Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
1leftarrow.png Help:Contents
Editor Assistance: Requests
Shortcuts:
  • 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.

Archives

Other links


Use of template:collapse[edit]

I am the author of about 100 pages of information on worldwide nuclear testing. On these pages are tables which summarize the tests; the data in a table column might be rather complex. A concrete example: such a table can be found on the page Operation Buster-Jangle. The column "Local date/time" contains information on converting the event date/time to local times. The instructions about how to use this data is in a "table note 2", referenced in the column header. As it turns out, all the column headers contain notes about their content, upwards of about 150 or more characters per note. In the past these notes were all displayed immediately following the table, and that worked out well. However, all the notes in all the 100 or so tables are identical, and after the experienced reader works through the notes, they aren't very useful, and are rather unsightly under each table, taking up half a page on content.

I happened across the collapse template, and though that this would be a good way to eliminate the unsightliness without burdening the user, old or new. The info is available in a bubble by clicking on the note name in the column header, as usual, and the text of all the notes is available if needed by a single click on the collapse bar. I migrated this to all the tables a week ago.

Today a bot by the name of Sporkbot has started to remove the collapse templates, claiming MOS:COLLAPSE (See In Ekker series, French nuclear tests). I find nothing specific about boilerplate text (which is what this is) in the MOS:COLLAPSE description that requires this to be done, and I think it is detrimental under the requirement that if formatting works, even if it does break a rule, then it should be done. I believe that is the case here. SkoreKeep (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

While I understand that keeping those explanatory notes in a collapse might seem reasonable, the MOS page is quite right that it may impair display on certain browsers. Furthermore, quite frankly, those explanatory notes are nowhere near long or obtrusive enough to merit collapsing. It's quite uncommon for anything other than navboxes and long information in infoboxes to be collapsed in articlespace (and the infobox example is rare).
You might consider trying to render the information explained in those notes as prose for the article, or at least substantially shortening them. Many can or should be removed entirely. For the In Ekker series, French nuclear tests article, for instance: Footnote 1 should probably be removed entirely as the article only concerns French tests. Footnote 2 should probably be rendered as a separate table column rather than methodically explaining how to do the conversion. Save our readers the time and trouble. Footnotes 5 and 6, and the column to which they're attached convey information that just isn't amenable to being conveyed in a table. Footnote 8 should be removed entirely, and the yields given dual TNT-based units and SI units with the {{convert}} template.
I understand that you may be creating many of these articles on a template framework, with standard footnotes, but there's something wrong with providing an explanatory footnote that doesn't explain anything actually in the article. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, thank you. I'll consider what you say and think about how it can be done better. SkoreKeep (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

David Hale[edit]

Good morning, I wanted to thank cryptic and Wikipedia for the expeditious removal of the deletion discussions on Mr. Hale. Mr. Hale and myself are grateful and again we apologize for any inconvience. Thank you, Thomas


Good morning, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Countertrap (talkcontribs) 18:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC) I am requesting that all discussion regarding "David M. Hale" be removed it is slanderous and the article was created without Mr. Hale's knowledge. The article written was incorrect but not entirely untrue. We are simply asking that the content under the reason for deletion be removed. We were informed by clients of our business and is causing quite a stir. The comments made by Tokyogirl79 paint a poor picture of Mr. Hale and again are slanderous. We have the necessary documents to verify Mr. Hale's playing career. We are simply asking for all discussion on Mr. Hale to cease. I apologize for any inconvience. Thank you again for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely, Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Countertrap (talkcontribs) 18:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia, as your language above not only betrays a gross misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works ("the article was created without Mr. Hale's knowledge") but repeatedly uses the term "slanderous", which has specific meaning in law and when used in this manner cannot be interpreted as anything other than a legal threat. If you wish to be unblocked, see the advice on your talk page about how to withdraw the tacit legal threat and request unblocking.
I would also like to ask what is meant by the repeated use of the word "we" in the above post, since the account User:Countertrap is supposed to belong to and be used by one and only one natural person. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not one to usually care about this sort of thing, but I note that the AfD was CBLANKed... if the user above is to be believed it's because the outcome was to delete per G3 as a blatant hoax. That seems a rather strange reason for a CBLANK. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 00:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Need help creating talk page[edit]

Resolved: Page unprotected. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ghost Rider (motorcyclist) is a new article re-created by me after a refund and move out of my user space after a prior AfD. I can not create the corresponding talk page, Talk:Ghost Rider (motorcyclist), perhaps because it was salted. -- Brianhe (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it's salted. Unprotection requested at WP:RfPP. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

British Universities Articles - time for a project?[edit]

I'm concerned that many/most entries for British universities (apart from Oxford and Cambridge) contain a lot of value-laden, essentially marketing, material - such that it appears that much material has been put there by persons employed/engaged by the institutions in question. For instance, there are a lot of references to rankings and the like some years ago - usually dating to whenever the institution in question got its most favourable rating. For instance, the University of York page states it is the highest rated university under 50 years old in Britain, but this was in 2012, in 2014 it is Lancaster, and so on. This sort of information is of very short lifespan. Surely, it would be better if league table rankings were standardized, restricted to a few leading tables and confined to a single infobox in each article?

