Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

User:Irondome persistently reverts 67.87.189.39 edits in violation of WP:OWNER

Resolved

Re: Panther tank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please, take a look in the Revision history at the Irondome's 10 edits from that on 19:57, 9 November 2015 on. They are mostly reversions of my contributions without any summaries (blanking vandalism). He seems to be out of control maybe filling offended and seeking retribution. He erased my 2nd comment left on his talk page under User_talk:Irondome#Response to .22Panther edits.22.. He thinks he owns the Panther tank page in violation of WP:OWNER. Please, intervene.--67.87.189.39 (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

And I think you should grasp the basic WP concept of WP:BRD which you have flagrantly and contemptuously ignored, despite my repeated attempts to communicate with you, as is evident on your talk page. Do not waste volunteers valuable time. I would rather advise you to get some WP:CLUE on how WP runs. I shall comment no further. Irondome (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

"(BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus" (see WP:BRD). WP:CLUE says: "Disputes are resolved in favor of whoever offers the best reasoning – not in terms of rhetoric", e.g. of the Irondome's User talk:67.87.189.39#Panther edits attempt to communicate. The Irondome's response to 67.87.189.39 of 22:40, 9 November 2015‎ with "see WP:BUGGEROFF" on Special:Contributions/Irondome reveals the Irondome's true intention to communicate in addition to the "adherence" to Wikipedia:Civility. Please, stop the Irondome's tendency to do blanking vandalism inconsistent with WP:OWNER even though preceded by the communication of Irondome's (personal) preferences.--67.87.189.39 (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Apparently Kudpung กุดผึ้ง did not read or understand the constructive edits of 67.87.189.39 and, instead, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง semi-protected Panther tank under the false pretense of including communication in the edit summaries (which, per definition, are communication, as telling something, and very desired), and by doing so, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง abused Wikipedia:Protection policy#Content disputes and thus undermined the removal of logical errors, repetitions, and prolix descriptions from the page's lead, or, in other words, its constructive development.--67.87.189.39 (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I repeat, I made a clear attempt to reach out to you, which you blatantly rebuffed.I did not report you for edit warring (which I should of, on reflection) because I am a patient man.WP:BRD is a critical method of how we work here. Your attempt to cast it aside as a tool which may suit you or not is an example of your arrogant method of interacting on the 'pedia. You have been willfully negligent in even attempting to communicate with both myself and User:BilCat, when engaging. You have made no attempt whatsoever to communicate in a meaningful way with anyone you have engaged with, apart from highly contemptuous edit summaries (which do not count as meaningful communication) which infer that you, and only you, know how to edit, and impugning the efforts of others. I would suggest that ininvolved parties examine your extremely discourteous and dismissive message on my talk page. If you do not "have time" to engage with colleagues on this project, and claim that you do not even wish to communicate with the authors of the lede, then I would suggest this is not the place for you. I suspect your bizarre claims of "ownership" are in fact a form of Psychological projection, in which you, in fact, are suffering from. Anyone who knows me, (and there are many here) knows my method of working, and my great passion for consensus and co-operation in editing. Your attempts to attack a highly respected administrator here are also reprehensible. Adhere strictly to WP:BRD, drop the aggressive tone you seem to habitually adopt, and learn some humility. You ignored repeated requests to refrain from posting on my talkpage. WP:BUGGEROFF was an exasperated final comment on your way of doing things and your whole approach. Change your ways sharpish, is my advice to you, IP. Irondome (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

This forum is not a place to complain about user conduct or content disputes with other users, but a place to seek assistance with content editing matters. For disputes over content see Dispute resolution; for complaints about user conduct either contact an administrator or file your complaint at Administrators noticeboard/incidents after carefully reading and complying with the instructions there and be aware that complaining about another user's conduct always puts your own conduct up for inspection. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

See below Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#How to protect constructive edits by expert unregistered editors against abuse by registered ones .26_administrators.3F.--67.87.189.39 (talk) 08:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Move/redirect help

Resolved

I've done extensive work on the Barbus barbus article, which currently redirects from Common barbel. This should really work the other way around - see Common bream for an example of how it's done with other fishes. I'd like to change this but have no idea how - any help gratefully received! VagrantDarter (talk) 11:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Follow the procedure set out here. If none of the first three bullet points apply, follow the procedure set out below them; if any of them do apply, click on the "discussion process" link in the first sentence of that section and follow that procedure instead. Note that those procedures are currently somewhat backlogged and it may take awhile before someone responds to your request. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks! Much appreciated. VagrantDarter (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

How to protect constructive edits by expert unregistered editors against abuse by registered ones & administrators?

