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 .

managing a conflict of interest tab

Helped
One of my articles has been tagged with a COI banner and I want to know how to resolve this. I have been accused of writing for payment (Iam a volunteer and doing LGBT research on gay military issues) The only connection I have with the subject is that I share the same sexuality and surely this does not have to be declared as a COI? thank you Samcherry5 (talk) 08:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Samcherry5: I'm responding on your talk page. Orville1974^talk 17:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

King Farouk of Egypt

Helped
Under King Farouk's photo it says he died on Capri but in the article it says he died in Rome so which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.120.252 (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. According to the sources I see, he died in hospital in Rome shortly after collapsing in a restaurant and being rushed there. Orville^talk 14:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the infobox and included sources in the content of the article. Orville^talk 15:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, San Camillo Hospital. - Nunh-huh 15:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by Editors Constantly Changing My Edits, Help?

I made an edit repairing the alphabetical order of the women on the show throughout the article and it has been reverted repeatedly by a user who received a one week ban for edit warring and that person is still within that week. Now there is another user, maybe more than one, that has reverted my changes but they aren't members of Wikipedia, there's only IP addresses to identify them. I don't want to have to keep correcting the page and get into trouble myself so how do I handle this? I have provided plenty of reference that 100% backs up my edits on the talk page. It looks like these are drive by editors, can you help, I don't know how to handle drive by editing? AnAudLife (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In one edit summary you said:

"See discussion on Talk:The Real Housewives of New York City page under "Infobox" heading for consensus & conclusion."

When I look there, after only one other editor commenting, I see you say:

"Due to the above preponderance of evidence in support of my revisions ..."

That is not consensus.

While I do find guidelines (MLA) that are definite about ordering of names involving the prefix 'de', we would need to know if there are any 'definite' rules here at Wikipedia. I'll look. You should also. Shenme (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked...and looked and looked and looked and cited quite a few sources on the talk page, and those sources were "definite". I made the edit because the conclusion is obvious AND definite. AnAudLife (talk) 03:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AnAudLife: I only see one semi-suspicious IP edit (the most recent one). If you want to pursue it, you can open a sockpuppet investigation here: WP:SPI. But,

On a general note, there's really no rush to re-alphabetize (no WP:DEADLINE). As you've pointed out, your edits have been reverted by multiple users. When that occurs, I tend to wait a week or so to allow consensus to be reached, to give everyone sufficient time to read and weigh in if they care to, to see if we can come to an agreement about what should be done. Single-handedly declaring consensus just a day after you posted to the talk page, citing the preponderance of the evidence, when you hadn't even received a reply yet from any editors, is in bad form. Orville^talk 03:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Orvile, The only editor that was repeatedly changing my edits was put on a one week ban due to edit warring, her credibility compared to definitive evidence was bad form. If she really wanted a consensus she could have just as easily let my edit stand and request a consensus, but no, her edit is the only "correct" edit in her mind, I always explained my edit to her in detail, she didn't care. Waiting for any other opinions is futile, there won't be any other opinions and in the end we will disagree. She has been involved in and reprimanded for edit warring 6 times now, clearly she's one of those editors that always thinks they're right and that's not what wiki editing is about, when is this madness going to stop? I'm absolutely convinced she is behind the recent alphabetical edit. Behavior like hers and the fact that there's no real help in Wiki makes me just want to leave it. AnAudLife (talk) 03:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find definitive Wikipedia guidance regarding alphabetization regarding de but didn't have any luck. Your citations regarding other manuals of style are valid, but consensus is a core principle of Wikipedia. I've tried to be helpful as has the editor directly above me response. Help that has been provided includes the editor reverting your edits being blocked for a week, two editors here (counting me) providing guidance on handling content disputes, and me suggesting that you can open a sockpuppet investigation if you're so inclined (and where to do so). Since consensus hasn't been reached regarding the alphabetization, I think the one action you may have a harder time getting help with is having another go back into the article right now to alphabetize them a different way. Orville^talk 04:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help y'all have provided, but I only foresee constant changing if no one can agree. I made the change as suggested, we'll see if there are any more disputes, if so, I will simply give up. I won't lower myself to keep editing just because other people are editing out of spite. Thanks again. AnAudLife (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again @AnAudLife: This just occurred to me. Since none of us can find anything in the manual of style, and you seem to have done your homework, why not present your findings here Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style to work on getting it added to the Wikipedia Manual of Style? Orville^talk 04:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my...I can give it a shot, it takes me a while to catch onto the forms here, but I can certainly try it. Thanks again for your help. AnAudLife (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orvile, I took your advice and started a discussion on the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style page, we'll see what people think about the suggestion. Thanks again. AnAudLife (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rye schools