The University of Kent page states that it is "one of the prestigious British universities" which is not only illiterate but is also clearly a matter of opinion and unverifiable. My attempt to deal with this has been met by a revert and an accusation of "vandalism" which it most certainly was not. Many such pages contain statements about "excellent public transport links" and lists of on-campus catering outlets like KFC and Subway. This hardly seems notable material appropriate to an encyclopaedia entry.

In short, it appears that many wikipedia entries for British universities are being hijacked for marketing purposes by the institutions in question. These institutions have their own webpages and paper prospectuses in which to put this material before the public. They should not be abusing wikipedia.

Is it possible to launch some sort of Universities in the British Isles project to eliminate marketing and POV material from these articles and to police the pages to seek to prevent future corruption? I don't know how to go about this, but these seem to me to be important pages which ought to be properly neutral and "respectable" so to speak. Merehouse (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I've got to tell you that it's a problem with university articles generally, not just British universities. You might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

List of religious sects and cults in Canada[edit]

can you make a list of religious sects and cults in Canada? thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.216.75 (talk) 06:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Notability feedback[edit]

I'd like some feedback on whether or not this person is notable. He's been the CEO of several companies and he's mentioned in several well known publications. However, not all the articles are in depth. Here's a list of the best ones--I also have some smaller publications that I found through Highbeam: https://www.twst.com/interview/17924 http://www.wor710.com/media/podcast-media-linked-inside-advertising-and-media-MediaLinked/media-linked-inside-advertising-and-media-25255857/ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/business/media/news-from-the-advertising-industry.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/guide-las-biggest-and-buzziest-shops-151000 http://www.fastcocreate.com/3029835/the-smooth-side-of-agency-entrepreneurialism-a-creative-shop-gets-into-the-nut-butter-busine http://www.inc.com/eric-v-holtzclaw/my-work-is-my-life-is-that-a-problem.html http://news.advisen.com/documents/AMX/20140421/00/201404210001GALE____PUB_ALL_900_V366865456.xml http://adage.com/article/news/zipatoni-ceo-jim-holbrook-leaves/47371/

Sorry if I've posted this request in the wrong spot. If there's a better place for this, please let me know. Thanks!Cecibell (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

None of the sources you've provided here are both reliable and substantial. Most are basic announcements of hiring. The interviews are considered primary sources, and therefore don't count towards notability. Honestly, writing an article based off these sources not only would result in notability problems, but I don't see how you could write something coherent with this little reliably sourced information. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Please help me with using convert to automatically convert pressure into multiple units.[edit]

Black light (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) Hello,

I was trying to edit Black light, specifically section "1.3 Mercury vapor". I wanted to add a second converted unit; the article previously had "...between 5 and 10 standard atmospheres (500 and 1,000 kPa)", using the markup "convert|5|and|10|atm|sigfig=1". When I tried to add psi as well, using the markup "convert|5|and|10|atm psi|sigfig=1" I got "5 and 10 atm psi[convert: unknown unit]". I thought I had folowed the instructions at Help:Convert units, Help:Convert, and Module:Convert/documentation/conversion data/doc but obviously I did something wrong. Can anyone help me with the correct syntax? And can the help pages be updated to better explain the proper syntax usage? peatswift (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You probably want {{convert|5|and|10|atm|psi kPa|sigfig=1}}, which produces 5 and 10 standard atmospheres (70 and 100 psi; 500 and 1,000 kPa). Add abbr=on if you don't like the "standard atmospheres" instead of "atm". You should include kPa alongside psi since kPa is a SI unit. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

correction in data[edit]

I would like to bring into your notice regarding the error in the data entry of Indian Badminton championship winners viz, 1968 women's doubles winners is Sammy anti Tame and Jessie philip (it's entered wrong as Joe philip)..kindly make the necessary change. warm regards Dr Benjamin Philip s /o Jessie philip — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.97.215.98 (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I would like to bring into your notice regarding the error in the data entry of Indian Badminton championship winners viz, 1968 women's doubles winners is Sammy anti Tame and Jessie philip (it's entered wrong as Joe philip)..kindly make the necessary change. warm regards Dr Benjamin Philip s /o Jessie philip

this is the original link in which I have noticed the error http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_National_Badminton_champions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.97.215.98 (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Policy consensus[edit]

If I correct an MOS error (i.e. correcting 12:00 p.m. to Noon per WP:TIME), but another user changes it back, then I revert it, and another user again reverts it, if this cycle continues, assuming I post on the article's talk page that directs to an already-established consensus (per WP:AVOIDEDITWAR), could I still be docked with edit warring since I am conforming pages to consensus? BenYes? 12:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Edit warring, even if you are convinced you are in the right, should always be avoided. From WP:EDITWAR "it is no defense to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring"". Яehevkor 13:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
You might not get hit as hard for plain edit warring, but you will get hit for 3RR if you violate it. So don't. If the other party is edit warring in violation of MoS, report it... after you've tried to discuss, of course. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Where would that (MoS) violation be reported? BenYes? 23:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)