Jump to content

Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 127) (bot
Line 216: Line 216:


On the page it states that the 173rd infantry was not reactivated until 2000. I am greatly confused as I was with another unit in support of the 173rd in Vicenza in 1998. I helped the 82 airborne but my brother-in-law was working with the 173rd. How could this be? We each received letters of (?) Thanking us for support and his was signed by 173rd. I think 2/173rd. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2600:387:B:5:0:0:0:BF|2600:387:B:5:0:0:0:BF]] ([[User talk:2600:387:B:5:0:0:0:BF#top|talk]]) 04:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
On the page it states that the 173rd infantry was not reactivated until 2000. I am greatly confused as I was with another unit in support of the 173rd in Vicenza in 1998. I helped the 82 airborne but my brother-in-law was working with the 173rd. How could this be? We each received letters of (?) Thanking us for support and his was signed by 173rd. I think 2/173rd. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2600:387:B:5:0:0:0:BF|2600:387:B:5:0:0:0:BF]] ([[User talk:2600:387:B:5:0:0:0:BF#top|talk]]) 04:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:If you look at the archived official history of the unit created by the U.S. Army (you can see it by clicking [https://web.archive.org/web/20081223121540/http://www.173abnbde.setaf.army.mil/history.htm here]) it confirms that the unit was deactivated from 14 January 1972 - 12 June 2000. And the official website of the 173d Airborne Brigade Association (its alumni association) adopts our article here, with those dates of inactivation, as the unit's official history for that organization. (See that by clicking [https://skysoldier.net/173d-Airborne-Brigade-History here].) So, I don't know what happened in your instance. I'm going to post a copy of your request over at the [[Talk:173rd_Airborne_Brigade_Combat_Team|article talk page]] to see if anyone can do anything with it. You might check there from time to time, but there's a fairly good chance you may not ever get an answer. Regards, [[User:TransporterMan|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:blue; font-variant:small-caps;">'''TransporterMan'''</span>]] ([[User talk:TransporterMan|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size: x-small;">TALK</span>]]) 19:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


== Fiona Onasanya ==
== Fiona Onasanya ==

Revision as of 19:27, 16 December 2018

Archives

Previous requests & responses
Other links

America's Got Talent (season 12)

Answered

An IPv6 user alter the tables a lot, and I feel that this is vandalism. Please check the content of America's Got Talent (season 12), and take the necessary action to tackle that, thank you. UU (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing there that appears to be vandalism, only good faith edits. Vandalism has a very fixed definition on Wikipedia and it is best not to make accusations of it unless it fits within that definition. If you feel that the IP edits are not wise, discuss it on the article talk page and seek to obtain consensus. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to create article that has redirection

How can I create a separate article for Emily Middlemas, which will direct to a new article? Every time I attempt to make an article for it, it redirects the link to the list of contestants.

This might be something super simple and basic, but I cannot figure it out! Any help would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joesimnett (talkcontribs) 23:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Click on the Emily Middlemas link and you will see "(Redirected from Emily Middlemas)" up the top under the article title. Click on that link and it will take you to the redirect page, which you can change to become a real article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Buerge talk page issue

Hi, I noticed that Aaron Buerge talk page incorrectly redirects to another talk page. I am unable to insert WikiProject Biography. Please fix. Thanks, SWP13 (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


>>You're awesome! SWP13 (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for assistance re: notability guidelines before creating an entry for a company.

Answered

I am currently working to help one of my clients, EBANX, better understand what they need in order to be able to meet the notability standards for an entry on Wikipedia and was hoping someone would be able to help. While the article on here is very helpful in laying out the standards, I'm in a bit of a tough spot trying to see where the coverage that the client has fits within them. Below is a summary I sent to them of main 3rd party sources that have mentioned the company and C level staff. Would you be able to help by confirming/rejecting any of the opinions I have expressed and, if there are any suitable links, letting me know whether or not you think there is sufficient material there to start looking at building an entry.


The below definitely seem suitable for citing as a source and showing notability for Wikipedia. Both articles focus on EBANX and and are from strong sources.

