uncivilized by misrepresentation! Cheers --Miraclexix (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
There are times when someone can change another's comments but just to shorten them for your convenience is not one of them, anywhere even on your talk page. -- GB fan 10:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The templated messages in question were posted on Miraclexix's own talk page purely for Miraclexix's convenience to begin with; prohibiting him/her from shortening them by removing completely inconsequential portions of them for purely cosmetic purposes defies logic. Iaritmioawp (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I am a Recent Changes partoller. I find vandalism, original research, and uncited info and remove it. Sometimes I tag an article for Speedy Deletion. Sometimes I shouldn't have done it. Nobody is perfect, all humans make mistakes. Please Don't remind others of past misdeeds, and Don't Come Down Like a Ton of Bricks. You keep making hasty assumptions about me. I did not object to the editing of my own comment because I was butthurt my SPD request was declined. If you had actually looked into my edits. You would know that SPD Requests by me get declined all the time. And most of the time, I apologize for it. You have painted me as a disruptive editor, a wikihounder, & a pram thrower. We can't just disregard WP:AGF. And blocks are not punishment. I have been warning you with templates. So if I am "blackmailing and harassing you with rude messages," than that's a problem with the templates, not me. You claim you have not been uncivil. But you keep antagonizing me and trying to make me look like the bad guy. There are no "Bad Guys and Good Guys." Wikipedia is not about winning. Weegeerunner (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Look! All your unlucky/imprecise "Recent Changes partoller"s work efforts do cause and effect many more futile work for other Wikipedia editors, and buddies, and helpers, and mediators, and servers ... not improving the Wikipedia a tiny bit! You may had the initial impression that I would be not such a hard and more versed editor than my log/account reveals. In the future you may think twice. Your comments above reveal your conscience. If you feel you might should have done better, than for sure you are right. You might think over your work and may would like to decide to do half of it (=half the hurt, no offense) or take a time out. Maybe you should get an impression of Wikipedia from the other side, the side of content creators and people who are improving by editing and citing and looking up sources. Maybe then you will get a much more holistic view of the organic processes of Wikipedia - outside of 1-2 klick warning-templates and reverts. Man - to frame it positively - I have seen a lot more sober & calm & precise patrollers than you. Basically you are right, there are no "Bad Guys and Good Guys" just bad action/decisions and behaviours. With your imprecision in 'finding' "vandalism, original research, and uncited info" you may hurt editors and the Wikipedia. You seem to tend to find "vandalsim" all to often, may in a lot of cases an integer responsible patroller would react very different than you! And after all this much ado about nothing, a real apology would have been proper! Maybe you will decide to bear more responsibility for your actions in the future, notwithstanding I am willing now to take your half-pardon (see above) and -man- let's us start doing the good work. Thank you & hope that helps. --Miraclexix (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I do help contribute the encyclopedia. I am not a disruptive editor. Vandalism is common on the wiki, and I do think of the other editor. Most of the time, the people I revert handle it well. You, on the other hand. Got angry, uncivil, and started antagonizing me. How about you learn some civility and not send personal attacks? Weegeerunner (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
It is not true; it is absurd and odd! Ad hominem (personal attack) - to supply a bit of education - would look different, e.g. expressions like these: "You are a Vandal!" or "You are a stalker!", just as examples. To the contrary, you tried (contra bonos mores & unsuccessfully) to harass me and to falsely charge me & I already forgave you! I just question, suggest, outline, recap and show you feasible alternatives to handle things, all up to your choosing, in sympathy. Needless to say you do not like this, neither you like this civilized spotlight you are in now. That good and righteous mediation of mine will not metamorphose and twist upon your affectionate delusions. Your comments are more or less self-serving declarations, as were your multi-violations (3RR ect.pp.) on my talk page. You did play a game of Judge Dredd - to speak lower threshold language, meaning, a policeman/prosecutor/judge all in one person, I believe. One can learn a lot from this article: superiority complex. What you did, neither was reasonable, nor necessary, nor wise, not remotely good practice; it remains futile and ineffectual. A citation from WP:TPO applies perfectly your practice as a self-proclaimed ″patroller″ and ″vandalism-fighter″: “If an editor treats situations that are not clearly vandalism as such, that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors.” Hope you/me/us learned from this, all the best! --Miraclexix (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2015 (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.

