Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Antifa

Why is this posted as an anti fascist group? And not allowed to be edited? Yes it's what the name says, but the group it self isn't. It basically exudes fascism in our country. Suppressing any opinion they disagree with. How is that not fascist? Please publish them as a fascist organization. Cause it's the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reynoldsag1 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I assume you have convincing, reliable sources for that stance? The Banner talk 13:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what country Reynoldsag1 regards as "our country", he doesn't say. I would regard a bunch of people in black shirts who use violence to suppress free speech as fascist. You want references? Try https://www.post-journal.com/opinion/local-commentaries/2020/06/antifa-the-left-wing-version-of-fascism/ (I haven't read it, it's not available here in Europe) and this https://medium.com/@antonymueller/how-fascist-is-the-antifa-a3ad70b19c9a . Maproom (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Maproom:, just an observation: When an editor asks for "convincing, reliable sources" an editor with nearly fourteen years of experience here should know better than to present an opinion piece from a sports broadcaster in their local paper they admit to not having read and a blog-hosting site generally recognized as unreliable. All those demonstrate is that at least two people agree that antifa is fascist. It's a heck of a leap from two people agreeing with the OP here to stating something as fact. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Antifa are Marxist, not fascist. Not that the end result is any different. Either end of the political spectrum is equally vile and repressive. SolarFlash^Discussion 01:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Close enough Fascism is a political ideology that espouses that individuals and corporations should operate to maximize the benefit to the state. It rejects the idea that the state should serve the people individually and in that way is more similar to monarchy then democratic or communist countries. Fascism is not just a blanket pejorative against authoritarianism. In that way the author of the comment is both right and wrong as common usage of the term has shifted its meaning (by including Franco and others into this term and other more recent popular usages) to include any politically regressive movement that is overly nationalistic or smells of authoritarianism. And as words are defined by popular usage . . .. Basically you cant call them fascist's because they fit neither definition as they are left wing and not speaking on behalf of the needs of the state, but you could say they are not anti fascists in the strict usage, but they are in the modern one192.26.8.4 (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Kamala Harris

This woman is not African American! She comes from Jamaican & Indian and was born in the United States. Please make this critical change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:1:813:0:0:0:A0 (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

See above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Jamaicans are of African descent. SolarFlash^Discussion 01:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, about 92% of Jamaicans are of African ancestry, and Kamala Harris's father Donald J. Harris, is of largely African ancestry. Since he is a long time professor (now emeritus) at Stanford University, photos of this Black man are easily available online going back many years, along with descriptions in reliable sources calling him a Black man. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Request Editing Bolzano-Weistrass Theorem

Hello. I submitted a new lemma to the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem: the link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolzano%E2%80%93Weierstrass_theorem, in --History and significance-- section, and my words starts with "The limit (mathematics) concept can be regard correctly..." sentence. I request it to be analyzed in order to reach true knowledges in Wikipedia. Best Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrkCan (talk • contribs) 20:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I have removed your additions. Wikipedia does not publish original research. It aims to summarise what has been published in reliable secondary sources. Maproom (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

GrkCan, the appropriate place to post that would be at https://en.wikiversity.org/; original work is welcome there. Wikiversity is the Wikipedia sister project for original research and teaching. Wikipedia has a rule against original research; you can imagine the sort of problems we might have if we did not. Not that we are against original research, Wikipedia is just not the place to publish it. HLHJ (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

HLHJ, Thank you and I understand the policy of Wikipedia. I'll accept it but, when I said "a new lemma", I mostly think I provided a professional summary on the general concept. As far as I knew there are no exceptions from the policy. GrkCan (talk) 09:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

GrkCan, I must admit I don't understand what you posted. If you are explaining a concept which is covered in WP:reliable sources, citing them would be useful. You might also want to ask the wp:Guild of copy-editorss to help you polish your language and make it really clear. If they OK it and your sourcing, there'd be no problem with reposting it. HLHJ (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Muhammad and the Bible Lead Change

I was discussing a proposal to change the lead for Muhammad and the Bible as the current one has an odd sentence structure which is seemingly leading into the Muslim perspective as being objective. The talk page is Introduction Change under Talk:Muhammad and the Bible.

As of now only two people (myself and another person) agreed on changing it with a new proposal

Arguments that prophecies of Muhammad exists in the Bible have formed part of Muslim tradition from the early history of Muhammad's Ummah (Arabic: أُمَّة‎, community).[1] A number of Christians throughout history, such as John of Damascus and John Calvin, have interpreted Muhammad as being the Antichrist of the New Testament.[2][3] Muslim writers have argued that a number of specific passages within the biblical text can be specifically identified as references to Muhammad, both in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and in the Christian New Testament. Several verses in the Quran, as well as several Hadiths, state that Muhammad is described in the Bible. On the other hand, scholars have generally interpreted these verses as referring to the community of Israel or Yahweh's personal soteriological actions regarding the Israelites or members of the faithful community, such as in the cases of Isaiah 42. The apocryphal Gospel of Barnabas, which explicitly mentions Muhammad, is widely recognized by scholars as a fabrication from the Early Modern Age.[4][5][6] Some Muslim scholars also claimed Paraclete (Greek New Testament) as Muhammad, although scholars identify the Paraclete with the Holy Spirit..

