Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

How many days should we wait for before removing uncited contents?

Resolved

After adding {{Citation needed}} after uncited contents, how many days should we wait for before removing those contents if no one adds reliable sources? --Matt Smith (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

This is in reference to Talk:Republic_of_Formosa#Population_in_infobox. My own interpretation is that for any long time stable information (as long as it is not a BLP), we add cn tags and let it stay for a month or so. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

See Template:Citation needed#How to respond to this tag which says just that, and then remove only if you think it is not correct. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Replying to an editor who is going to delete a page

How do I write a reply to an editor who has sent me a message, please?

From Pacdoc I wish to reply to Robert McLenon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacdoc (talk • contribs) 23:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Pacdoc. The page you created was inappropriate as an article for many many reasons. I would highly recommend you follow the tutorial at Wikipedia:Articles for creation before you try again, and select the option to create a draft article. This will allow you to work on the page and get feedback from experienced editors. Simply putting something right into mainspace as you did is a recipe for deletion, when you have so little experience with Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Tag on page pending review

Chi Sigma Xi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The article for Chi Sigma Xi has had a tag saying "This article, Chi Sigma Xi, has recently been created via the Articles for creation process. The reviewer is in the process of closing the request, and this tag should be removed soon." for a while. What exactly is it waiting on and roughly how long is "soon"? Does this mean someone is currently working on it?

Erin Pantone (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, you're the one who put the tag there, whether you intended to or not, so you can remove it if you'd like. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Addition to Category:Spanish LGBT-related films - Wikipedia

Resolved

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Spanish_LGBT-related_films

A film that is missing from the list is the magnificent Las Cosas del Querer:

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_cosas_del_querer

Thank you

00:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Eleutherius1 (talk)

For a film to appear in that list, it must have an article written about it in the English Wikipedia because that's not a list of films but a list of articles about films. The Spanish Wikipedia article cannot be merely translated and copied over because it has no reliable sources as defined by English Wikipedia cited, though it could be used as a base if such sources were added. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Recalling of written pages

Resolved

Hi i was pondering how do I recall pages that I have already created the following content so that I could be able to get to continue to add content and have well referenced pages with reliable information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Applieqwerty (talk • contribs) 20:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

At the end of your signature, just above, click "contribs" and you'll get a list of all the edits that you've made. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Disagreement

Resolved

Hi, can somebody please come check out the Broadcast/Reception page of BBc Sherlock's The Final Problem? somebody deleted the section I wrote about accusations of misogyny and homophobia and we can't seem to reach an agreement. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.37.113 (talk) 11:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

This page is not for seeking dispute resolution; see here for available dispute resolution procedures. Whichever you choose, be sure to thoroughly read and follow its instructions before making a request. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

James Harden Article: Position is listed as shooting guard, should be listed as point guard

Resolved

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Harden

He played shooting guard most of his career, but he plays the point guard now. He should either be listed as Shooting Guard/Point Guard, or Point Guard. Point Guard is probably more appropriate and it should be cited that he played shooting guard from 2009 to 2016, at which point he transitioned into the Point Guard position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adman1999 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and anyone includes you. If you believe a change is needed, and you can include a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia then make the change yourself. If you do not care to do so, then request the change on the article talk page. If you cannot make the edit yourself (because the page is locked) or should not make the edit yourself (because you have a conflict of interest), use the procedure here, but that process should not be used except in those two cases. Realize that, however made, edit requests may draw no response for days to weeks or, in some cases, ever, especially if no one else thinks the edit should be made. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Removed Link

I don't know if this is the correct place to ask, if not please email me and let me know where/who I need to go to. Anyway, at the risk of being in the wrong place, here goes. I write about Texas History and Wikipedia has used some of my published work in some pages. One I know of is titled "Runaway Scrape". I went there recently and saw that the link to my work has been removed. I'd like to ask why this was removed and by whom? What was the motivation? I truly don't see any information that was added by replacing my work. I was not the one who initiated the usage of my work but I was gratified by the inclusion of my input into the subject matter. This subject means a lot to me personally and it kind of perturbs me that my efforts have been systematically removed, this being the most recent. I'd like to express my thanks to anyone that can offer any information about this. Cicuye (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

If you go here you can see every edit ever made to Runaway Scrape. It may be tedious, but you can go back to a version where your work is cited and then work forward until you find the edit that removed it. The editor who did it will be identified and, maybe, a reason for doing so (unfortunately some reasons may be obvious to experienced editors which may not be obvious to you). Whatever the reason, you should never replace (or place) any references to your own work because you have a clear conflict of interest under Wikipedia's policies. If you believe that the edit was improper, you may request a replacement on the article talk page following the procedure set out at WP:ER. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Resolved

Being new to Wikipedia and physically disabled, I found your entry on Ed Roberts to be most informative and helpful. Just felt the need to let someone know this. Thanks.

07:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)2602:306:3077:4FF0:6920:9672:AB42:3B04 (talk)

You're very welcome. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Help

Resolved

Hi. I'm seeking a review of this page but have not managed this yet. Can someone help? Thanks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Euroclearable_(finance)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegengenie (talk • contribs) 14:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC) 

Make this request at WP:AFCHD. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Tablurizing the airlines section in article Premium Economy

Premium economy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Because the premium economy class offered by different airlines varies greatly in service and seat quality being offered, it have been proposed (around 10 years ago) to tablurize the section in the article in order to reflect what sort of premium economy product are each airline providing to help give reader a concept of which airline offer a premium economy product that is close to business class and which airline offer a premium economy product that is just a economy class with little addition. However no efforts have been made to tabularize the section despites editors agreed to do so, and I have also tried to tabularize it but I am a bit unsure about how should i turn the section into tabular format. Can anyone help tabularizing the section? C933103 (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

If someone else wishes to provide you with that assistance, they are free to do so but I will not. In my opinion, the section should not exist at all even in its current form due to NOTDIR and, thus, its inclusion also gives it undue weight especially in light of its length in comparison to the rest of the article. To change it into a table would give it even more prominence and make it even more inappropriate. (And none of that is to mention that it's largely unsourced and will perpetually be one of those lists which is virtually always incorrect and out of date, thus making it inappropriate for an encyclopedia which is only supposed to be including information of enduring importance. But all of that is irrelevant since it shouldn't be here in the first place.) I'm not going to jump over and delete it, but neither can I in good conscience help you put it into a table. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand why it might seem like a directory, but in my opinion it is necessary to illustrate the varieties in between different services under the same name with info from each airlines to disambiguating their service. If there is a generally accepted way to categorize those services into different category like what have been done on other air travel class articles then that would be great, but the current varieties exists for the service between different airlines are far greater than those other examples and there are also no universal region-based or distance-based standard for the service which is unlike other similar articles, thus I think a table would be the best to illustrate the difference within the travel class. It would also be like to replace the section with description and list of airlibes providing different types of premium economy service but there are no universally accepted way to categorize them and much less to find an unuversally accepted aource to cite the categorization, which is why I think a table would suit the article more at the current stage. At least it would be far more easier to cite services provide by different airlines in numbers and also far less prone to promotional tone if the list is mostly numbers. C933103 (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Editing a template to convert year-number to the number of the century

Resolved

Template:M1YearInTopic (edit | [[Talk:Template:M1YearInTopic|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Template:M1YearInTopic (no calendar) (edit | [[Talk:Template:M1YearInTopic (no calendar)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I wish to have Template:M1YearInTopic and/or Template:M1YearInTopic (no calendar) fixed to show different lists, lists by century instead of lists that do not exist.

• Instead of pointing to List of state leaders in 500 it should link to List of state leaders in the 5th century
• Instead of pointing to List of sovereign states in 500 it should link to List of political entities in the 5th century
• It should also link to List of 5th-century religious leaders.

Do you know how to code such fixes? Is there a page somewhere on Wikipedia to ask for help coding a detailed template?

To make this work, the template has to take the year/page-name and convert it to the number for the century (476 is the 5th century). To make matters worse, centuries 1, 2, and 3 have to have a way to handle the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in the page name (rather than the "th" used for centuries 4 through 10. As you might be able to tell, Template:M1YearInTopic is design to be used for the years 1 AD to 1000 AD. tahc ^chat 04:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Per User talk:Frietjes#Template:M1 year in topic and/or Template:M1YearInTopic (no calendar), this issue is now fixed. tahc ^chat 17:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth (Biblical Figure)

Resolved

in this article on St Elizabeth, mother of St John the Baptist, i believe you have placed an image of a statue of St Elizabeth of Hungary (Lake Superior, Wisconsin) if you would be so kind as to review and amend if necessary

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:581:C300:7F7F:C038:FC3C:78A0:1F16 (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be right, but I'm not sufficiently certain to go to bat for the change. I'm going to leave a note on the article talk page and the image talk page to allow someone else to sort it out. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Davies_(Welsh_politician

David_Davies_(Welsh_politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There appears to be vandalism on the page, where an editor has repeatedly removed the 'Controversies' section without sufficient justification.

Notes have been made in Talk:David Davies (Welsh politician) but the editor in question has not responded.

Most recently, the whole of the Controversies section was deleted with the reason, "(→‎Controversies: BLP violation using Twitter and blogs as reference sources)" In the case of the Twitter source, one of them was a primary source, i.e. from Davies' Twitter account, the other Twitter source was a tweet by a prominent British MP in reaction to Davies' original tweet. Other sources include Independent Television (ITV), The New Statesman, Christian Voice, (who actually appear to support Davies' views), Davies' own website, The Guardian, An article by a prominent professsor of law, a Huffington Post article, The Daily Telegraph and The Independent. The only sources which might give cause for concern are: www.totalpolitics.com and ukhumanrightsblog.com. These last two are perhaps not up to Wikipedia's standard.

RightSaidFred (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)RightSaidFred