Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Closeout (sale)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 08:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This needs sources but reliable. I wonder if this meets WP:GNG. --George Ho (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If you think that an article does not meet the notability guidelines then you can follow the procedures listed at WP:FAILN. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't under mentorship agreements. Under those agreements, I need approval from one of my mentors. Without approval, I can't nominate it for deletion. I was hoping that you or anyone else would fix this article to prove the topic's notability. --George Ho (talk) 05:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you find the sources? Jezhotwells (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Delegation, or passing the buck? — GabeMc (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping either of you are interested in this topic. --George Ho (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

wikipedia policy violations/Yogi Bhajan user talk

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yogi Bhajan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am new to Wikipedia. I don't want to get in trouble, so I am posting here. A few days ago at the Wikipedia YOGI BHAJAN user page. I posted a lengthy complaint citing each of the multiple Wikipedia policy violations cited in the Wikipedia flag at the page top. I HAVE YET TO RECEIVE A RESPONSE. My main concern is I feel the editor, Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa, a Yogi Bhajan follower and 3HO member, is treating the page as his personal website, cost free at Wikipedia expense. He is the major, if not, the sole contributor to the page,and he undos any post not to his liking, fudging Wikipedia policies. If you read the court affidavit I submitted on the user page of an expert witness, the testimony states the 3HO organization is a CULT. IT SEEMS AS IF THIS 3HO CULT CANCER IS INFESTING WIKIPEDIA WITH MULTIPLE PAGES. Please look at the Wikipedia page concerning Miri Piri Academy, a 3HO organization, written as an advertisement, against Wikipedia policy. ' Without getting into trouble, can I undo all the text on the Yogi Bhajan page with "sources affiliated with the subject", i.e. citations from 3HO organizations or 3HO members?' Seems Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa is also very active on the Wikipedia 3HO page also. And there is also the Akal Security, and Yogi Tea pages, more 3HO organizations. Just found the Wikipedia pages for the following 3HO members and Yogi Bhajan followers: Gurumukh, Dharma Singh Khalsa, Hari Jiwan Singh Khalsa, Singh Kaur, and Satkirm Kaur Kaur Khalsa, Hari Jiwan Singh Khalsa, Snatam Kaur, etc.. The Yogi Bhajan page has a serious neutrality issue. Please advise. Respectfully Submitted, Daan Singh Daan singh (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC) April 24, 2012

You may not get an instant response at an article talk page as other edits may have other real life things to do. Might I suggest that you concisely state your concerns as at present you post at Talk:Harbhajan Singh Yogi looks like a bit of a rant and will likely be ignored by others. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It might also help if you don't shout. It's rude, and people tend to ignore you if you are shouting.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 02:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

David Ricardo

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not the person to do it. I am a very old man. But the entry on David Ricardo is very inadequate.

Ricardo is surely one of the half dozen most important economists who ever lived. He was the primary founder of the English Classical School of Economics, and through that of the entire orthodox, Anglo- American economic tradition of the last two centuries, from Ricardo to John Stuart Mill, to Alfred Marshall, to the 20th Century explosion of professional economics, with addition of macroeconomics in what Paul Samuelson, the greatest economist since Keynes, called "the neo-classical synthesis."

Find someone to do a good job on Ricardo. Suggestion: Go to the University of Chicago graduate school.

A good entry on "The Bullion Controversy" would be in order. I could send you a paper that's too long, if you could find someone to edit it down to Wikipedia length.Gunnj (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)John M. Gunn Lewis Whitaker Adams Professor of Economics, Emeritus Washington and Lee University

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Someguy1221 (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Do we have policy for notability of list-articles?

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Do we currently have a notability policy for list articles? For example the following articles are all recently created pages (and have flaws in addition to lack of notability):

• 2012 Time 100 which might also be a copyright violation (since it duplicates a list produced by Time magazine and is single-sourced).

• What about List of fictional mustelids - not exactly an important topic in literature.

These seem somewhat suspect to me and might have been better implemented as a category. Do we have any relevant policy or guidance that relates to this kind of article? --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The Time 100 is a special case as wholesale inclusion is a copyvio as determined by the Foundation lawyers - it is the case because there is a creative decision used to select the inclusion in this list and thus is not like factual data which can't be copyrighted. So those should be quickly cleansed (if that means deletion, that too). An exception here is when we've gotten permission to reprint (the AFI various lists have ORTS backing).

For lists in general, some guidance is provided by WP:N#Stand-alone_lists, in that we would like that the topic of the list be notable. But we've tried before to establish an overarcing list notability aspect but it's difficult to assert. So some lists like the fictional mustelids, we have no advice - either direction - whether its notable or not. --MASEM (t) 21:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

An editor has already nominated the 2012 article for deletion. I note that the are articles for the preceding years which suffer from much the same problem (substantially duplicating a copyrighted list), but with an intro that does not appear to be an obvious cut & paste. In my opinion 2006 Time 100 is probably also a copyright violation. Do you agree? --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Those are two different kinds of articles that you link to above. The first is about a real world list, and so completely apart from any copyright issue, it is proper to ask whether the Time 100 is itself a notable subject just as any other; the fact that the article's subject is a list does not change this (see also Nixon's Enemies List, AFI 100 Years... series, etc., for other articles about lists).