Is it possible to get a final verdict on the change, as two does not seem sufficient for a consensus? The new proposal would utilize the same sources, it restructures the lead. ChaoticTexan (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@ChaoticTexan:, I apologize to you that this request for assistance has gone for four days without a reply. "Final verdicts" are a slippery thing here and generally only come as a result of the Arbitration process. That is a long, complex, and involved process that is a last resort in dispute resolution so I would strongly advise against it. It sounds like the Third Opinion process is a much better fit. Needing more eyes on a discussion is exactly what that process is designed for and all you have to do to join is sing it the next time it comes around on the guitar take advantage is follow the instructions at this link. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

No worries, I appreciate the info provided. Third opinion can also be used to obtain additional input? Just want to make sure for future reference since I thought it was for disputes between editors, thanks for the reply! ChaoticTexan (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Is this a valid source?

The reliability of the source isn't in question. The problem is that I cannot access it to verify, even using multiple different browsers. The source is a podcast from 2012 [1] and while I'm able to access the webpage, I can't get the podcast to actually play, even using multiple different browsers. I think the podcast may no longer be listenable (if that's even a word) and thus probably shouldn't be used. Can someone else check and see if this podcast can still be listened to? SolarFlash^Discussion 01:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Nope, doesn't seem to work. Per WP:V you're better off trying to find a different source. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 13:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Much obliged. SolarFlash^Discussion 18:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

CORRECTION: re George Moffett Cochran bio. Son's names and occupations are reversed. ( I am the wife of deceased son, G. Moffett CochranV. who was a lawyer and later founder of Silvercrest Asset management Group in NYC.

G. Moffett Cochran V, son of George M. Cochran, deceased, former lawyer, statesman and Judge on VA Supreme Court, was a lawyer that went to NYC and later founded SILVERCREST ASSET MANAGEMENT. You have the two sons reversed in the bio of GEORGE M. COCHRAN.

submitted by Mrs. G. Moffett Cochran V (DuPre Cates Cochran)69.126.152.67 (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I gather that G. Moffett Cochran V was your husband, founded Silvercrest Asset Management in Charlottesville, and has passed away? That seems to be consistent with what the article says: "They had a son Stuart Cochran who followed his father and grandfather into a legal career, and another son G. Moffett Cochran V who became an investment advisor based in Charlottesville." In any case that sentence is referenced by a blog post, not a {{WP:RS|reliable source]] for Wikipedia, and I have removed it. I hope this helps. Further discussion should probably be on the appropriate talk page, which I will keep on my watch list for a week or two. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

RTV Pink

Hello. Article RTV Pink needs new name, since it's not called "RTV Pink". I've been thinking about "Pink (radio and TV channel)", but I'm not sure about that. — HoneymoonAve27 (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

So if the radio/television station is no longer called "RTV Pink", then what officially is its new name? I think that's where you'll find your answer. SolarFlash^Discussion 17:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

SolarFlash, the name is just "Pink". — HoneymoonAve27 (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Most Serbian television station articles specify "Serbia" or "Serbian" in the titles, such as TV Art (Serbia), Fox (Serbian TV channel), Kanal 9 (Serbia), Nickelodeon (Serbian TV channel), RTS2 (Serbian TV channel), etc. Given that, I'd say the most appropriate name would be something along the lines of "Pink (Serbian TV channel)", "Pink (Serbia)", or something similar. SolarFlash^Discussion 18:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

But it also includes the radio station, it's not correct to use just "(TV channel)". And that's the reason I said it's maybe right to say "Pink (radio station and TV channel)" — HoneymoonAve27 (talk) 08:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

On their website they refer to themselves as "The Pink Media Group". Maybe go with that. SolarFlash^Discussion 02:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

A nitpicking edit war.

Apparently some people are bothered by the text "X serves as Y" when X has just lost an election for another term as Y, but is still in office. It's a minor thing, but I'd appreciate it if people would express their opinions about it, as it applies to Lacy Clay. Apparently neither @AlsoWakai nor myself can accept that the other knows how to use the English language. Discussing this here instead of talk page cuz it seems an issue not limited to that one page, especially in an election year.

Short summary: I think that "Lacy Clay has served in Congress" is misleading and "Lacy Clay serves in Congress" is perfectly fine. @AlsoWakai believes exactly the opposite. TFT he lost the primary is covered in the next sentence.

