Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

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 .

Need help classifying / deleting spam

Hello, I'm a new editor who came across an edit that appeared to be original research and spam. I reverted the edit but then discovered the user who submitted it had submitted the same edit to a number of pages. I reverted another but want to make sure I'm tagging my edit summary properly before moving on to the rest.

The user's edit history page is Special:Contributions/Pchelpcentre. He has inserted nearly identical wording into multiple technology pages asserting that those technologies are based on the same specific patent. The cited reference is a direct link to the patent itself.

Do I cite original research in my edit comment? Or spam? It doesn't fit neatly into the given definitions of spam (it has the appearance of a patent troll trying to bolster a claim against the companies who own the technology - so sort of "adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced" as per Wikipedia:Spam).

Would it be appropriate to post a warning to the user's talk page? If so, what would be appropriate?

I feel I'm being fairly bold for a new editor, so I don't want to become a source of problems myself. Thanks for any help!

Minstrel1977 (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Minstrel1977. Your summary was fine, but it might be a good idea to post a message on the talk page of each article. There you could mention that WP:NOTRS (A section of WP:RS) says: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." The question of whether the tech mentioned in a particular article is in fact derived from a particular patent is just such an "interpretive claim", and should be supported by a reliable, preferably independent, secondary source to be in an article, much less many articles. It may also be an issue of undue weight. Thanks for drawing attention to this. DES ^(talk) 15:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel, thanks for make a new contributor feel welcome. I cleaned up the unreliably sourced material and commented on Talk as you suggested. Minstrel1977 (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I post an item that just made the news?

Can I post an item that just made the news and has multiple sources? I tried but the editor claims wikipedia "is not a news source and we don't know what if it's true". What I posted is true since it is taken from the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacezg (talk • contribs) 20:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNEWS but our sister project WIKINEWS is. You are welcome to post your news item there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am I seeing discussion or disruption?

Not an issue for Editor assistance. Referred elsewhere

– Editors advised WP:ANI.

Please give me an outside opinion of a discussion: Am I talking with an editor (Saineolai) who is not here to build an encyclopedia? WP:NOTHERE

For example, I asked, "Can we agree to remove general insults ("nincompoop") and general compliments ("eureka moments")?"
Saineolai answered, "I can't see any reason why one should one be given precedence over the other."

As a reality check on our discussion, read our contributions. For example, I contributed a book review from an academic journal (diff). Saineolai contributed an insult from an unsigned blog (diff).

Saineolai was cautioned before but has returned to defend the same unencyclopedic language and sources, insulting a specific writer and his theories about slang words. Scenography (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - we provide tips and help on editing here. Dispute resolution forums are thataway... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest getting a third opinion instead. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 13:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I ask advice without beginning a dispute? First I want to ask a more experienced editor for a general impression, such as "looks resolvable, have patience" or "looks irresoluble, seek help."

Also, in what forum would I report disruption, instead of a dispute about specific points? Scenography (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DR for guidelines on handling disputes. As noted above this really is not the right forum for this discussion. Good luck. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more word: When you look at WP:DR you need to consult the conduct section, not the content section. You're talking about conduct issues and Third Opinion, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and Formal Mediation do not handle conduct issues, only content issues. There's no real forum to get an opinion about conduct issues: it's pretty much a report-it-or-live-with-it situation, but there's no need to fear in reporting it at ANI unless your own conduct has been poor as well (in which case it can BOOMERANG on you) or unless you fail to read and carefully follow the instructions there. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone, thanks for the advice, especially the distinction between content issues and conduct issues. I added the NOTHERE tag to this section. Scenography (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Wolverhampton

An unregistered user is vandalizing this page today. As they do not have a talk page and have not responded to my reference to WP guidelines in the revert summary what is the next step? I do not want to be accused of edit warring if I revert it again. Keomike (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should warn the IP editor against engaging in promotion. See WP:WARN. Part of the problem is that those sorts of edits are hard to classify as vandalism, though they're obviously not correct. Could you argue it's hoax content? Maybe. The real question—whether you could have gotten tagged for 3RR over the additions—I think it's possible, though unlikely. Even if you couldn't legitimately call the addition a hoax, you could potentially argue that since it concerned a living person and was unsourced. But a better idea would be not to breach 3RR, and ask for help elsewhere (such as this board) if you have an editor who insists on adding something to a list article and refuses to discuss it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Biography Page

Hello Sir or Madam:

I am trying to update the following page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilal_M._Ayyub

The information is reliable and referenced to prominent sources. However, as I was editing it, a user kept deleting the content which is sourced through reliable sources.

Should I edit it through talk or edit it directly? Since it has been flagged.

Grateful if you can advise how I can go update appropriately updating the page.

Warm Regards,

Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robmishra (talk • contribs) 00:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you to proceed at Talk:Bilal M. Ayyub given there are concerns regarding promotional content. As an added note, you may not add Amazon links (affiliate or otherwise) to Ayyub's publications, as you did in this edit. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also at User talk:BAyyub, where these issues, including the poster's COI, have been discussed extensively. JohnInDC (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andover Estate

Perhaps a skilled wiki editor could have a look at this article. It is written in a very judgmental tone & liberally peppered with scare quotes. There are no sources to speak of and one section appears to be reproduced in total from a local newspaper (no attribution), apologies if this is the wrong place to post concerns feel free to move this request if needed tks 78.145.23.228 (talk)

I removed several paragraphs of unsourced & POV material. It's still not up to snuff (a lot of it seems to be Synthesis) but at least it's shorter. JohnInDC (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Professor of Politics

I dont know if this is the right place. My question: Is it correct, that the general term Professor of Politics redirects to the individual person Daniel arap Moi? -- Jesi (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's not the right place, but in any case, no, that's not correct and I've asked for speedy deletion of the redirect. I can't think of anything that it should direct to. JohnInDC (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Jesi (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute about changing a title

Resolved

I have created this proposal to change the title of the article Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings. Although it is very obvious that the title of the article is wrong, I have met very strong opposition from several users. These users started by presenting very weak arguments, and when I pointed out those weaknesses, they refused to respond and adopted an uncivil behaviour that violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I have told them about these violations but they have ignored me. Some of these users are very experienced editors, including one who is in the top 3000 list.