Request for clarification on wikipedia policy[edit]

I deleted unsourced material from the article and proceeded to add other material (all of which was showing links to verifiable sources I might add), of which all has now been reverted - WP:BRD, but which never-the-less, returned the unsourced material to the article.


As far as i can tell, the policy for unsourced material is clear, although i'm being contradicted:

WP:V - Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[1] - This principle was previously expressed on this policy page as "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." See the essay, WP:Verifiability, not truth.]

WP:VNT : The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" meant that verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material.

verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.

This is regards to the article Socrates (please see Talk:Socrates -

Are there policies that supercede the (copies of) policies i've provided here, that i'm unaware of, in regards to unsourced material?

Thanks, Whalestate (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

additional request

Actually i didn't read WP:BRD, apart from the title, prior to writing the previous entry, and have just noticed WP:ONLYREVERT. So now i feel the reversion hasn't been performed correctly per Don't revert a large edit because much of it is bad and you don't have time to rewrite the whole thing. Instead, find even a little bit of the edit that is not objectionable and undo the rest. . I had added 32,182 bytes of information. (please see - ‎ Thanks (again) in advance Whalestate (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I just read - :

In the case of a good faith edit, a reversion is appropriate when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement. This is often true of small edits. Edits that introduce undue weight should be reverted until consensus is built.

I might have included some aspects of a minority in the article, but there was much I added which was simply to improve the main, so the reversion isn't correct strictly, and other editors should have proceeded to remove the minority aspects and explained the reasons on my talk page.

"...makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement" cannot possibly be the reason for reversion, simply because no editor could have gone through every edit i made to find if every edit clearly made the article worse, and especially since Paul August indicated the manner of which to proceed, which is to discuss material added by myself, since if the article was clearly so badly made worse, he would have in light of this fact not made the suggestion of reviewing my edits at all. Whalestate (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Normally, I would agree that the revert was ill-considered, but the fact of the matter is that it was done by consensus and as such it's unimpeachable. Also, it seems that you agreed to that revert[10] which makes me a bit confused as to the purpose of your request. I'd suggest that you proceed as discussed on the article's talk page; reading the entire discussion again may be useful. As for the unreferenced statements in the article which you previously removed, you may want to consider tagging them with {{Citation needed}}. While it's true that WP:BURDEN tells us that "material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source," we must not forget that it goes on to instruct us that "[i]n some cases, editors may object if [we] remove material without giving them time to provide references" in which case we are to "consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." Iaritmioawp (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I agreed to the revert in good faith those editors concerned fully understood the policies, so didn't object at that time, having viewed the statements in the wikipedia policy pages subsequently i wouldn't have been able to agree at that time. I relied on the opinion of Paul August being an authority via his involvement with the principal 3 article Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, to make my decision. Whalestate (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't you feel (agree) that subsequently tagging material with {{Citation needed}} is in breach of policy, since seeing, "verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material" - indicates a minimum requirement, the unverifiable material should not have even been added to the article at all in the first instance ? Whalestate (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

(just thought i'd add so that you know, it's 02:34 here now, so I have to now go to sleep and therefore won't be posting a response for about 8 hours at least). Thanks Iaritmioawp for your prompt response Whalestate (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It is correct that adding "unverifiable material" to Wikipedia articles isn't allowed. However, just because a statement isn't followed by an inline citation doesn't mean that it's not verifiable; it just means that the editor who added it to the article didn't include a citation—possibly on purpose, as it is a belief shared by a good number of Wikipedia editors, myself included, that statements that reflect common knowledge need not be sourced. If you'd like to learn more, I suggest you read the WP:FACTS essay. You may also want to go back to this comment posted by User:Akhilleus on the article's talk page as it contains some very good advice related to the subject. Iaritmioawp (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Returning to the prior consideration ( at 01:18 hours ) if you will please Iaritmioawp.

You've written "Normally, I would agree that the revert was ill-considered,"

and the factor - "but"

is dependent on "the fact of the matter is that it was done by consensus and as such it's unimpeachable."