Answered

I wanted to add content to my town’s page (Rye) regarding a Resurrection grammar and middle schools, that have been there for 90 years, under the education section. I just said it was a parish school, 90 years old and provided a solid academic and faith based education.

It was then deleted by an administrator. Can you tell me why?

It exists. It has been there for 90 years. It provides a solid faith based education. Everyone in town knows it exists. What is the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.11.213 (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not that anyone doubts the existence of the schools. When GorillaWarfare reverted your edit, he wrote in the edit summary "not adhering to neutral point of view". I agree. The wording you used, "have continued to provide a solid academic and faith based education", is promotional, and therefore unsuitable for an encyclopedia. I would also point out that "for 90 years" would be suitable in an ephemeral work such as a newspaper, nut Wikipedia hopes it will still exist 100 years from now — so it's better to write "since 1917" or whenever it was. Maproom (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary schools are considered sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Primary schools and middle schools are not, unless they have some exceptional distinguishing features or history and that it has been well documented in reliable sources. For more information about writing Wikipedia articles about schools, please see WP:WPSCH/AG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User Adwalking is subject of content he is editing, and reverting edits without discussion

Helped
Hello, I am an infrequent editor requesting assistance with this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Blessitt

I and another user made good faith edits last week and had them reverted without comment by the user Adwalking. I opened a talk subject yesterday and edited the page again. The user has again reverted the edits without reference to the talk page and despite the request to refer to talk in my edits.

Looking at the edit history, user Adwalking appears to be the subject of the page he is editing.

I would welcome advice and assistance in improving this page. Sirfurboy (talk) 11:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the absurd claim that Blessitt carries 19 billion pounds. Maproom (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adwalking meets WP:SPA and WP:NOTHERE. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sirfurboy, this is a content issue. Please relist your concern at WP:DRN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, Thanks. this was not solely content as the issue was the person the article is about was editing the article, but other editors have dealt with that and the user is clearly now aware as he has backed off. From here on in it will be content only so please mark this item as helped/resolved. Many thanks. Sirfurboy (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I need a seasoned editor's help please

Template:Peter Perkowski

Hi,

I need a seasoned editor to help me as I'm new at Wikipedia and have a little problem. My only previous submission was trans activist, Ashlee Marie Preston, and that was a smooth process.

I recently submitted the most high-profile LGBTQ Civil Rights attorney and activist, Peter Perkowski. I receive a notice last night that his profile was tagged for deletion by '‪Athaenara'. I rushed home to send them a message explaining Peter's incredible body of work and how he is currently making headlines in Reuters and NY Daily News for suing the Trump Administration on behalf of trans service-members. But the submission was deleted immediately with the reason that I had been paid to submit it. I don't know why ‪Athaenara thought that and how one's submission can be deleted without proper evidence of such accusation. I was not paid, nor will I be paid to submit this or any other submission.

I would appreciate someone's help in navigating me through this as the process is very confusing. I tried my best to follow aforementioned guidelines for posting this, including the title. I hope that it is correct. I don't even know how this works in terms of someone getting back to me.

Thank you and kind regards, vic gerami

The process of convincing other editors that a subject is notable does not involve telling them what a great guy you think the subject is. Notability is established solely by citing, in the article, reliable independent published sources with in-depth discussion of the subject. If Perkowski is indeed "making headlines", you ought to be able to manage that. Maproom (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally :"moved" talk page for Medici (TV Series)

I accidentally renamed talk page for Medici (TV Series) and now talk page seems to be inaccessible.Fb2ts (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]