The second is an indexing or navigational list, i.e., a list of Wikipedia article topics or subtopics; it is not about any real world list of fictional mustelids but is instead merely uses a list format. The list's entries are themselves limited to notable subjects, whether the characters themselves merit standalone articles or at least the works of fiction that depict them. For these kinds of lists, there is no one single way to evaluate their validity. Look to WP:CLN, WP:LISTPURP, WP:SALAT, and WP:LISTN for relevant guidelines. postdlf (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Lists, like all articles, should be about notable subjects. Ideally the list itself should be notable, which should be easy to establish if the list was published in a major magazine. As a strong deletionist when it comes to lists, I think the TIME 100 list is clearly notable for inclusion as one of the most well-known and respected magazine lists. The fictional mustelids list, on the other hand, is listcruft; this type of list is a relic from our overly permissive state 4 or 5 years ago, where listing random information was freely accepted alongside encyclopedic writing. ThemFromSpace 23:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Heroes

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Heroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There are 40 transclusions of this template; I have replaced this template with Template:WikiProject Television because WP:HEROES is now a task force. What can I do: either replace it more times or turn it into a redirect of Template:WikiProject Television? --George Ho (talk) 06:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if there are any guidelines on this, but I would have thought it was perfectly ok as it is. Wikiproject Heroes redirects to the task force so anyone clicking through the template will go to the right place. Looking through the featured articles of the Los Angeles task force, they handle it by linking to both in the template. See Aliso Creek (Orange County) for instance. SpinningSpark 12:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Linda Thompson (actress)

I have (today) read incorrect info on 2-3 wiki profiles. RE: LINDA THOMPSON. I grew up with her and entered many of the same beauty pageants as she. Check the record splease! ALL the winners of the Tennessee pageants are listed w/pics. Please correct erroneous info found on her wiki page; her son (Brody's page) and several other family members. It is so wrong to see you put forth such outright lies. Makes me question all your wiki profiles to see this.

Seems to me that fact checking should be paramount in this venue!!

As you say:: Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources. Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view.

My info is 100% verifiable. Check the web. You have posted and held out as fact lies. I was there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.117.13 (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The official pageant website lists Ms. Thompson as the third place finalist in 1970. If you have reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia (click that link), which shows that information to be incorrect then please feel to state them and request a change by leaving a note on the primary article talk page, with a note saying where it is also incorrect. Wikipedia policy prohibits your personal recollections and testimony from being used for that purpose, however. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Artist Manager Help Updating Artist Page

Hi, We manage country group Rascal Flatts. I updated Joe Don Rooney's Wikipedia page yesterday with new photo and additional biography information and sourced everything and had the rights to post the photos. I see today that all my changes have been deleted and do not know why. Can you please tell me why and how I can update and make the updates stay?

Thanks JDR1234 (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, you have a conflict of interest here. Your addition of facebook and twitter links has been reverted as these are not reliable sources. The image you added is probably not copyright free unless you are the photographer. You will need to provide evidence of its licensing to WP:OTRS, as the source is a website with a prominent copyright notice. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I get too many warning

1. Requesting permission to ignore deltalk as I want to put the past in the.....past.--Deathlaser :  Chat  19:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm unsure what you mean. If you want to avoid certain types of notifications on your user talk page then see {{Bots}}. Does that help? PrimeHunter (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

He must mean WP:DELTALK which is an injunction against administrators deleting user talk pages (because conversation history would be lost). There is no problem with users removing or archiving unwanted material though, it's done all the time and you don't need anyone's permission. SpinningSpark 00:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Advice

I am looking for an advice, for a problem what I personally think is inappropriate. I will try to explain it as short and clear as possible. I know this isn`t discussed on the talk page but since there isn`t an initiative (yet) by the changing party I am really asking for advice on this matter and what Wiki policies states in this case.

I don`t think that adding wikiProject country Y is appropriate to add to already existing wikiProject country X. I have 2 examples for this,

• Târgu Mureș, a city in Romania (recently added WP:HU).
• Komárno, a city in Slovakia (recently added WP:HU).

It is recently added to an already existing WikiProject (Romania,Slovakia) WikiProject Hungary what I believe to be inappropriate because if we start to do so adding this tags everywhere is losing it`s purpose. If we add other wiki projects, as that we can add almost to every article other wikiProjects(country X). Ex: We could add to almost whole Eastern Europe WP:TR(Ottoman Empire) on the same basis but there isn`t such attempts.

Also I noticed that is against general practice on Wikipedia, where one article contains WikiProject only of that country, unless it is a special case ( autonomous province, cultural center for that minority, or similar).