Do you know that consensus was reached since it is "marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies. since i've found criticisms of the decision based on reasons in policy, and am therefore suggesting the level of compromise was decided erroneously or if you like, I'll put it more strongly, that the level of compromise was no compromise at all and discounted wholly the factor Don't revert a large edit because much of it is bad and you don't have time to rewrite the whole thing. Instead, find even a little bit of the edit that is not objectionable and undo the rest., that this is infact the acceptable compromise. Paul August suggested reversion-discussion, which seems to be constructive, and may well prove to be if i would participate, but did the editors suggesting reversion do so on sound principles? Just because there was the body of a consensus i.e. a number of editors of involved in agreement, does that mean automatically they have followed policy correctly? Whalestate (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a separate issue : The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material (WP:BURDEN) which would make it Myrvin's responsibility now to demonstrate verifiability, as the editor who reverted, therefore restored the initial unsourced ,aterial, is this the case ? Whalestate (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

If you truly believe that there are statements in the Socrates article that are unverifiable, your best bet is to tag them with {{Citation needed}}, indicate that fact on the article's talk page, and clearly state your intention to remove the tagged statements if no citations are provided within a reasonable period of time, let's say two weeks. If you believe that some legitimate concerns remained unaddressed in the discussion that led to the revert, your best bet is to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Iaritmioawp (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Opinion on notability (draft bio article)[edit]

Could some helpful editor look at Draft:Matt Tittle and give an opinion on whether it meets WP:BIO yet? I've kind of reached a dead end on further sources and just feel unsure whether it's ready to put into article space. Thanks! — Brianhe (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Moved to Matt Tittle -- Moxy (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Sheree Beasley[edit]

Hi. Could someone give Murder of Sheree Beasley some tender love and care? It's a pretty famous child sex murder in Australia but i don't have the knowledge or resources to fix/expand it. Paul Austin (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

need a little advice and guidence[edit]

I am currently trying to set up and updater my page for which I am requesting help in editing my header I have tried looking up for ways on my own and shown up empty I truly do not want t delete this page and start a new. plz if at all possible I would really appreciate your help my header sand = JuanaArandaGomar I would like your help or advice in changing it to = Juana Aranda Gomar ,REV.

Are you asking about your "User name"? If so pls see Wikipedia:Changing username -- Moxy (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Premature archiving[edit]

The ongoing days old discussion on Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson was closed by an editor and archived. Please help. Thanks, Mhym (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

the guy's yearning for another entry in his already humongous block log it looks like... i undid the archiving and lets see what happens next (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
This particular, singular topic of conversation has been discussed ad nauseum in nine separate talk page archives totaling around 1 megabyte of information since 17 September 2014. There is nothing more to discuss. Multiple threads, polls, and RfC's determined that there is no consensus for inclusion. I am archiving the discussion once again. You are free to review the community consensus determined in all nine archives, all of which reached the same, exact conclusion. Viriditas (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
that's like your opinion and its cool to have opinions but yeah - are you familiar with wp:ccc? don't revert the unarchiving - if you think there's naught to discuss then don't participate in the discussion, simple enough? (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
No, "dude", it's a fact, as the discussions were all closed as either no consensus for inclusion or consensus for no inclusion. Repeatedly opening the same discussion over and over agin in the hopes of changing an established outcome is disruptive. Now how about logging in with your registered account so as to avoid evading responsibility for your edits? Viriditas (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Question about vandalism intervention[edit]

So, there seems to be a bit of a pileup or backlog developing on this page here: It is unclear to me which admin(s) are in charge of handling the individuals being reported as vandals in a timely manner. Does anyone know? I'm not seeing a list of active admins who take care of this. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Backlog notices can be posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. There's no official list of active vandal fighters with administrator rights that I know of, but you may find this link useful. Iaritmioawp (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but the issue is already being taken care of but I appreciate the assistance. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The Fountain of Life (after van Eyck)[edit]

The Fountain of Life (after van Eyck) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Template:Van Eyck (edit | [[Talk:Template:Van Eyck|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A mistake in the attribution of this work was discovered by the Prado in the late 1990s, making it the subject of a major exhibition of reassessed attributions by the Prado in 2003. It is therefore no longer thought to be the work of a follower of van Eyck, but by Jan van Eyck himself, albeit possibly a copy of a lost original (produced for an ecclesiastical dedication in Flanders) rushed off while on a diplomatic mission to Spain, whence the poor brushwork.

