Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/Requests
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Editor assistance/Requests page.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
|Needing help? This page is for users working at Editor Assistance. Please go HERE to post your request for help.|
Company Logo Outdated
My name is Dan and I am in charge of the online marketing for EXL (EXL). I would really appreciate your help updating the EXL logo that is not outdated and does not reflect the companies current image. I tried contacting the editor, Jovianeye, who uploaded the previous logo but have received no response from him in over a week. I can understand that he is busy but I would like to get this logo updated as soon as possible.
The old logo is at File:EXL Logo.gif. Our new logo that we would like displayed on the EXL page can be found on http://www.exlservice.com/images/exl_logo.png. The name for this file should be EXL_Logo.png. I would really appreciate if assistance on updating this or even some guidance on getting this changed could be provided. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help with this update.
- Open an account (as an individual, not as a company) and then ask me on my talk page to confirm it. You will then be able to upload images yourself. You will also need to update the fair use rationale aa appropriate. This thread may get moved as you have posted on the wrong page. SpinningSpark 18:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Hillary Clinton - no criticisms
I have long respected Wikipedia. I love the idea of millions of editors.
But I'm shocked that there isn't a 'criticisms' section for Hillary Clinton. She has been a public figure for many decades and has many controversial actions and statements. Condy Rice has a criticisms section, rightfully so. I'll be checking to see if a more impartial portrait of Mrs Clinton is displayed in the coming weeks.
I do worry that Wikipedia is losing its impartiality, I remember looking at Van Jones' glowing description a few years ago. It looked as though Van himself had written it. But, thankfully, it was fixed.
I'll send a copy of this little letter to a few journalist also.
- How about, rather than contacting journalists, you do a little research? You could start by reading Wikipedia:Criticism: "Editors should avoid having a separate section in an article devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Instead, articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources together, fairly, proportionately, and without bias."
- Our articles on George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon contain no 'criticism' sections. And neither for that matter does our article on Condoleezza Rice - it has a section entitled 'Public perception and criticism', but that is a different thing. Or come to that, out article on Adolph Hitler. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I need some information.
Dear sir, My purpose of writing this request is that i need some information about thing that has troubled me for some time, in my country.Which i find it difficult to understand now. one of this problem is unemployment. pleas tell me what to do...G-MYMY (talk)1234 — Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- If you're interested in learning about unemployment statistics for your country, you may have better luck at the Reference Desk. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Dispute involves both content and user conduct--best avenue?
Hi. I'm involved in a multi-editor dispute (five longstanding, three current) that's been going on for months. Most of the parties involved have been within the bell curve of reasonable, but one guy is a real problem: He's written some biased noticeboard filings and refused to change them, undermined attempts to resolve the dispute, and demanded to see precedents, sources and policies only to ignore or denigrate them once they were found to be contrary to his position. None of that's specifically against the rules, though. He also has his complaints about me. While this is primarily a content dispute, I feel that I and other editors could have come to a mutually acceptable solution by now if not for his efforts (or at least proceeded toward one in a less dramatic manner). Again, he probably feels similarly about me. Should I seek resolution here or elsewhere? Like I said, most of the stuff he's doing isn't specifically against the rules, so this isn't about reporting anyone for an infraction. I want someone who can help me work with this guy, more like a moderator or referee. Like I said, he has his complaints about me too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Large, complex disputes like that aren't likely to be resolved here. I like to think of EAR as the ANI of content disputes; it's best suited for things where there's a clear answer or can otherwise be dealt with summarily. You might try WP:DRN or WP:MEDCOM. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
In reading your editorial on THE CLIO AWARDS please be advised that I, Sandra Inbody-Brick, was hired by Ruth Ratny as the Executive Producer of THE NEW CLIO AWARDS. I was the Executive Producer of the LOS ANGELES ADVERTISING CLUB'S BELDING AWARDS for eleven years and recognized nationally for that event. During that time I had elevated the Belding Awards in both entries and attendance at the Awards Show. On March 22, 1987 the show was held at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion at the Music Center with over 2,000 people in attendance.
As you have accurately reported on June 13, 1991 the Advertising Industry's best know award show explodes into a frenzy in which attendees storm the stage and steal Clio Awards. On August 19, 1991 Clio owner Bill Evans has turned to a small Wall Street firm to find investors for the awards show and insists "There will be a Clio's for 1992."
On September 27, 1991 Ruth Ratny's Screen Intl., the Chicago-based publisher of Screen Magazine, purchases the Clio trademark for $10,000.00, and on February 17, 1992 ADWEEK'S headline story was, "INBODY-BRICK GETS THE HONOR OF PRODUCING 1992 CLIO AWARDS." The story was written by Betsy Sharkey, who today is a movie and film editor with the LA TIMES.
It's content is as follows: LOS ANGELES - Ad vet Sandy Inbody-Brick, who has produced awards shows in the West for nearly a decade, has been named executive producer of the 1992 Clio Awards. Resurrecting the Clios will be a formidable task. The once-coveted Clios were debased last year when then-owner Bill Evans never arrived at the show, leaving a caterer to emcee and the bills unpaid. The show ended with angry contenders rushing to the stage. Chicago-Based Ruth Ratny bought the name after the fiasco and began trying to rebuild. "I was at the Belding judging last weekend," says Inbody-Brick, referring to the Ad Club of L.A.'s show which she has produced for one years. "Sitting with judges from around the country, I heard a lot about what they thought needed to be fixed with the Clios."
On September 4, 1992 the Los Angeles Times article by Bruce Horovitz "HELLO CLIO, WHAT'S NEW?" also raised the issue of whether or not the event would take place at all. It's content-in-paart is as follows: "Clio, with the help of two ad women, is desperately trying to re-sell itself in a new and improved package and repairs an image tattered last year when one gathering erupted in a statue-grabbing ruckus and another ceremony was canceled because the Clio-owner couldn't pay his bills. The 1992 Awards Ceremony is scheduled for September 15 in New York City's Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. To produce the show Ratny , has turned to Los Angeles ad woman Sandra Inbody-Brick who is best known for producing the last 10 Belding Award shows, the West Coast's top advertising competition. Inbody-Brick implemented new standards for judging the competition. In the past, the judging was loosely run and criticized for its lack of organization. "If the Clios falls flat on its face this year, I know it's my face that will be flattened." Most ad executives say they expect they the Clios will survive. But, if the Clio Awards is another flop again this year, said adman Phil Dusenberry, "you can kiss it goodbye forever."
Well, the show went on with Tony Randall as the host and there were over 500 advertising people in the audience! It was a success and the Clio's are still going strong. I played a significant role in bringing them back after the fiasco and would appreciate that information being included in your commentary on the Clio Awards.