Links to appropriate passages of the Wikipedia Style Guide are welcome.

Probably both of us have violated the 3-reverts rule, but I don't want to make an issue of that. --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Here are three pieces of advice to you, Isaac Rabinovitch, and I offer the same to AlsoWakai.

1. Do not edit war
2. Do Not Edit War
3. DO NOT EDIT WAR

Edit warring is a blockable offense, even if you are right. The proper course of action is to discuss the issue, with the goal of achieving consensus, and the proper place is Talk: Lacy Clay, where no human being has commented since 2008. Lay out your best case there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@@cullen328 I've already explained why I chose to discuss it here. You can address that. But if your only purpose is to wag your finger as us for BREAKING THE RULES than consider your finger wagged. Any further finger-wagging will be ignored. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

First, don't edit war, Isaac Rabinovitch and AlsoWukai. Now, to the issue at hand, my perspective is if Clay is still in office, it should say as "Lacy Clay serves in Congress" until the date in which he leaves the position and his successor takes office. At which point it should then be changed to "Lacy Clay served in Congress" or some other past tense phrasing. However, that exact phrasing is not used in the article. It states "William Lacy Clay Jr... who serves as the U.S. Representative... since 2001...". That "since 2001" changes my answer some because "serves" and "since 2001" aren't of the same tense. I would change it to "...who has served... since 2001..." for the reason of present perfect tense that AlsoWukai stated in one of their edit summaries. Reason 1 stated in the examples of that page's section "1) Actions started in the past and continuing in the present" addresses this scenario exactly. After Clay leaves office, you can then remove the "has" from the "has served". Zinnober9 (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Isaac Rabinovitch, if you ignore my sincere advice which you incorrectly describe as "finger wagging", and you resume edit warring behavior, then you will be blocked. I notice with disappointment that you have not yet commented at Talk:Lacy Clay, the proper place to discuss this issue. I hope that my warning is clear enough to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Isaac Rabinovitch: I think you and AlsoWakai both need a finger wagged in your directions for edit warring over such a minor point and then escalating it. Here's the best advice you'll get today: let this one go and use your head next time. SolarFlash^Discussion 02:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I said I wouldn't respond to finger-wagging. And I meant it. Unless somebody has some actually editing assistance for the Editor Assistance topic, I think we're done here. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's some actual assistance for you as an editor: when an administrator such as Cullen328 tells you not to do something, take the warning seriously. Calling it "finger wagging" and publicly announcing your intention to ignore it is a great way to guarantee you will be blocked. Here's some more actual assistance: Don't edit-war, ever. If you "don't want to make an issue of that" than don't do it. It's a very simple operation to not click that little "Undo" link. Third bit of actual assistance: Use the friggin' talk page. Which, as has been mentioned above, is what you should have done at first and what you have yet to do despite being advised to do so multiple times. You asked for links about this so here are two: WP:BRD and WP:DR. Fail to take advantage of the assistance you've been offered here and you will almost certainly wind up blocked. You seem to be approaching Editor Assistance as if it means, "Assist me in getting my edits accepted." That's not how it works. You are free to ignore the advice but you can't control what advice you'll receive. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Flightgear flight sim article - Unresolved RFC from 2016: consensus ignored for years

Hello from a very new editor!

In the Flightgear:talk page there appears to be an RFC related to an editor from a closed-source windows gaming software background, citing WP:GAMECRUFT which is not relevant to something whose goals aren't entertainment - for example there is no equivalent of a plot, setting, or story line, there is no winning or completing, and no game design, any of which could likely be a section in a game article. This editor removed a bunch of content related to the research & development oriented opensource simulator used a lot by the Linux community. The RFC asked for a restore but this hasn't happened.

To quote https://www.flightgear.org/about/

> "The goal of the FlightGear project is to create a sophisticated and open flight simulator framework for use in research or academic environments, pilot training, as an industry engineering tool, for DIY-ers to pursue their favorite interesting flight simulation idea, and last but certainly not least as a fun, realistic, and challenging desktop flight simulator. We are developing a sophisticated, open simulation framework that can be expanded and improved upon by anyone interested in contributing."

The various edits and topics are discussed in the unresolved RFC.

In addition I'll add some further comments about 2 edits by that user:

Case 1 In this edit some information on distribution of source and binary packages was removed particularly relevant to Linux, Mac - but not so much Widnows. It's also relevant to people looking to modify source to extend FG for their own projects, and fix special case bugs they encounter.