I am slightly involved having supplied further context to the reattribution after it was definitively altered. The review of the attribution was part of the general reassessment of the attributions of all works undertaken by all the world's museums, after a large number of forgeries were discovered in the early 1990s: in this instance the painting's style is clearly anachronistic for its original attribution of 1454, its pre-humanist stylisation being a technique last used at least 20 years earlier, and an assessment of the attribution showed it could not be substantiated as definitively 1454, but rather "before 1454": all we know is that it was in existence in 1454 at the very latest. Consequently, the curator responsible, Pilar Silva Maroto, had the wood dendrochronologically dated, and the result was that it was felled in 1418, meaning it would have been used sometime not long after 1428: the Prado currently shows it as Jan van Eyck c1432. A similar argument is to be found in the dating of three paintings including that of Chancellor de Lannoy, of about the same time (these three were all painted on boards from the same tree). I pointed out references to the dating in Professsor Josua Bruyn's 1957 Utrecht doctoral thesis on the work, which place it between 1430 and 1435.

The title of the meme is therefore wrong and should be corrected by substituting the work's subtitle "The Triumph of the Church over the Jews" for the current contents of the bracket. I would insist on that subtitle being maintained as although it is politically sensitive in modern terms, it is firstly the real subtitle and secondly because it explains the strife between the the new Pope Eugenius IV and the Conciliar Kings at the time, in that if the Pope claimed to control the Jews (and the Jews had financial control over the Kings), then the Pope was claiming superiority over them as well, which had not been the case for well over a hundred years during the Avignon papacy and Papal Schism. Eugenius fought the Kings to a stalemate, but by the end of the century the Popes were definitely over the Kings, see Henry VIII off England as a detailed exemplar.

The links to the meme are all references to the van Eyck template, which should also be changed correspondingly.

Professor Bruyn was Professor of the History of Art at Amsterdam and founder of the Rembrandt Foundation and probably deserves his own page, in passing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The page move you're requesting is rather controversial; please post your request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Iaritmioawp (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I need my biog back[edit]

I submitted a biog with sep sources. I am now told it was flushed by u? pls tell me how to retrieve it now as I hit sAVE PAGE BUT CANT BRING IT UP...THISA IS NOT FAIR THAT U FLUSHED MY STARTER SKETCH AS I WOULDVE ADDED TO IT and perfected it..i kno u r not FB; no kiddin!! pls change yur ill system that would destroy my trial entry. there was no need for u to do that to me..21:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geolincoln (talkcontribs)

See the response to your earlier post on the help desk: [11] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Partner parameter[edit]

This is an issue regarding putting someone's name as a "Partner" in page's infobox As I reviewed the guidelines, Olivia Poulet should not be categorized as "Partner" of Benedict Cumberbatch to comply with WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:GRAPEVINE, and WP:BLPGOSSIP as evidenced in the following:

1. Source doesn't specify the year when they started dating, thus there is no encyclopedic evidence that they started dating in 1999 as written in the personal life section of the page. Other sources outside those cited say they have been together for "a decade" while some indicate "12 years" with no mention of a year whatsoever. No hard fact to say they indeed started dating in 1999. Dates should be verified as this is a biography and in this case it lacks verifiability thus should be removed accordingly.

2. In a 2005 interview, Cumberbatch has stated "My break-up was completely out of the blue" he says. "I had been very nervous for us because of where we were in our relationship and because I was going away for such a long time." This gives further credence that they do not have a stable and linear relationship.

4. In one of the citations (, Poulet herself was quoted saying "'We've been good friends for a long time. But then we were not such good friends for a bit. And now we're good friends again." which indicate an unstable and on-off relationship.

3. In the citation provided, which was an interview done in 2010, it is indicated that Poulet and Cumberbatch indeed have an "on-off" relationship: "He and Olivia split up for a few years, but have been back together" (source under subscription, see here for transcript: This was before their permanent break up in 2011. (

Since there's a muddled timeline and conflicting sources at hand, isn't it better and more fair to just indicate that they met at university and eventually broke up in 2011 in the page's personal life section? There is no indisputable evidence of co-habitation and an established long-term partnership (no definite year of when they started dating, there were break-ups between 1999-2011 per source) so Poulet shouldn't be categorized as a life partner and should be removed in the infobox. This is a biography and any wrong or unverified information should be removed immediately.GwynethGwyneth (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You've crossposted this same question, verbatim, across multiple forums. Check the TEAHOUSE version for a response, which the good folks there ought to provide forthwith. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I am new and I need help. I am not an expert in this.[edit]

Don Lane (Santa Cruz) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am new to this. I have been including reference to his past that is clearly documented and that he freely discusses in other media, though with his own spin on it. I had discussed this in a talk with Mr. Lane's Rep here under my previous IP I post it to explain why Mr. Lane would feel that he was being hounded by the Press, while the Press may have a legitimate reason to.