Diff of the problem I am talking about: 1, 2 and 3.

I am asking for advice is it appropriate to add other WikiProjects country X to places in other countries where there is no special case ( autonomous province, cultural center for that minority, or similar) present. Thanks in advance. Adrian (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think in the case of Târgu Mureș, for example, this is a city which historically was part of Greater Hungary, with an important role in the history of Greater Hungary, even though most of the population was not Magyar. It is by no means unprecedented for an article to be under quite a few differing projects, and no harm is done by it. Perhaps putting Târgu Mureș under WikiProject Hungary will inspire one of our editors who specializes in early modern Hungarian history to improve our coverage of Târgu Mureș in the context of Balkan history! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok for Târgu Mureș since it had an important role, but what about Komárno? I am afraid that this kind of inclusion could start some problems because this can be sensitive if we start to add this tags all over Wikipedia. Adrian (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe this could cause many problems since it can be sensitive if we start to include this banners other than where it should be. If we include WikiProject Hu in this places, what is stoping us to add wikiProject SK to 90% of places in Hungary? Or Wiki Hu to all Slovakia? Or Wiki Austria to 5 current countries? I don`t think this is a good idea. Adrian (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the thing to do is drop a note to Wikiproject Hungary and ask if they think Komárno is within their scope. If it is not then remove the tag, if it is, I am sure they will tell you why. SpinningSpark 01:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Adrian (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not sure that I am posting this in the proper place, but I think that some help is needed on the talk page for WikiProject Comics. One user in particular David A has left several comments there, which seem completely unrelated to the subject matter being discussed. When asked for clarification by other editors, he then deletes the comments, and uses edit summaries to carry on debates and express opinions, which also seem completely unrelated. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, but I'm at a loss as to what can be said, so that this user can actively participate in the discussion, instead of just thoroughly confusing everybody. Fortdj33 (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes you do have a problem there. With matters involving longterm contributors that are likely to involve "health issues", bringing things up on the Incidents noticeboard (AN/I) can make things worse—of course it depends on who you get responding. Contact the arbitatration committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org (it may also be reached through the "Email this user" feature at "User:Arbitration Committee") and raise the matter with them. They will look at the issue and be able to deal with it discreetly if need be. If they decide they wish to send it back to AN/I that's fine.  --92.6.211.228 (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

A bad start

Am I having a bad start, or am I like any other newbie. Is there any newbie who have had a worse start then me?--Deathlaser :  Chat  14:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

We have a consensus that getting a start here can be tough. I got slapped down (properly) for a copyright violation, got chided for incivil language, and got accused of COI violations; and now I'm an admin. This project keeps getting bigger and bigger, and as we acquire more street cred we also have acquired more guidelines, more triplines and traps and taboos. It's part of the ever dreaded "learning experience"; and I encourage you to hang in: it gets better (or at least easier). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I see I am not the only one. Despite a bad start, you are admin! Everyone forgave you and you never gave them awards as compensation. Didn't anyone oppose you at Rfa? I have voted in many Rfa's and everyone uses such tiny things as excuses to oppose! Compared to that half-a-dozen articles of mine getting deleted is major. Can I have copy of your Rfa.--Deathlaser :  Chat  19:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Orangemike. As you can see, I had some serious opposes, and some neutrals; it was by no means a WP:SNOW situation. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Heroes task force

Now WP:WikiProject Heroes is a task force of Television Project. This page needs a makeover. --George Ho (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

External link to "Reported Attack Page!"

In Vikarabad, there is a <ref> link to [1], and in Firefox, clicking on this link brings up a Reported Attack Page warning, on which, clicking on "Why was this page blocked?" it says that there is a Google-provided advisory saying, "Of the 3 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 2 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent."

Is there an {{unsafe link}} template to use? Does Wikipedia have any standard way of dealing with this sort of thing? —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Attack sites should be removed immediately, which I have now done, per WP:ELNO#EL3. Don't tag and leave for some unsuspecting reader to find out the hard way. SpinningSpark 09:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Need help at editing Infoboxes

I wish to add free label to an article's infobox here Central National Herbarium. However, they don't show up. Where is the problem? and also kindly suggest some constructive ideas. Vivek Rai (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look like Template:Infobox museum supports free labels. You may get more help at WP:HELPDESK Jezhotwells (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Massive Updates to Airline Deregulation article to address "Bias".

Resolved

 – Editor removed tag following their improvements. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Airline deregulation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I made massive updates and editing changes to this article to address the "neutrality" issues. it had been leaning the article heavily to the "conservative", "privatization" side. Hope you like the changes and agree they are assets to the article, thereby removing the "bias warning".

Thanks, --XB70Valyrie (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And what do you want us to do here? Jezhotwells (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

S/he wanted you to look at the article and judge if it's sufficiently neutral to remove the POV tag. That's how I read it. Since posting this they've today removed the tag themself. Thus, resolved. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)