Resolved

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

This is the most blatant piece of trolling I've seen in my 7 years and 1,200 edits on this help forum

Re: Panther tank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Re: The poorly formulated request above titled "User:Irondome persistently reverts 67.87.189.39 edits in violation of WP:OWNER". The question is in the title: How to protect constructive edits by expert unregistered users against abuse by registered ones & administrators? The Panther tank article is only an example. Unregistered users are usually not familiar with the intricacies of the Wikipedia rules or may not know how to respond or how to defend their constructive edits. Some, e.g. some busy experts, may not want to register, but only to fast correct pages without lengthily and time consuming seeking of consensuses on the talk pages, where, sometimes, the level of discussions is quite low or the participants are mostly looking for amusement, e.g. on Panther tank, which lead looks like garbage since at least 2011. Can Wikipedia afford loosing edits by expert unregistered users? 1. In Wikipedia:Reverting, in the sentence "Editors should provide an explanation when reverting", should not the word "should" be replaced by "must"? 2. In Wikipedia:Reverting#Explain reverts, in the sentence "Edit summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting", should not the last clause be replaced by "are obligatory when reverting"? 3. Should not the reverting without an edit summary be not accepted neither processed by Wikipedia at all (e.g. 7 in a row from 20:24 to 20:33, 9 November 2015‎)? 4. In Wikipedia:Protection policy#Content disputes, following the last sentence "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own positions in content disputes", should not be placed a link to the page, e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where inexperienced users can report the administrator abuse (e.g. try to find facts in support of protection of 21:58, 9 November 2015‎ by Kudpung). 5. Should not the Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule be strictly (automatically) executed without exceptions preventing abuse with impunity, (e.g. for 7 in a row from 20:24 to 20:33, 9 November 2015‎)? 6. Should not a single administrator have the power to place Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings/Usage and layout#Single issue warnings without placing Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings/Usage and layout#Single issue notices first (e.g. User talk:67.87.189.39#November 2015) considering that it could be in retribution for an attempt to uncover an abuse (e.g. try to find facts in support of protection of 21:58, 9 November 2015‎ by Kudpung)? If not, should not such a warning include a link to the page, e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where inexperienced users can report the administrator abuse? I believe, those 6 questions are very important for improving quality of many Wikipedia articles. I edited thousands of various Wikipedia articles under different IPs over more than 10 years including establishing structure for Intel Pentium microprocessors in collaboration with very intelligent editors, many unregistered, and doubling the content in just a few days. Nobody was wasting time to reach consensus on the talk pages, but also nobody was repeating the same twice and knew good when saw one. Eventually, everybody understood what everybody else meant and the consensus was being achieved by not being able to write better. That seems to be the most efficient way of editing and Wikipedia should protect it at all cost. That is the content editing matter of this request.--67.87.189.39 (talk) 08:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Timbo's Rule #13 says "Since such a high percentage of anonymous IP editors are vandals, they are all treated like shit. Trying to make serious edits to Wikipedia as an IP editor is like blindly blundering through the countryside on the first day of hunting season dressed like a moose." Now some IPs like 75.108.94.227 (talk · contribs) do a lot of good work, IPs tend to be first on the scene with "breaking news" in an article, but broadly speaking Timbo is correct. From a cursory look at the article, I see two different versions with no obvious evidence as to what one should be the preferred version; it is possible for everybody to be wrong. Stick to discussion on talk page, escalating to dispute resolution if required, and don't play the victim - it doesn't work. Registered editors kick IPs, admins kick editors, arbs kick admins, Jimbo kicks arbs, IPs kick Jimbo .... it's the kick the cat syndrome all over really. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Or stop editing, but the rules evolved not without a reason, so, maybe, they can be further improved especially when an analysis and constructive suggestions how to do it are provided, as effective tools against vandalism caused mostly by IPs might coexist with a stronger protection of valuable contributions also by IPs.--67.87.189.39 (talk) 10:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC) EAR operators please consider this thread as closed. 67.87.189.39 is WP:NOTHERE and runs the risl of being blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC) These would be good questions, but you are not asking them innocently, with what in equity law is called "clean hands". E.g., in your #3 you complain of being reverted without an edit summary. A look at the revision history of Panther tank shows that you were engaged in an edit war with Irondome. In an earlier edit summary (18:27, 7 Nov) he did say "your refusal to take to talk is becoming irritating". The day before that he said (21:22, 8 Nov): "this wording is in line with the supporting citations. please do not revert before discussing at talk, re Curruthers". I suspect he stopped writing edit summaries when he realized you weren't reading them. Not only "unclean hands", but none of this being in the nature of asking for assistance it appears you are in the wrong place. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC) You meant "The day [after] that...", as Nov 8 is after Nov 7 WP:AGF. Please, mind the level of sophistication is this request: (1) I do not recall "irritation" as being a valid reason for the 1st incident of reverting of my edit quoted by you (18:27, 7 Nov)), as Wikipedia:Reverting clearly states to "revert an edit made in good faith only after careful consideration", and quoted by you "irritation" is certainly not an attribute of "careful consideration", but an emotion characterizing a lack of consideration... in violation of WP:OWNER. Additionally, my ample edit summary of the reverted edit is so detailed and specific that only a person acting in bad faith could not consider it constructive, but, instead, an act of the alleged edit war. Also, the edit, to which my edit was reverted to, was also a result of my earlier edits that you failed to look at. (2) How your 2nd quote "this wording is in line with the supporting citations. please do not revert before discussing at talk, re Curruthers" proves the alleged edit war, where it was to explain where the "over-engineered" phrase came from, and not followed by reverting? I subsequently checked and the "over-engineered" phrase was absent. Nobody considers Panther tank to be "over-engineered", but to the contrary - "one of the best", as stated at the beginning of the article's lead. Can you see the inconsistency between "over-engineered" and "one of the best"? Nobody considers "one of the best" to be "over-engineered". Or one or the other. It is formal logic the intro was lacking and desperately needing. (3) You wrote "I suspect [he] stop[ed] writing edit summaries when he realized you weren't reading them". How writing by me the longest edit summaries could raise the suspicion that I did not read them? Where is a shred of logic in that assumption, and since when any (incl. yours) suspicion overrides the policy Help:Edit summary#Always provide an edit summary "especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors"? (4) Considering the above, do you want to provoke me, so I will make a mistake to give Kudpung กุดผึ้ง a reason to block my IP, as he threatens on my talk page and mentions in his response just above yours here? Really? If not, what is the point of your response? 2 + 2 is 4, but when you do not like someone, is not? --67.87.189.39 (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC) There is no point in continuing this discussion. 67.87.189.39's self fulfilling prophesy has worked and has been blocked according to warnings and for wasting our time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC) This is the most disgraceful and grotesque sustained attack that I have ever experienced on Wikipedia. The bizarre and torturous mindset of this individual is perfectly illustrated in the above rants. This has caused me some considerable stress. Only extreme self-control prevented me from responding hours ago. Irondome (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Still Receiving RfC Notifications