The Revision has stood for five months with no problems (undo revision) until recently and with no discussion as to why.

Mr Lane refers to this episode and admits to doing it here:

I wish my original revision to stand for it is important for voters to know about it.

Thank You and Please Advise:The Man of Heart (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I formatted the above but don't have time to look at the moment, sorry. My immediate response is that the text seems undue and likely to violate WP:BLP. Articles do not record every hiccup in a person's life. A report at WP:BLPN is probably the best approach. Johnuniq (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't believe it is undue as the original poster refers to the same article that I referenced to. All the pertinent information is already in the linked article. The Man of Heart (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

How to handle lack of consensus in an RfC on talk:Israel[edit]

From September 17 to January 22 Israel's lead used to contain the phrase "The borders of the new state were not specified".

Since January 22 there were many edits and reverts to this and related statements, and a several long talk page discussion and then an RfC in an attempt to decide what the lead should say about Israel's initial border.

The RfC was recently closed by JzG with the comment "In an area this contentious, you need a lot more input to constitute a consensus" which I understand as "no consensus".

To my understanding WP:NOCONSENSUS applies and the relevant portion of the article should be restored to the state it existed in until January 22 and no further changes to this area should be made unless there is a new consensus.

GregKaye apparently believes that since they consider the version from January 22 wrong, it should not be restored and the changes that they made but did not gain a consensus for should be kept. In case I misunderstood or misrepresented the user, they are very welcome to explain their position better.

Please assist. WarKosign 14:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Images of "specification" as added to previous talk page discussions
Here another presentation.

I would be grateful if editors could please take a look at the attached maps. As far as I can tell, the concept that a text such as "The borders of the new state were not specified" can be added into an article without an appropriate citation is nuts.

I'll do what I can on this lovely Saturday night to go through WarKosign's content above bit by bit.

It is true that an edit made as recently as 17 September, with no edit summary so as to introduce the text, "The borders of the new state were not specified". This is a text that was given no mention in the recent RfC but was significantly discussed in two previous threads.

It is also true that in a Revision as of 13:08, 22 January 2015, I added a {{cn}} tag with edit summary: "citation needed for "The borders of the new state were not specified""

Rather than remove the content, in a Revision as of 13:49, 22 January 2015, WarKosign then added a citation that failed to give broad indication that "The borders of the new state were not specified" and, from this point, many edits to the content were made and I have endeavoured to give a fair presentation of them below.

At the time of the opening of the RfC the text read: "Borders for a new Jewish state were specified by the UN but ultimately not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries" which also was not amongst the options that you presented.

This UN related text had been in the article since 19:20, 29 January 2015 with the content having been widely discussed in threads Talk:Israel/Archive_47#UN and Israel views on borders which was initiated by Gouncbeatduke as of 18:40, 22 January 2015, Gouncbeatduke cannot now respond to this situation due to an iban that has been placed between the two editors. The text was again discussed at Talk:Israel/Archive 47#The declaration did not specify the borders of the new state. in a thread started 23:19, 13 February 2015 to discuss your edit to the thread title text.

The RfC could have been written as a follow on to either of the previous discussion or otherwise it could have been written with links to those earlier large contents. Neither of these options were taken.

The text of the WP:PG at WP:NOCONSENSUS states "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". the RfC was not written to call into question any particular edit and neither mentioned an earlier or a present form of the related article text. Given that the RfC had a focus on the future development of the wording then a clear solution would be in favour, if any text is to be retained, of "retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal". A further discussion has been initiated at Talk:Israel in relation to this contentious text.

In a Revision as of 18:00, 22 January 2015, Gouncbeatduke edited to say: "The borders of the new state were specified by the [[United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine|UN]], but not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries" with edit summary "replace POV-pushing with NPOV version of article cited"

Basically, as far as I can understand, a text cannot remain in the article without a citation. I really don't know what there is to talk about.

Here's my best effort at ... presenting a chronology of relevant edits I made the mistake of starting with this

In a Revision as of 04:39, 24 January 2015, WarKosign edited to: "The plan suggested borders that were eventually not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries.[1]" and to "The declaration did not specify the borders of the new state." with an edit summary: "Added a source for the UN plan not being implemented, moved the statement into the proper chronological order (before declaration of independence)".

