Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:17, 5 January 2019

Archives

Previous requests & responses

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by .

Table style to remove large spaces

Resolved

– CThomas³ (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Edward de Vere & Oxfordians

Answered

– CThomas³ (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Answered

– CThomas³ (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) 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]

Realize Your Potential

Realize Your Potential is copyrighted By AMA, USA written by Robert J McKain

The posted Realize your Potential is a copyright violation by a Russian author — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.117.30 (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Realize your potential is about a book published in 1973. McKain's book of the same name was not published until 1978. So the Russian author (Viktor Davidovich Pekelis) was not guilty of copyright violation; or at least, not of violating McKain's copyright. Maproom (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point: titles cannot be copyrighted. (See the excellent speculative fiction novels by Clifford Simak and Jack Finney, both named Time and Again.) --Orange Mike | Talk 03:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox problem

I wrote a draft in my Sandbox (here), but when I saved it, nothing at all shows up -- even something that had been there previously. If I click "Edit", it shows up in the editing window, but I seem unable to save anything so I can see how it shows up. What did I do, and what can I do to correct it? Thanks.--Daveler16 (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the start of your sandbox, there was a comment, looking like this:

<!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->

You must have accidentally edited it to

<!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --

so that the whole draft became part of the comment and did not show up. I've put the ">" back for you. Maproom (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Determining if editor has conflict of interest

I'm sorry if this isnt' the right place to post this. I have only been editing Wikipedia for a few weeks. Here is the problem I am having. I think an editor has undisclosed conflict of interest, but I'm not sure. I have read WP:COI and other articles around the conflict of interest policy, but I'm not sure if the editor has COI or not. This involves possible WP:OUTING of an editor, so I am going to avoid refering to the editor's name or the articles they have edited.

Here is the issue:

John Doe is an editor on Wikipedia. John Doe edits articles related to a UK government project known as project X. Project X was outsourced to Company A. They not declared any relationship to Project X or Company A.

Project X and Company A are very controversial. John Doe has very strong negative feelings about Project X. Almost all of John Doe's edits are on Project X and related articles. They has been involved in editing the Project X article and the Criticisms of Project X article. He has claimed that there were no positive elements of Project X. He has removed POV templates on the Project X article. In my opinion, the articles on Project X and the criticisms of Project X article are very biased. For example, prior to my editing, it used wording such as "company A was forced to reveal that.." or "company A reluctantly implemented...".

The criticisms of Project X article describes a former Company A employee, who blew the whistle on poor practice in Company A while working on Project A. The articles referencing this all came from a national British news organisation. I saw in the references that the former Company A employee who blew the whistle is also called John Doe. I have done a Google search and found numerous media references to John Doe's actions. Company A has also written a public response to John Doe's claims. However, John Doe is not a very well-known person.

However, John Doe the editor has not ever said he is the same person as John Doe the whistle blower from Company A. John Doe's real name is not very uncommon, but not very common either. I am unsure if:

1. John Doe the editor is the same person as John Doe the former Company A employee. 2. John Doe the editor is a different person who has chosen to name their account after John Doe the former Company A employee. 3. John Doe the editor and John Doe the former Company A employee co-incidentally have the same name.

I have two questions.

Firstly, if John Doe the editor is the same person as John Doe the former Company A employee, would there be a conflict of interest? Secondly, based on John Doe the editor sharing their name with John Doe the former Company A employee, along with John Doe's editing pattern, would it be reasonable to assume that John Doe the editor is the same person as John Doe the former Company A employee? CircleGirl (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's one of three things. 1) The editor and the whistleblower are the same person. At the very least the editor should make his personal involvement clear. 2) The editor is not the whistleblower but is sympathetic and has adopted the same name on Wikipedia. This may present username issues, but not potential COI. 3) The editor by chance has the same name and same ideas as the whistleblower. In this case it might be a good idea for them to post something saying, "It's just a coincidence" to lay concerns to rest. Because the editor has signed up using a real name, or what appears to be a real name, there's nothing wrong with simply noting the overlap and asking them about the COI. If their involvement has been generally reported in the media, then they should probably be editing the articles with great caution, and even then only after disclosing their involvement. It wasn't too hard to track down the page in question - I may go and get the ball rolling myself. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editor refuses to allow corrections to factually inaccurate information - not sure how to proceed

Numerous Wikipedia articles on Canadian Coast Guard ships are referencing an incorrect convention for identifying vessel classes. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVintageCCG&type=revision&diff=874948554&oldid=874930753

The Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) lists its vessel classes in its CG Operations Order 103.00 (attached below) but somebody has identified the vessel classes by naming them for the first ship in that class e.g. a "Martha L Black"-class ship rather than a "High Endurance Multi-Task Vessel HEMTV" as named in the published CCG policy. That naming convention is common in naval fleets but is not utilized by the CCG. This is not a subjective description I am seeking to correct but a factual inaccuracy that will confuse anyone who is seeking to understand the vessel classes of the CCG. Similar errors have been published on related Wikipedia articles describing other vessel classes of the CCG.