EBANX: The Brazilian Fintech Who Wants To Lead The Cross-Border Online Payments Market https://www.forbes.com/sites/angelicamarideoliveira/2018/09/20/ebanx-the-brazilian-fintech-who-wants-to-lead-the-cross-border-online-payments-market/#39853ec82427

Local TV and website story for both RPC TV and G1 news portal, about innovation. Marketing coordinator of EBANX participated on a conversation about how to innovate, along with other two startups from Curitiba. https://g1.globo.com/pr/parana/noticia/2018/09/01/inovacao-saiba-como-manter-o-sucesso-da-empresa-tendo-a-tecnologia-como-aliada-video.ghtml


The following articles I'm not too sure on. I'd actually like to discuss these with a Wikipedia editor to see their thoughts on the sources. The content relating to EBANX looks good enough in my opinion.

Ebanx quer dominar a América Latina (Gazeta do Povo) https://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/economia/ebanx-quer-dominar-a-america-latina-38q5khed4on08yj6xtl5p8tti/

Article about EBANX on EXAME, one of the most important business magazines in Brazil https://exame.abril.com.br/revista-exame/a-carteira-sem-fronteira/

Article about the growth of fintechs in Brazil in the Brazilian newspaper Brasil Econômico, with information and quotes from EBANX and Nubank https://economia.ig.com.br/empresas/2018-01-25/fintechs.html

Article on Estadão, one of the top 2 newspapers in Brazil, about the gwowth of Curitiba city's startup ecosystem. EBANX was one of the sources for the story https://link.estadao.com.br/noticias/inovacao,curitiba-corre-contra-o-tempo-para-multiplicar-startups,70002508515


With these articles, I'm highly sceptical that they will be deemed strong enough sources. I think there may be some doubts from the editor looking over the submission as to how difficult it is to gain coverage on these sites.

Google Launches New Payment API In Brazil https://www.pymnts.com/news/international/2017/google-and-ebanx-launch-new-payment-api-in-brazil/

Publications on The Paypers / Boleto exclusive https://www.thepaypers.com/search?Search=ebanx https://www.thepaypers.com/ecommerce/ebanx-survey-explains-why-cash-payment-methods-are-popular-in-brazil/769661-25

EBANX Expands Into Ecuador Enabling Merchants to Accept Ecuadorian Local Payments http://www.paymentsjournal.com/ebanx-expands-ecuador-enabling-merchants-accept-ecuadorian-local-payments/


To include a list as a source it needs to be relate an achievement that is very highly respected. I think there would also be a concern that lists like this are often not entirely transparent with their criteria and can be 'pay for play' which diminishes their value somewhat (not suggesting this is!).

These are the 25 most attractive start-ups to work for in Brazil, according to LinkedIn https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/18/top-most-attractive-start-ups-brazil-sao-paulo-rio-brasilia-linkedin.html


While the below is completely accurate, there isn't enough of a focus on EBANX for it to be accepted as a source/proof of notability.

Brazilian Post boosts tech investment to respond to e-commerce growth https://www.zdnet.com/article/brazilian-post-increases-tech-investment-to-respond-to-e-commerce-growth/

Mike publicize (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither you, as a paid editor, nor your client should be writing an article about your client since you have a conflict of interest. If your client is sufficiently notable, a neutral party will eventually create an article about it. No person or company or other entity has the right to have a Wikipedia article about it, even if it is indeed notable or if its competitors have articles. You, as a paid editor, have a strict requirement to disclose that fact and list your article edits on your user page. Click the conflict of interest link for details. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use of politically-ambiguous term, "far"

Answered

A number of articles label conservate/"right wing" activists as "far-right", however groups and individuals who can be reasonably perceived as "far-left" (reasonable as defines as "that which a reasonable person would agree to) continually have editors refusing to affix a similar label to them.

So, the question - how does wikipedia ensure that NPOV is assured when terms like "far-" are anything but neutral? Far-left and far-right are, by definition, non-neutral, and the fact that wikipedia editors steadfastly refuse to apply such terms in an equitable fashion seems to completely destroy the neutral, non-political/partisan scope of this site.

Many people use wikipedia as a go-to source for valuable information and research, and such information should, imo, be completely neutral in tone, leaving the reader to draw their own conclusions.

So, to that end - are there "official" definitions of "left wing", "right wing", "far-left" and "far-right" that wikipedia uses, and, if so, what are they and where can I find them? Furthermore, how does wikipedia justify its claim to neutrality when there is a clear lack of such neutrality in political entries?

Steven Britton - The World Wouldn't be the Same Without Me (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every article in Wikipedia stands on its own and its contents are decided by consensus. There are no such official definitions and the proper application of NPOV and neutrality is enforced by the weight of editing and consensus at the various articles. That means, of course, that articles can sometimes become temporarily unbalanced, but such unbalance generally attracts editors who wish to correct it. If they can obtain consensus to do so, then they will be successful; in addition to discussion at the article's talk page, the use of dispute resolution can help achieve consensus and, in particular, request for comments provides a legitimate method for attracting additional editors to the discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to cite paid content with supporting evidence?