In a Revision as of 17:22, 24 January 2015, Gouncbeatduke edited to: "Borders for a new Jewish state were specified by the UN but not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries" and reverted "The declaration did not specify the borders of the new state." with the edit summary: "returning to last good version prior to User:WarKosign multiple edit warring reverts".

In a Revision as of 22:14, 24 January 2015 WarKosign adds tag "{{Not in citation|date=January 2015|reason=The source says nothing about the partition plan, it says about Israel's declaration of independence "The initial draft stated that the boundaries of the state would be those established by the UN partition resolution of November 29, 1947. The inclusion of this was rejected by the larger committee charged with approving the draft by a vote of 5-4."}}" with edit summary: "Highlighted source misrepresentation"

In a Revision as of 01:10, 26 January 2015, Gouncbeatduke removed tag: "{{Not in citation|date=January 2015|reason=The source says nothing about the partition plan, it says about Israel's declaration of independence "The initial draft stated that the boundaries of the state would be those established by the UN partition resolution of November 29, 1947. The inclusion of this was rejected by the larger committee charged with approving the draft by a vote of 5-4."}}" with edit summary: "the citation is useful because it explains why Israel backed out of the UN agreement. The fact neighboring countries did not accept the UN borders is pretty obvious, but feel free to add citation. Please discuss in talk section before reverting again."

In a Revision as of 19:32, 26 January 2015, Gouncbeatduke adds citation: ".<ref>{{cite web|last1=Galnoor|first1=Itzhak|title=The Partition of Palestine: Decision Crossroads in the Zionist Movement|url=|publisher=SUNY Press, 1995|accessdate=26 January 2015|ref=page 289}}</ref>"

In a Revision as of 07:39, 27 January 2015, Ashurbanippal editted to: "The borders of the new state were not specified.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Galnoor|first1=Itzhak|title=The Partition of Palestine: Decision Crossroads in the Zionist Movement|url=|publisher=SUNY Press, 1995|accessdate=26 January 2015|ref=page 289}}</ref><ref name="Harris">Harris, J. (1998) [ The Israeli Declaration of Independence] ''The Journal of the Society for Textual Reasoning'', Vol. 7</ref>" with edit summary: "False. Israel neither recognized nor rejected UN borders (although accepted the partition plan). It calls policy of deliberate ambiguity. Israel's declaration didn't mention specific borders."

GregKaye 18:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The edit from September 17 remained unchallenged until January 22 on a page watched by many editors, I imagine tens if not hundreds. While silence is not the best way to demonstrate consensus, it was not something that could sneak unnoticed and therefore the fact that it remained stable for 4 whole months means it had consensus.
The RfC question was worded as "Please select which (possibly more than one) of these options (possibly with wording changes) should appear in the lead, or suggest your own:", meaning that the list was not a closed multiple-choice question but only suggested several of the options most popular in the previous discussions, in hope it would facilitate faster consensus. It did not help.
The long list of edits compiled by GregKaye, together with several discussions and the inconclusive RfC show that at no point in time since January 22 there existed a version that had consensus regarding representation of Israel's border during its establishment. I think GregKaye's reaction is a case of WP:IDHT, where even though it's clear that there is no consensus for the changes that they would like to see in, they continue the long-over content debate (evening bringing their maps here to make the point about the content). I am not here to discuss the content for the Nth time, I am here to ask for advice about the proper procedure to follow. WarKosign 19:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The RfC, as explained in the closing statement, was closed due to insufficient participation. This translates to no consensus with no prejudice against an immediate opening of another RfC on the same issue. This means that the change for which there currently is no consensus should be reverted in favor of the version for which there was a long-standing silent consensus, and a new RfC should be opened. Once the RfC is opened, effort should be made to ensure that it attracts a greater number of participants than the previous one; see Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC for a few ideas on how to achieve that. Iaritmioawp (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
TL;DR. Make incremental suggestions on the talk page. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Clearly a text such as "The borders of the new state were not specified" can have a citation needed tag added to it. This was my major involvement and, since January, such citation is no less needed. GregKaye 06:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye: I tried to add the citation on January 22, same day as you tagged it as needed. Please see talk:Israel, I wrote there about reference that I would like to re-add. No need to tag a problem if it can be easily fixed. WarKosign 06:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)