Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

TG4/Teilifís na Gaeilge (corporation)

Can someone fix the TG4 pages please.

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

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

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

request for feedback on Desmond Tan

Hi-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meters,

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

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

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

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

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

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

pls help in improving article about director Naani Krissh

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

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

Need a disambiguation page and guidance on titles

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

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

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

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

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

Dealing with article abuse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discord

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

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

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

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

New to editing and feeling intimidated about even minor changes

Time-waste.Call a spade a spade......~ Winged BladesGodric 15:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am a professional in the fields of social science and education. As someone new to Wikipedia, I am already feeling intimidated by others who are acting in what I would characterize as a territorial way. Even a minor edit to an article, updating a reference to Donald Trump with his appropriate title of President, resulted within a minute's time with a threat that I could be permanently blocked. This was in an article characterizing his supporters as "angry white men." My contribution was removed and I was referred to "the sandbox." I read and believed what I was told, which is that anyone is supposed to be able to contribute to Wikipedia. Is it acceptable for someone to be bullied by other editors/administrators in this way? What am I supposed to do? Am I to retreat in fear from these Wikipedia bullies? Do they really have the power to permanently block someone without justification? Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:B102:40E7:24B1:9EE2:4C3A:EB11 (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC) You made one edit besides this one (unless you did others under a different IP, in which case we can't see them; it may be helpful to register an account to keep all your edits in one place). That edit was reverted, and the individual who reverted it did not refer you to the sandbox, they referred you to the article talk page. That is not "bullying". Taking the discussion to the talk page is absolutely the appropriate next step when editors disagree on article content. I suggest you follow their advice, and bring up your concerns at Talk:Angry white male. So far as "President", we do not use titles at all, be they "Doctor", "Sir", "President", whatever. So expect any edits of that nature to be reverted. That's nothing to do with Trump; it applies to everyone. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC) While I appreciate in part your reply, I suspect it might have been different if you were better informed on the facts (which maybe would be the case if I had posted with a Wikipedia account). As I stated, I am new to editing on Wikipedia. Some clarifications as to fact: 1 - An earlier post was reverted, and I indeed, as you say, was referred to the talk page in regard to that edit. I chose, for now, to just accept the fact it was removed, figuring I can return to the topic after some additional research. I do believe, however, that it would have been more appropriate for another editor to offer compromise wording rather than undo my contribution, which was in large part not much more than a semantic enhancement. 2 - As a credentialed history instructor, I have for quite some time referred to Wikipedia and was under the impression that titles such as President are the norm. I can see there could be an argument for omitting them, but if there is some consensus as to a rule on that matter, I haven't seen it in the Help pages. A reference would be helpful, as I might also find other useful tips at that location. 3 - Before editing the mention of Donald Trump by adding the title of President, I checked the references to see that they pre-dated his election to the office. I thought I was making a useful update, consistent with so many other historical references to U.S. President throughout Wikipedia. 4 - One minute after making that edit, I was not only referred to the sandbox but also threatened with losing my editing privileges: "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Angry white male. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges." 5 - When I later referred back to that last edit I made, it was not the same as when I made it. Rather, it appeared to have fallen victim to some kind of bug in the Wikipedia software, except that the almost instantaneous threat against my editing privileges make that conclusion questionable and suggest the possibility of something more along the lines of intentional interference. 6 - I did not come to Wikipedia to be falsely accused of vandalism and threatened, conduct which frankly I find a bit creepy and intimidating. I started editing here in order to make the product better and more useful, especially to students who might refer to it. I wanted to share my talents as a writer, my expertise in the field of education and human rights, and my knowledge in such areas as history and law. I do not understand the power structure here, but I will not subject myself to bullying, nor am I interested in contributing in that sort of environment. How safe are editors here from power-trippers?99.203.10.148 (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Point 3: see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Honorifics. In general: the ratio of the effort you've put into argumentation to the effort you've put into making constructive edits suggests that you won't have a happy, or productive, time here. Maproom (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC) This edit does not change what you said it changed... --NeilN talk to me 20:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Well, it's unfortunate that your first editing experiences were unpleasant, but in defense of the response you received - the two edits from the 99 IP address were unconstructive on their face. The first was the injection of unsourced vituperative personal commentary under the edit summary of "providing balance"; and the second appeared to be the substitution of garbled text accompanied by a misleading edit summary. Every day Wikipedia confronts anonymous editors whose only purpose seems to cause mischief - and, while the explanations you offer are benign enough, those two edits are typical of the hit-and-run anonymous vandal. I don't fault the testy response. As to your other edit, from the 2600 IP address, an editor reverted your changes, politely explained the reversion, and invited further discussion. I see nothing there to give offense. I suggest you take a look at Help:Contents, under editing articles, and read some of the articles linked there. I think once you've absorbed them, you may find your experience here to be a bit smoother. I also suggest that you create an account so that your edits aren't mixed up with those of others who might find themselves with the same IP address. Good luck. JohnInDC (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Thanks for the referral to the Manual of Style, for it confirms that my edit was appropriate all along. The title is occupational, rather than honorific, and therefore addressed in the "Titles of people" and "Occupation titles" sections of the manual. The example given in both sections is, "President Obama." I would provide links, but as you suggest I have already wasted enough effort. Hopefully we might all learn something from this exercise, however. As for the posts, all were made from the same IP address. I can only assume that my edit was garbled by the same source that altered my IP address. (Yes, IP addresses are dynamic, but I am not a believer in such extreme coincidence.) My post, when I previewed it, changed exactly what I said it changed (i.e., added the title of President). The threat against me was instantaneous. The lack of security, neutrality, and civility here affirm my hesitancy to register an account. As for the commentary attacking my post, I suppose that if I were to defend it I would be told this is not the forum for that. Suffice it to say that the original article reflects bias, which has prompted other editors in Talk to call for its removal from Wikipedia. It may be prophetic to say that my time here will be neither productive nor happy. I am still formulating an opinion about Wikipedia and am hoping not to reach the conclusion of some of my colleagues that this is a more suitable place for quasi-sophisticated gamesters than true academicians interested in contributing to an honest and useful work.2600:1:B102:40E7:24B1:9EE2:4C3A:EB11 (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Your edits from that 99 IP appeared, to experienced editors who are simply trying their best, to be deliberately disruptive, and they acted accordingly. IPs change all the time. Novice editors make mistakes - veteran editors too. Those are simple, unremarkable, every day things. If you’re suggesting that a hostile Wikipedia editor or other sinister force caused you to appear to change IPs, then garbled your edit, then used that garbled edit to justify a warning at your Talk page because, why? - then I don’t think further patient explanation is going to help either of us. JohnInDC (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC) I stand by this edit which Ritchie333 reverted, offering no constructive thoughts (not surprising). Editors can decide if this and the subsequent protestations here are being done by a "quasi-sophisticated gamester" or a "true academician". --NeilN talk to me 12:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Requesting for JumondR Rondaii article

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

Protecting an Article

Answered

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

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

Inaccurate content

Answered

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

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

Outdated information on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cage_(organisation)

Hello Sometime ago I was banned from editing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cage_(organisation) page. Everything would be good if there were somebody else who wants to maintain that page. This is not the case. The new information are not taken into account. Who can take over the task? Cautious (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Help restoring delted paragraphs in article Antisemitism in Ukraine

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