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 .

Discord

I looked into something called Discord, which I guess is a kind of chat protocol. (I was told there was a group on this service who might help me with my studies.) The WP page for it has been rode roughshod over by the PR department of the company, by all appearances. It's a very Hailcorporate, putting-out-fires vibe. Looking at this page, I learned much about how they're trying to be very good now but I didn't learn much about what this service actually is, so I still don't know if I want to use it.

Being good computer people, the pro-Discord editors seem to know how to edit a page without breaking the letter of the law. To repeat: this article is not good, not encyclopedic, (but not vandalized per se) and if you read it you won't feel like you understand what Discord is. It functions better as a press release from Discord itself.

I know this is my first post. I don't have a dog in this fight: I only finally registered because the ref desk was just protected. Unnecessary IMO and will discourage interesting inquirers, tho I know that's neither here nor there.

Temerarius (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I will be able to contribute much to the Discord article, especially not regarding the matters you described, but I will place it in my to-do list and contribute some edits there sometime soon. Feel free to boldly edit the article yourself, too, and discuss it on its talk page. Now that you have created an account, you can now access the benefits of an account through it, including a variety of features which assist with reading and editing articles. If nothing else, using this account can make reading Wikipedia a better experience once you tweak its appearance in your Preferences and perhaps even enable some gadgets (such as Navigation popups). Welcome to Wikipedia, Temerarius! ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which CS1 template should I use for this source?

I have been preparing an edit to clean up DeVry University § Investigations, lawsuits, and settlements, especially the citations, but encountered a rather unclear citation issue. Specifically, which CS1 template should I use for this PDF source found in the aforementioned section? It is currently cited with {{cite web}}, and I can continue to use that, but I would prefer to use a more semantically specific template per the documentation. I am not aware of any specific-source template that would be appropriate for this specific source, especially none CS1 format, and my best guess would be {{cite report}} even though that does not clearly fit either. Any suggestions? ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nøkkenbuer. I suggest Template:Cite Hansard, as it is a legislative transcript. Thank you for cleaning up that article. The lede does not really sum up its contents anymore... some of the text has ambiguities which can only be resolved by referring to the citations (e.g. "In 2008, DeVry was accused of filing false claims and statements about recruitment pay and performance to the government" [emphasis added], when it could be the American, Brazilian, or Canadian government, or a regional government within one of these countries), so it's great to see someone looking after the citations. HLHJ (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Jung was right after all because I literally just noticed the alert for this reply as I was searching WikiBlame for a specific (unrelated) string on the article and was here when I saw it. I noticed that, at least around July 2008, that very same source was using {{cite hansard}}. I saw that in the left diff box, was promptly confused because I never encountered that template before, and noticed the alert to this reply explaining just that as I was typing in "Template:Cite hansard". I wonder what other lost information could be found in these article histories? Anyway, thanks for the recommendation and advice, and I hope you use your magic for good. Have a great day / night, HLHJ! ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help Request

I'm hoping for some help with an issue that's coming up editing a wiki page involving what I think is a content dispute. I am not very familiar with all the ins and outs of wikipedia and therefore I want to make sure I'm doing everything correctly. Essentially I have been making edits to the page Equipment of the Ukrainian Air Force, sourcing and citing my edits properly to update the article as best I can. Another user is the coming along and reverting all my edits without seemingly making any effort to verify the integrity of their edit (citation links are broken, information is inaccurate, etc). I have reached out to this editor on their Talk page (my comments were deleted) and posted extensively on the Article's Talk page requesting engagement (as 79.65.139.221, I don't have a permanent account and my IP floats) and offering to delete edits if they weren't verifiable, yet have received only one minimal reply. I have challenged the veracity of this editor's source, and pointed out inaccuracies, linking to other articles and sources, yet reverts continue to be made without discussion. Am I doing the right thing and what should I be doing to help settle and reach a consensus?

88.145.29.52 (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)88.145.29.52[reply]

Hi, 88.145.29.52. Thank you for putting effort into civil discussion; that is definitely the right thing to do. Asking for advice about where you might be going wrong or missing information ditto. I can't really comment on anyone's behaviour but yours here, but I'll do my best to give useful advice.

I'd strongly suggest that you register a user account, it makes it much easier to talk to you and not any random person sharing your IP. For instance, at the start of this reply, I mentioned your name, which hopefully will have notified you that there was a message here for you (unless your IP has changed again). If you reply to me, and use the string "[[User:HLHJ|HLHJ]]", it will notify (or "ping") me (see Wikipedia:Notifications). You can copy-paste this string from my signature. See the section above for examples.