As far as I am aware I have unsubscribed from all feedback request lists when I retired. However I am continuing to get notifications of RfC on my talk page which are being sent to me by email. Could someone look into it and see why legobot keeps dropping messages on my talk page? The last three all had policy and guidelines as a common denominator. But I looked again and did not see my name on the list. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You have several options: You could leave messages at

• Wikipedia talk:Feedback request service
• User talk:Legoktm
• User talk:Legobot
• If you don't want any messages at all going to your user page you can ask me or another admin to fully protect it for you.

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung, a user's request to have his or her own talk page protected is not a sufficient rationale to protect the page. User talk pages should only be protected in extreme circumstances. A better solution here is to use {{bots|deny=legobot}} which will prevent the bot from posting to the page while the issue is resolved. SpinningSpark 20:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Adding a reference to External Links

Hi, I wanted to add an External link to Darren Aronofsky wikipedia entry. I entered: Skorin-Kapov,Jadranka (2015) Darren Aronofsky's Films and the Fragility of Hope, Lexington Books. It appeared in preview, but is not showing on the wikipedia page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_Aronofsky Why is this so? Thank you for help! Jadranka Skorin-kapov Hatripet (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

AS far as I can tell, you previewed this but never saved the edit, at least not successfully. No such edit is in the edit history for Darren Aronofsky, and no edit to that page or indeed any article is in your contributions list, Jadranka Skorin-kapov. Perhaps there was an edit conflict that you didn't resolve, or some loss of communication the blocked the save, I can't tell. You would have to redo the edit. Note however that links to amazon.com (or any other commercial vendor) are usually not favored as reference citations, and external links other than references should generally appear only in the "External links" section. See WP:ELYES and WP:ELNO, please. DES ^(talk) 00:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

request for an expert to fix some messes that I have unintentionally created

Please excuse my incompetent efforts to propose deletion of the article Energy transfer. I tried to follow the instructions, but I just seemed to be led around and around in circles, with the sad result that I have made various messes. Please would you very kindly fix them. I wish to propose deletion of the article Energy transfer.Chjoaygame (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Manually registering an AfD can be complex. It's best to use WP:Twinkle which will automatically carry out all the various steps and transclusions. To save time, I have deleted the AfD page you created and started the process for you again on your behalf. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy transfer. As I am only involved in a purely technical capacity regarding format, I will be voting in the discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this. It seems that you have done all that is needed to set in motion the necessary discussion of a proposal to delete the article? Chjoaygame (talk) 06:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

How to present the dates of a person when date of death is not known?

If we know the dates of a person for sure, we write in his article "John Smith (1848-1922)". If I don't know the date of death for sure I can use circa like in "John Smith (1848-c.1922)". But what do I write if I only know that he was still alive in 1922? Circa won't do because he could conceivably have lived for another ten or twenty years. SpinningSpark 20:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Spinningspark, See WP:APPROXDATE where the example "Robert Menli Lyon (1789 – after 1863)" is given as well as other examples relevant to this issue, including some using "fl" for "flourished". DES ^(talk) 23:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Moving archives of Talk:List of YouTubers

A few months ago, the page at List of YouTube personalities was moved to List of YouTubers; the main talk page was moved along with the article, but its archives stayed at their original titles, and they can all be accessed from here. Could someone with administrator tools move all the archives and the archive index to the new title? I could technically do this myself, but since I can't move more than one page at a time nor suppress any redirects, it would make for a messy process. That's why I'm asking for an administrator to do so. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 23:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Google Plus as Publisher on links

Hi! I'm adding references to car articles but the references always have Google Plus as a the Publisher of the link although I get the links from carsguide.co.au What happens is I need to manually remove the Publisher info but what I want to know is why does Google Plus appear at all? How can I prevent it from appearing in the references?