I have searched the help for ways of resolving this problem, but I have found so many options that I am overwhelmed. I'd like to get some advice about the best way of solving this problem.

Thank you in advance.

Elendaíl (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The best and most proper way is to file via Requested moves. Other content dispute resolution processes (such as Third Opinion, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and Formal Mediation) will generally not take cases involving article names since RM has a built-in process for resolving disputes involving those issues. Issues involving conduct should be resolved by either talking with an administrator or, after carefully reading and following the instructions, filing at ANI. This noticeboard, however, is not for the purpose of resolving disputes. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Elendaíl (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

proposed deletion (second proposal)

Jordan Schaul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Schaul (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Sir/Madam

A biographical article on me as the subject, which I created is being proposed for deletion for the second time and I feel in some ways that this is a punitive action for admitting that I recently received compensation for two articles I created and for some inadvertent conflict of interest relating to some articles I created or edited. Some other editors shared my sentiment on talk pages.

As a zoologist turned journalist, which includes 4 years writing for NAT GEO online, I feel that I established independent notability. That notability is being called into question. In addition, and I could be wrong, according to Wikipedia policy, journalists don't neccesssarily get secondary coverage, but they can be deemed notable for their contributions to primary resources.

I also noticed that the first attempt to delete this biographical article was unsuccessful and that was before new references were added and the article was changed and updated. Hence, I'm not sure why I am less notable now. Thanks for your consideration and any help you can provideJpop73 (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 2010 AfD ended in Delete, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say the first attempt to delete the article was unsuccessful. I also see no reference to your history as a paid editor. Perhaps a review of your contributions was spurred by that admission, but that incitement would not, on its own, taint the actions of the nominator or any !voters. Anyhow, the relevant notability criterion you're looking for is WP:NAUTHOR. Journalists, and authors more generally, may be deemed notable for their primary works, but there are very clear limitations in those cases, and to my understanding they're primarily intended as gap-fillers to undercut non-notability arguments against pre-industrial authors or those from outside the anglosphere, where the relevant sources necessary to establish notability would be extraordinarily difficult to find, require translation, or would be considered primary sources themselves. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. It was my oversight on the 2010 deletion. My apologies. My paid editor documentation is noted on the respective talk page or user page for the articles I recieved compensation for````. Unfortunately, the deletion discussion page includes comments and recommended deletion notices because I was paid and because of apparent conflict of interests. I understand the editors grievences, but since my page was reviewed and accepted quite awhile ago, I'm not sure why the notability is suddenly called into question, as has the notability for other pages I have created. In addition, one editor who has been mentoring me for two years and has heavily edited my article, suggested that I just request to ban myself from contributed to the biography. I can copy the commentary for you if need be.

It seems, in my opinion that punitive measures are being taken because I accepted compensation recently and not because of any valid policy-based reasons. This has been noted by other editors, but I'm not sure what I can do. thanksJpop73 (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I'm looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Schaul (2nd nomination) and I'm seeing nothing but good, policy-based arguments for deletion based on notability. With all due respect, you would be better served by demonstrating that you pass WP:NAUTHOR rather than arguing ill intent on the part of the nominator or anyone commenting. Just because an article was accepted by one editor doesn't mean that it's about a notable subject. Reasonable people can disagree, and if there's a consensus that the subject isn't notable, that consensus trumps that one editor's opinion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update suggestion

List of countries by system of government- For Your Information for the politically correct editorial volunteers may want to update this info regarding the changes in government i.e.) Miramar, new elected government, Thailand's, Crimea, and a few others that have changed significantly over the past 3/4 yrs. I'm no scholar on political types but tend to always have international news drowning in the background. Also, with young adult children I'm always telling to "Look it up!", in my day it was Britannia enclyclopedia (lol), but I like to know there info in current or Mom (me) has to argue why I'm right and there info is not updated, and they are as hardheaded as I am about who's right, (which is usually Mom). Thanks just trying to keep or future generation passionate about the world around them. Lynda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.57.117 (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit verification help

Hello, I'm seeking a volunteer to verify if 22 edits made by my bot look OK to you. The list can be found here. Thanks for any feedback. -- GreenC 18:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Rogic

Hello,

I have submitted an article a month ago and other users provided me feedback about article, what should I correct. I had to add references about the subject, which I did(several news articles) but got no answer. Could you please tell me what can I do to get some information about the status of my submitted article?

Thank you in advance. Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mici quattro (talk • contribs) 10:04, 15 April 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Entry is a copy of mass-posted adds.

I'm sorry to bother you all but I know nothing of wiki editing. However I was doing research on the cyborg distribution and found that the Wikipedia entry for it was almost an exact copy of the fake reviews that are part of a mass advertising campaign that cyborg is running. This wouldn't be so bad if there was even a single source providing evidence of the claims they make. Another serious issue is how biased the entry is. There is no mention of the known downsides to this distribution, for example the slow boot times, the copying of the Kali distro's format, and the incredibly slow download times when using the apt-get update command because of inadequate repository servers.

Cocoshrap (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Cocoshrap[reply]

Thanks. I can't see how this particular distribution of Linux is in any way notable, and have proposed the article's deletion. JohnInDC (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, thank you for handling this so quickly. Have a good day.

Cocoshrap (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Cocoshrap[reply]