A valid & cited account of topic relevant information was removed, reason being the cite didn't show the content. HBO is a paid service and yes, if you have HBO you can see exactly what I stated 18 min into the video, so is paid content censored by Wiki? If so, they have much to remove, e.g. all paid news sources, e.g. any newspaper reference, or anything paid for that matter that could potentially block out some readers. Seems this must be a procedural thing, at least I hope so! Please advise of proper procedure.

That said, how do we report dead/removed citations?

My post was as follows:

Encina is seen and heard slapping Ms. Bland across her face, she recoils away and says "Don't touch me." and she asks why she is being apprehended, in the footage aired in the HBO Documentary [1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmchtl (talkcontribs) 23:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Davis, Kate (2018). "Say Her Name: The Life and Death of Sandra Bland". HBO.
I can see where your addition may have been confusing. You use {{Cite news}} and point to a web page offering a trailer video. If you wish to cite the episode content itself, a more relevant format should be {{Cite episode}}. Elizium23 (talk) 06:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just watched the segment which you're describing in your edit. The commentator interprets what is said as a slap, but that's an interpretation of the dashcam footage and audio. The dashcam footage and audio is a primary source as defined by Wikipedia and primary sources must unmistakably and without interpretation clearly show what they're being used to support. I don't believe that the dashcam footage can be used to support the slap allegation. There's a sound and some head movement, but it's interpretation to identify it as a slap. I do pretty clearly hear Bland say "Don't touch me." however. Whether the commentator's assertion that it was a slap can be used, however, is more difficult. I don't know who the commentator was (I fast-forwarded to the relevant spot), but it might be possible to say that "Commentator X or Attorney X asserts such and such" using the HBO documentary as a source, but that then becomes a question of whether or not the commentator is somehow important enough for his analysis to be given space in the article. Frankly, if the alleged slap is an important element in the case, there ought to be multiple reliable sources saying that and getting hung up on this more-difficult one may well be more trouble than just going out and finding a simpler one. In any event, there is no "reporting" of removed edits or citations. All disputes here are worked out through, at least initially, discussion on the article's talk page and that's where you ought to go next. If that discussion does not work out, consider dispute resolution. There is no prohibition, by the way, on using paid sources, or sources behind some kind of paywall, as reliable sources, but that does not seem to me what WWGB was trying to assert in the edit comment. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 06:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC) PS: Please be sure to sign your talk page and noticeboard posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~[reply]

Attn:TransporterMan, I'm new at this, so just learning the html (or whatever the language this is), so a lot of trial/error & copy/paste of "code". The original footage actually does show the slap, so I referenced the primary footage, but still do wonder about ref a paid source, which is still my interpretation of their comment. But now a new question regarding "signing" which I did see elsewhere, but unsure exactly where to do this? Just "Dmchtl (talk) 07:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)" after anything I post, or could you ptovide a screenshot example? TY! So here goes my next trial/error. Please bear with me folks! DMCHTL (TALK) Dmchtl (talk) 07:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About the paid source issue, WWGB's edit comment was "none of that content is given in the supplied citation" which says noting about paid/not paid, what it says is — probably, it's a tad vague — that the source doesn't clearly prove what it was cited for within Wikipedia's requirements for such proof. As for your signature, no cut and paste is needed. At the end of your post just put the four tildes (if you'd like a separator from your text such as a dash or a "Yours truly" put that before the tildes. Examples:
If in the code editor I end my message with:
Regards, ~~~~
When I click "Publish changes" The system will generate:
Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you go back and look in the code editor, you'll see that the tildes have been replaced with a bunch of code that shows up in the "live" document just like the last line above. You can customize what shows up in your Settings, but you might want to not do that until you're a bit more skilled in Wikicode.
It's important that you sign your posts in this way so as to identify yourself and to time-stamp your post. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Noting FTR that you tried again, this time without a citation,[1] with a rationale that clearly violates the Wikipedia policy against "original research". I reverted that.[2] For convenience the slap sound is at +10:02 in this YouTube video. It's far less obvious to me—I can't imagine how you think you can see that slap through the rear car window darkened by the shade of the tree. It seems far more likely that Bland slapped Encinia's arm or face—he recoils and backs away momentarily a few milliseconds after the slap sound.
But that's neither here nor there, since that kind of reasoning doesn't enter into Wikipedia editing. The question is what do reliable sources say. I don't have access to the HBO documentary, but I understand that the commentator says he slapped her. Does HBO claim to have commissioned professional forensic analysis of the video that shows him slapping her? Let's assume not for now, since you haven't mentioned it. If said slap could be seen clearly with the naked eye, certainly many reliable sources would have reported it, as it would have been so unusual, so dramatic, and—most importantly—so pertinent to the allegations of battery. No doubt the video was scrutinized closely by news organizations, and, after the slap had been seen and reported by one, all the others would've taken a closer look at the moment in question, also seen it, and also reported it. I have seen no others say that, and that silence is very significant for our purposes. Absent at least two other sources of high quality I will continue to oppose inclusion of this content per WP:UNDUE. ―Mandruss  22:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of essential and much-read content, admittedly lacking adequate citations