It seems that your edits to the other editor's talk page were reverted not because they wanted to ignore them, but because they wanted to keep discussion of the article on the article talk page (according to the edit summary, located here; I see that you have recently started using edit summaries consistently, and imagine you didn't know where to look for one in the page history). Generally, detailed discussion of article contents is placed on the article talk page; if you ping the editor, they will see it just as quickly as if it were on their user talk page. I am guessing from the fact that you haven't used pings on the talk page that you don't know about notifications, which would make putting topic discussion on the user talk page make much more sense, as they would be unlikely to see it otherwise. You are right that you haven't gotten much response on the talk page; naming (and thus automatically notifying) the editor you want a response from may help with that :).

These are minor technical issues. Wikipedia's interface has gotten a bit complex over the years. No-one actually expects a new editor to know all of it by magic, but sometimes people forget not to assume knowledge. If, in ignorance, you do something that other editors might misinterpret, something like "Sorry, I misunderstood this, I think I get it now, it's like this, right?" can get you help instead of unjustified acerbic misunderstandings. I'm sorry that new editors so often wind up receiving hostility rather than explanations, and I hope you've mostly heard the latter.

You question about doing the right things, stuff that helps reach consensus, is an excellent one. Wikipedia has a LOT of advice on that; WP:Civility is a good place to start. It's really easy to get into misunderstandings on a text-only communications channel, where all the non-verbal information just goes missing. But you wanted specific advice.

Partly because misunderstandings are easy, the Wikipedia policy of assuming good faith is very important. There are, for instance, lots of reasons for someone to revert their own edits, like realizing that their first edit actually made the article worse. If there is any doubt about motives, you can ask someone, neutrally, why they did something. They might answer "Because I was stupid. Sorry, I've fixed". If a dispute does escalate, it is especially important to have assumed good faith throughout. If you don't always assume good faith, even when it's difficult, you put yourself in the wrong in a dispute.

I've found it a useful guideline to focus on discussing edits, not editors; for instance, instead of writing "you are saying", "your edit claims", "my edits", and "defend [my edits]", you could refer to the statements directly, and which facts are disputed (this also helps third parties understand the facts under debate). Instead of stating that an editor is engaging in original research, you might say that you can't find the reference for a specific statement, and ask if they can help. I know I've sometimes just omitted citations I was sure I'd put in, and been glad to have the mistake pointed out to me.

I suspect that this answer may not be quite what you wanted; for instance, I haven't touched on the content itself, about which I know nothing. I hope it's helpful, tho, and that you will answer here and ping me if I messed up. HLHJ (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for editing a page about myself: photo & book reviews

Hi! I added two pieces of information in the talk page of a page about myself a month ago. Is it OK with Wikipedia policy to place a request for editorial assistance to work those into the article? Or is it better to simply leave the info there & see if someone visits that page and wants to use these pieces of information at some point?

With many thanks, & with apologies if it's not the done thing, Best wishes --AlexisMichaud (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexisMichaud:, you can get greater visibility for your suggested change by using an edit request. This is done by using a template which will automagically place the request on various lists. Edit the talk page and place the text "{{request edit}}" (including the braces but not the quote characters) between the subheading and the body text of your request. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: Yes this is exactly the info I was looking for! Done. Many thanks! --AlexisMichaud (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexisMichaud:, I'm glad I was able to help. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong photograph

The picture of a cottage in the article on Mappleborough Green is not one in Mappleborough Green, but rather a cottage in Gloucestershire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.213.207 (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the image and caption. It seems likely the editor who originally created the article copied from the Churchdown article to sort of use it as a template for their article, including the photo. In the future, requests for corrections such as this are best placed on the talk page of the article in question. In this case, you can edit the Talk:Mappleborough Green page for faster response. I hope this helps. @Courtesy ping to original page author:. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help with direction

Several years ago I created a Wikipedia entry for an activist named Firdaus Kharas. It stood until last month when it started getting warning boxes. The first box indicated the entry was too promotional so I rewrote the entry to be more neutral, in line with most other Wiki entries. Then came a second warning box indicating that there were too many inline links and extraneous footnotes. So I took almost all of them out, despite the fact that the footnotes included major-media articles about Kharas and his work in the New Yorker and the Atlantic, among others, as well as United Nations’ press briefings.

Now there is a third warning box has appeared saying the entry needs more citations and reliable sources, sources which I had previously deleted according the the second warning. I am now direction-less as to what is needed for the entry to adhere to Wikipedia’s style.

Could I please get some advice as to what the entry needs for it to be acceptable.

Thank you for your attention.