I edited the article but my edits were reverted by Llammakey who accused me of vandalism, conflict of interest and unconstructive edits. I provided an explanation including the authoritative source link, but the editor cited a (presumably mistaken) secondary source as taking precedence. The authoritative source is here: http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/e0013696 and here: https://inter-j01.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fdat/vessels/vessel-details/84

I am seeking assistance in understanding the best means of correcting these inaccuracies. Thanks! VintageCCG (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Kids of Tehran

The page is being edited and its contents are being removed by users. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Kids_of_Tehran — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Kamani1980 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a lot of COI editing there, along with possible sock puppetry. Have you tried the article Talk page? JohnInDC (talk) 14:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Archuleta article

I understand probably why my addition was deleted, and there is tons of thousands (more like billions) of articles through this site...but This page needs a lot of updating. I would just do it, but I'm having problems locating a picture that I can't get permission from. One from my update that was deleted was actually a personal picture taken with my phone. If you can have someone just do the research, it shouldn't get to where this page is up to date. Because it's definitely not. Here's my deleted update. The hyperlink is connected to the photo; this photo does have a creative commons license, I'm just not sure which one or how to get it to meet your standards. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Archuleta&oldid=875399193 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktrogue (talk • contribs) 02:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC) --Ktrogue (talk) 02:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

poorly framed misogynist racist historical joke in 2 wikipedia bios

A letter Kerr wrote to Pembroke is quoted in both bios. Taken in context it's a clever joke in a private letter between two men in a different era than ours living through extraordinarily trying times. It's also off-color; misogynist; and racist. It's jarring to find it in Wikipedia, particularly in the Pembroke bio where it is simply described as "an amusing letter"

It would be great if someone with higher editing privileges/insights could take a look and decide whether it needs to come out or whether it needs more framing. IMHO it just doesn't belong here at all. It's a minor anecdote that doesn't add value or insight. (Certainly not in the Pembroke bio.) But rather than remove it I'm flagging it here for review.

FYI: I did try to post this query on the Talk pages for the articles, but coudn't figure out how. Apologies.

Thanks, Myrmidon2000 (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)myrmidon2000[reply]

I need assistance from a Senior Editor

I am the acknowledged international scholar (PhD on the artist Florine Stettheimer from Yale Univeristy, co-curator of her first museum retrospective at the Whitney Museum since her death in 1946, author of the only extent, factual biography on the artist, author of numerous books and articles on her, quoted extensively by every subsequent major book/catalog/article on her and her work.)

When I read the Wikipedia article on Stettheimer about six months ago, I saw there were a number of false statements, inaccuracies, and exaggerations, that are among the many that have been promoted over the years in the text. I spent several hours re-writing a great deal of the text in order to make it factually accurate, and to provide a great deal more information. I also quoted extensively, and referenced my biography of the artist from 1995 (Yale Press.)

The "editor" "Dreamy Jazz" DELETED all of my remarks, saying I did not quote "acknowledged sources" although all my sources are listed on any search for Florine Stettheimer bibliography or library, and I had to register a "dispute" on Wikipedia to get SOME of the major information and inaccuracies I corrected put back in the Wikipedia Florine Stettheimer entry.

However, when I went to look at the entry the other day, a number of false facts and inaccuracies remain. I therefore spent another 3 hours! adding a great deal more information about her schooling, her early work, many of her most important paintings, and took out ridiculous information such as that she wanted her work "buried with her" when she died when, in fact, she wanted all her paintings and work donated to a museum as a single collection which is what she specifically informed her family to whom she left her work in her will. I know, as I spoke in person several times to her lawyer Joseph Solomon while he was still alive in the 1990s.

I saved all of my additions to the Florine Stettheimer entry which was now very extensive and helpful to anyone interested in learning about the artist. However the next day, "Dreamy Jazz" had deleted it ALL AGAIN.

I would greatly appreciate someone looking over all of my additions to the text, judging what I added, and please either adding them back, or letting me know WHY they were deleted. Thank you. Barbara Bloemink, PhD Barbarabloemink (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]