Here, an editor has deleted a section of the article "Unicode input" noting, accurately, that the section does not contain adequate citations. However, the section in question, "Selection from a screen", is an essential part of the article. The article lead – the second sentence – reads:

Unicode characters can be produced either by selecting them from a display or by typing a certain sequence of keys on a physical keyboard.

Without the deleted section, the article treats only the option to type appropriate keys on a keyboard; the option to select characters from a display is not covered at all (though the lead contains an orphaned image of such a display).

Rather than leave it in its current inadequate state, should the entire article be deleted? Pageviews yesterday, 12/04/2018, numbered over 300. A week ago, 11/28/2018, they numbered 384. Hundreds of other articles link to it. Deletion of "Unicode input" does not seem appropriate.

I have addressed the problem at "Talk:Unicode input#Selection from a screen and WP:BURDEN". The editor referred to, who has now deleted the section twice, has not responded. As I say on the talk page, while I do use some techniques from the article, I never use those discussed in the deleted section; I am unfamiliar with them and unwilling to undertake the considerable research effort that would be required to add appropriate citations.

What can be done?

I recognize that the instructions for this page ask that I use the {{La}} template. I have looked at the documentation for this template and don't really understand it. I accordingly apologize for my failure to use this template.

Peter Brown (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter M. Brown I restored the deleted content with sources. See Talk:Unicode input for further discussion. Cheers. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Having Trouble Trying to load the 2019 Pro Bowl Logo can you help me upload it Please. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you trying to upload it and what's the issue you're encountering? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Page

I was reading the page for Michigan. And noticed that the are for the U.P. county count is wrong. It list only for. The missing information is the name of 3 counties that are located in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. In the Eastern Upper Peninsula you will find Mackinac, Luce, and Chippewa counties. Also Marquette County. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.131.179 (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific about where the information is missing? I can't find it on a quick examination and the counties you mention are listed in List of counties in Michigan. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Table style to remove large spaces

The table on there is pushed down a bit because of the infobox, changing the table to be 85% would remove the space between the top text and the table and the infobox would flow along its side. But then the empty space would be along the right of the article from the space under the infobox. This change wouldn't constrict any text or make the images smaller, would this be preferable or is it better to allow the space and instead let the table flow to the right of the article? -glove- (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, -glove-! Rather than compromise between whitespace at the top of the table or along the side, I went ahead and re-organized the article. Not only can we eliminate the whitespace entirely, we can consolidate the article text at the top, rather than bury half of it below a very long table. CThomas3 (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New files without fonts

I would like a script to search in "special: NewFiles" articles that have no reference (<ref>, <ref name=> {{references}}, {{reflist}}, <references />, == References ==, == bibliography ==)

Purpose: Create a list on my user page to add the default without fonts

Is the regular expression correct to find and replace? "<ref>"? ^ * \ <* ref * \> -------> \ n {{Unreferenced}}. Elilopes (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edward de Vere & Oxfordians

AN OPEN LETTER TO WIKIPEDIA: If you consider yourself to be a fair and balanced continuum then why do you forbid researchers, historians and people who may know more than your editorial staff (which is evident from their own LACK of research and reading) to make changes to the Oxfordian site ~ I thought anyone within reason who was knowledgeable on the topic could make additions or edit information they find false. On that site most if it is, untrue -- and it is time you let people who know better correct all the errors and lies. You are operating under false pretexts and I would imagine there is some legality involved. You can't just play god because you want to pass judgment on something you don't understand.

