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 .

1982 North Sea helicopter crash was not notable enough to put on Wikipedia???

On 14th September 1982 my husband along with 5 other crew members all under the age of 50 were killed when their Bell 212 helicopter crashed into the North Sea as they were en route to attend an injured man aboard the Baffin Seal cargo ship. Why on earth was this tragedy not notable enough to be commented on your website??

Paula Hagan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.98.161 (talk) 08:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@78.144.98.161:, I apologize that no other editor has yet gotten back to you. Wikipedia is a mostly voluntary project and there are no representatives of the site's owners assigned to monitor this board and provide responses. So volunteers like myself answer questions like yours when we feel we can. To answer your question, I need to first point out that the word "notability" has a slightly different definition here than it does in normal English usage. The definition we use has a three-part test: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject... it is notable. This means that neither Wikipedia nor its individual editors are the ones that decide who "deserves" and who doesn't "deserve" an article, since that requires inherently subjective criteria. We instead look to other sources to determine notability. In the case of the crash you mention, the age of the event does make it somewhat difficult to find sources. That said, any death in the North Sea oil industry is required to be reported, so the Scottish Government did list the event in their reports. Also, it was investigated by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch and the principal investigator gave a presentation on the investigation at a seminar. These are certainly enough to create a short article, at least. If no other editor (including yourself) wishes to create the article, I may do that myself in the near future. I hope this helps. Thank you for your question. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term vandalism caused by IPs in several pages

I believe that someone has been using several IPs to vandalise pages such as Han Chinese, Chinese people and Han Taiwanese, as showned on the history pages: [1][2][3][4]. This situation has been lasting for a long time and I would like to know if there is any better solution other than being a 24 hours surveillance camera.--No1lovesu (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Goguryeo:_Requesting_quick_assistance. It's been alleged there that the IP's you're encountering are the same person as was indefinitely blocked in that discussion. If that identical insertion, or one close to it, continues to be made through IP addresses, make a sockpuppet report at SPI and some IP blocks or rangeblocks may be given. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no need to do that. The SPI report has already been made: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richeaglenoble. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --No1lovesu (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old Kilpatrick, Notable People.

Resolved

An allegedly notable person in the Old Kilpatrick Wiki is named as Scott Cuthbertson, a football player? He doesn't come from Old Kilpatrick or live there, why is his history presented on this wiki? It clearly states that he was born in Alexandria? This seems like free advertising on a Village page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.176.228 (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that it was simply an oversight and a good faith edit. It has been removed pending a citation with a reliable source to back the claim. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgette Andersen

@Paul Benjamin Austin:, I took a look and you are right to be concerned due to only one reference to a reliable source and that is only to a parenthetical sentence fragment. The best place to continue this conversation is probably on the article talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crohn's Disease misleading alternative therapies

The Crohn's Disease "alternative Medicine" section is misleading in both content and tone, insinuating pseudoscientific therapies, such as homeopathy, are viable options and hold potential, omitting their unproven, disproven, or potentially harmful nature. This is in contradiction to the scientific and clinical medicine consensus, and should be edited to acknowledge the lack of efficacy and safety in the literature to prevent patients using this misinformed information. The objective position of wikipedia acknowledges that, for instance, homeopathy is a scientifically implausible mechanism and acupuncture has repeatedly been shown to be no better than placebo or sham in high quality studies, therefore I don't see it's use on the Crohn's page and question the motive of the editor that wrote it in. I've edited it but someone reverses it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crohn's_disease#Alternative_medicine

I fail to see the insinuation to which you refer. The questionable nature of those remedies is fully addressed in their respective linked articles and would not seem to need to be repeated in this article.
That's just my opinion, however. If you wish to pursue this matter further or bring attention to it, the proper place to do that is to raise it on the article talk page. If discussion there does not result in a resolution, consider dispute resolution (or, if no one will discuss but continue to revert your edits, consider the recommendations made at DISCFAIL). Note that dispute resolution will not be available until the matter has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page.
Always sign your talk page posts and noticeboard posts (such as this one) with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe my edits are being reverted without good cause

Hi, I made several good faith edits on Cellectis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) based on what seem to me legitimate sources according to Wikipedia standards, (I just read most of the editor assistance FAQ) to have them reverted in their entirety, without regard to each individual edit, by two editors who seem overly hostile to me. I requested a discussion and a collaborative effort on the Talk page, but was answered with insults and threats. Even when I pointed out that two of the numbers sited in the article were wrong, and I changed the figures to the correct ones according to the sources that the belligerent editors accept themselves, my edits were reverted. I was 'dissed' because I was using an IP user, so I opened a new user account, and I was also accused of being a paid editor. It is true that I do not have many edits behind me, and now that I have a user name, I seem really like a brand new user, but I still think my edits were legitimate, and I am certainly ready to discuss them in a civilized fashion. I hope you can help with this. Thanks so much. Frannyapplebaum2017 (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have misapprehended a number of things. First and foremost: issues regarding article content should be handled on the article's Talk page. (E.g.: Talk#Cellectis.) And there, you have not responded to some issues that have been raised, specifically including whether you have a conflict of interest. Second, your comments here – "overly hostile", "answered with insults and threats", "belligerent editors", "I was 'dissed'", "accused of being a paid editor" – are uncivil, even impugning the other editors' good faith.

Then there is the possible COI issue. I note that you have not been accused of being a paid editor – unless, of course, you are one of Dcbennett2, Cellectis, 178.16.164.50, or Sofike68 – but the nature and substance of your editing suggests you have a strong tie (possibly, but necessarily, a pecuniary relation). In light of that you have been asked if you would declare whether, or not, that is so, but it appears you are avoiding that.

It seems to me that there is good cause to revert your edits at Cellectis, and that your complaint here unfounded and improper. Furthermore, your avoidance of addressing the COI issue does tend to suggest a problem there. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution needed by Wiki admin for Kevin Deutsch article

I created a page last year which I feel is being vandalized by a user named SnowFire, who got into an edit war with another user--a war I monitored closely--and seems to be bullying his content into the article. The dispute centers on the article subject's denial of serious allegations, which Snowfire expanded on in the lede of article. He then repeatedly deleted article subject's denials, even though the denials were appropriately placed there. Please help resolve?