Vinlev

@Vinlev:, you and Jmertel23 need to start discussing these issues on the Talk:Firdaus Kharas page, which is where all article content dispute resolution is generally supposed to begin. I see that there has been no discussion there at all yet. Any response we could give you here as to why those changes are being made would be a guess and that would not be anywhere near as be helpful as working working directly with them to create a better article. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vinlev, what is needed (to establish that the subject is notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article) is references to several reliable independent sources with significant discussion of him. The current Firdaus Kharas cites three sources; but the first is based on an interview with his business partner (and so not independent), and the other two don't even mention him. The ones you've removed were no better. Maproom (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia of American Biography

The article Encyclopedia of American Biography is about a 1974 book of that title. In doing new page patrol, I reviewed an article (John Onesimus Foster) that cited a 1938 book of the same title. Are these books related, or are either of them particularly notable? Google search gives at least one other book of a similar title ("Herringshaw's Encyclopedia of American Biography of the Nineteenth Century", 1902) but nothing particularly useful. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose my specific question is whether any of the editors here are familiar with any of these books, or if any are as canonical as the Dictionary of National Biography is for British persons. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not personally familiar with any of them, but The asin number on the Encyclopedia of American Biography external links goes to the amazon page of the 1996 second edition; looks like 1974 was the first ed, implying its not linked to either of the 1938 or 1902 books you mentioned. The amazon page gives excerpts of two reviews from The Library Journal and The Book Review, which look pretty solid. The earlier books seem to be edited and published by different people as well. Curdle (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The term "far right" in locked pages

The EDL and Tommy Robinson were described as "far right" and cited far left sources. The pages are locked. "Far right" is definitely a subjective opinion, not a neutral fact. If this isn't stopped, Wikipedia will soon become a one-sided hack job.

Suggestion - count the number of times "far left" is used as comparison to the number of times "far right" is used. They should be close to equal if unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlat73 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why should that be true? JohnInDC (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called "far left sources" you deprecate include Rupert Murdoch's The Times. 'Nuf said. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finding a review of proposed edit

I'm trying to follow the steps under Wikipedia:Responding to a failure to discuss, but I haven't succeeded in step 2, getting my proposed edits reviewed. Can anyone suggest what I should do next? Shopping around a bunch of forums looking for a response seems a bit impolite. HLHJ (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What edit are you concerned about? Where is the attempted talk page discussion where you're not getting a response? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To editor TransporterMan:, the edit is at User:HLHJ/sandbox/Sugar industry funding and health information; the discussion is linked from it. Sorry, I don't want to bring a dispute up here, I know it's not the forum, I just want a critique of my proposed edit so that I can recognize and fix its problems. HLHJ (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to a failure to discuss isn't really intended to apply to text in the draft stage. That essay is intended to set up a situation where an administrator might become upset that you're trying to make a reasonable edit to an article, get reverted or opposed on the talk page, and then the reverter/opposer won't discuss it which leads to an application for dispute resolution being rejected. Unlike an edit to an article, or a proposal on an article talk page, it's very unlikely that administrators will become peeved about other editors not wanting to contribute to or critique a sandbox draft. I think that you're going to have to actually either publish the material into mainspace or, at the very least, propose doing so on the article talk page. If that doesn't work and you can't get any discussion, then the essay may apply (but remember that it's only an essay). (I realize this came out of Talk:Sugar#Funding_of_health_research which ended over a year ago, but if you can't get any discussion about it now then it's not an unfair assumption to presume that the other editor has lost interest. Once again, the next step is to go public with it.) As for policy compliance, I'm afraid that the proposal is too complex for any good review of that. The thing that immediately comes to my mind is whether it really fits on Sugar since it's really about the sugar industry not the substance. It should, perhaps, be a standalone article. Or maybe not. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To editor TransporterMan: Thank you for the quick answer. I'm sorry, I haven't understood something in your response. The discussion at Talk:Sugar#Funding_of_health_research started two months ago, and I last edited it about three weeks ago. I'm not sure what you are referring to as having ended over a year ago.

I originally posted similar material into the mainspace; the draft is an possibly ill-considered attempt to improve the content outside the mainspace in order to get consensus on putting it back there. In the course of my trying to improve it, the section expanded rather, and it may, as you say, be too long and/offtopic for the article.

I would have no objection to creating the standalone article you suggest; I suggested this too, but it did not meet with approval or comment. As most of the issues raised with the content I'd like to add are about its quality, going ahead and posting it as a standalone article seems a bit like edit warring. I mean, if I'd only had complaints that it was not suited to the scope of the sugar article, it would be reasonable to assume that there were no objections to my putting the material elsewhere, but the complaints are mainly that the content is unfit for the mainspace. I'd like to be sure that it does not have problems with WP:OR, WP:MEDRS, editorializing, being opinion, WP:SOAP, and containing insufficiently extensive evidence for the generalizations it makes; my POV and balance could probably do with checking, too. Should I be notifying anyone of this discussion, as a courtesy? HLHJ (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Northumbria University Logo Update

Help needed to change the main image on the Northumbria University Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northumbria_University. The logo used on that page is the old Northumbria logo and requires updating to the newer 2018 logo, which can be found here on their website: https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/ or in File:Northumrbria University new logo.jpg NChristou1 (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]