    When I was recently at the Folger Library I learned they had hidden Edward de Vere's Geneva Bible in the vault under lock and key!  And all because Professor Roger Stritmatter had discovered the marginalia contained in that bible was notes for the plays Edward de Vere was writing under the pseudonym Shake-speare. He wrote his doctoral thesis on this. I asked a Folger librarian why they kept it down in the vault when such a great finding should be on display and they told me there's not enough room to display all the things down there! Like you, they play god for their guy, not even considering that perhaps there are other Belief systems out there, people who might want to see that. 
    Stratfordman is like a religion to you people. I hope this breaks wide open in my lifetime and the truth is to finally out, no thanks to you or the Folger lying library!
   Vero Nihil Verias.  There is nothing truer than truth. Children will listen.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.133.127 (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] 
The Shakespeare authorship question is under Discretionary Sanctions due to the multitude of unskilled POV editors, like the commenter above, who simply claims there's a wide-ranging conspiracy off Wikipedia on this topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP editor. You have choosen to write this message on Wikipedia. Wikipedia includes guidance like Wikipedia:No original research, WP:FRINGE, WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:TRUTH for those who wish to edit articles here. But the internet is vast, there are other places to write in other ways. Erat Marlowe. "TaH pagh taHbe". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i Light Marina Bay wiki page

Hi, I am writing this as I have been given 2 warnings that I am not able to update the content as it is "written like an advertisement" when this is not the case. We are the offical event organisers and we just want to update this page with official and correct information of i Light Marina Bay. All the information we are including are all over and thus, they are definitely not for advertising purposes but more for a place where people can find out information from. Is there a way for the information we publish, to stay on the page and not have it taken down almost immediately after? Your help would be much appreciated. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahalkaff (talkcontribs) 06:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the time to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and WP:PAID. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to add short description

Hello,

Over the past few days, I have created a few pages, but I am unsure how to add a description; the short line that describes the subject when searching. For example, when I search Little Mix, it says “British four-piece girl group”. I can’t find a way to do this.

Thanks for any help. Joesimnett (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Joesimnett: See Wikipedia:Short description. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage link on an article

Wikipedia coverage of firearms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm a fairly frequent new page reviewer, but have recently come across an issue I do not know how to address. I recently came across an article which covers Wikipedia's coverage of a controversial topic. The issue is that the article directly links to the userpage of one of our fellow editors, as a source cited by the article explicitly references them. Does a policy exist in regards to such a situation?--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's... No, I'd say neither links to the three editors (or their usernames, in general) or the WP-project should be in the article text. I see them as something close to external links, but I don't know chapter and verse on this. My knee-jerk reaction is that this should be merged somewhere, but I'm not sure where. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the links but left the names until there's more consensus - doesn't seem right to me. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donation requests

Thank you Wikis for your work. As a matter of fact I have recently made a personal donation to you via my work computer. Now I seem to be getting messages asking for more money every time I visit Wikipedia, and I'd rather like you to stop doing that. Thanks. Pip — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.15.2.10 (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The software doesn't know whether you have donated. If you make an account then Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets has the option "Suppress display of fundraiser banners". PrimeHunter (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

173rd airborne, Vicenza,Italy

On the page it states that the 173rd infantry was not reactivated until 2000. I am greatly confused as I was with another unit in support of the 173rd in Vicenza in 1998. I helped the 82 airborne but my brother-in-law was working with the 173rd. How could this be? We each received letters of (?) Thanking us for support and his was signed by 173rd. I think 2/173rd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:B:5:0:0:0:BF (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the archived official history of the unit created by the U.S. Army (you can see it by clicking here) it confirms that the unit was deactivated from 14 January 1972 - 12 June 2000. And the official website of the 173d Airborne Brigade Association (its alumni association) adopts our article here, with those dates of inactivation, as the unit's official history for that organization. (See that by clicking here.) So, I don't know what happened in your instance. I'm going to post a copy of your request over at the article talk page to see if anyone can do anything with it. You might check there from time to time, but there's a fairly good chance you may not ever get an answer. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Onasanya

HI it has changed dramatically over the last couple of months and references have been vandalised.

Example.

Her deep religious beliefs partly stem from a near death experience as a child when she was involved in an accident with a speeding car. Despite being badly injured, Onasanya’s mother failed to take her daughter to hospital and instead took her home and opted to pray.[30]

But the reference is about a court case. Their is no reference about the accedent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.96.120 (talk) 12:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Onasanya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The stated source, here, has a section "Who is Fiona Onasanya?" which mentions the accident. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]