Among other things, in Linux, a 'normal' way to use software is download the source and compile - among other things, this allows applications to be compiled in the native CPU Micro-architecture taking advantages of capabilities and working around quirks. For closed source software on Windows, the normal way of distibuting software is via compiled binary executables that are distibuted in installers or archives - these binaries are compiled for the lowest common denominator CPU features at the cost of performance. Each Linux distribution maintains it's own repositories of software and dependiencies. There are Package management systems to automatically install and buld software and their dependencies - tools like APT_(software) (Linux). Each distribution has it's own policy of which versions of software they store, the update frequency they use, and update delay to convert into the package management system's format. Packages are managed by volunteers so there may be a delay during which time people wanting the newest versions should compile. These days there is also a download and compile script for Flightgear that can make compiling easier for Linux users. Additionally, Flightgear has multiple releases: (unstable) nightly build releases with latest features, and fairly stable development builds released a few times per year. These days there are also long term stable builds for which bug fixes are backported. The result is: the exact version in the Linux or Mac package managers, and it's recency matters if users want to sample recent features.

This is basic information useful for Linux/Max users.

While the wording of that section of the article could be a bit less technical for the benefit of Windows readers - it at least gives the information directly. It shouldn't have been reverted.

The problem is a Windows user focused on Games wouldn't necessarily know about the topic. An editor only looking for closed source Windows software for entertainment from WP:Games wouldn't frequently have a use case for modifying Flightgear to link to their hardware/software industry projects and fixing special case bugs.

Case 2 In this edit he removed part of the content in a casually written section on scammers charging for Flightgear was removed - without an attempt to improve by finding sources and fixing the tone - see the talk page discussion. The person removing didn't really have a clue about the Flightgear, the common unethical reselling of opensource software by 3rd parties without contributing back, as he wasn't even able to determine the notableness. That is, he didn't have the situational awareness / knowledge to make a judgement on whether to even decide there would be sources - a lack of unfamiliarity he should have been expected to be acutely aware of when acting in good faith. If he had searched he could easily have sourced this article from 2012. Since then there's has been this from 2018.

The 2012 RPS article should have been sourced to help refactor and improve the old content into something with a neutral perspective like this attempt at a first draft.

An additional point: The Flightgear article is classified under WP:Games ..this might have to be fixed as well? What is a more suitable project? Maybe it would help to put up a notice outlining that P:Games contributions guidelines are only relevant as far as things applicable to all articles like formatting.

---

Looking at the history, there doesn't appear to have been much actual content added since the RFC (2016) as far as I can see by edit comments - most of the additions are peripheral stuff or maintenance about sources,version numbers, and other trivia. As a result there doesn't seem to have been much improvement in content.

I'm new to wikipedia editing, and using talk pages which don't appear to have the visual editor making it awkward for newer contributors to get involved. Not sure what to do to resolve this RFC and move things forward. I looked at the article in september 2019, and the RFC was several years old. I also added a talk page comment to an old discussion (the RFC was closed) pointing out Flightgear wasn't a game, it's goals were different, and game guidelines were not relevant. Nothing has changed since September 2019.

It would be nice to get the RFC completed and over with - so I can proceed with adding some content I wrote in a separate sandbox page September 2019, about the project with respect to it's goals as a "framework for use in research or academic environments, pilot training, as an industry engineering tool..".

Kind regards,

- Ssvv7 (talk) 09:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ssvv7:, I have a few points to hopefully move this along:

1. Please in the future summarize requests such as this concisely. The longer a request for assistance is, the less likely it is to be responded to.
2. The links for your diffs were malformed. Both of the ones you linked appear to more properly be this.
3. The only RfC on that article's talkpage is this one that was very clearly resolved. It was closed with a clear consensus and that question is answered.
4. The RfC and the edit you linked to have nothing to do with each other. The RfC was specifically asking about a series of edits in 2016 and has no bearing on more-recent edits. Such RfC's are not precedent-setting except to the extent that re-deleting the material that was restored would be wrong. They don't mean that other material is protected from deletion.
5. This is a content dispute and really belongs on that article talk page.
6. Stating Eik Corell is an "editor from a closed-source windows gaming software background" is casting aspersions about bad-faith motivations and such statements are sanctionable as personal attacks. Please do not do this in the future.

TL;DR version: Per the normal editing cycle, please concisely state why the material you added last year should be retained on the article talk page. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Ok, there are several different issues here. I was confused as this is my first article. I only looked September of last year and got confused - the RFCs, talk pages, edit histories, learning wiki syntax on talk pages etc are confusing for someone thinking of making a 1st contribution.

1. I take it the RFC at the bottom was resolved. I was confused as the RFC had comments by the editor like "I'm curious as to what specific sections should be restored. I mean as long we're not talking about [2]" about the commercial re-distrbution section which is still missing things - see point 3.

2. This section on "FlightGear code vs. binaries" was removed at some edit many years ago. It's no longer present on the main article. It shouldn't have been deleted. He said "Here .. is an example. For the first one, this is meaningless for the average reader and it's not something that is covered in normal video game articles. This is the technical mumbojumbo that I was talking about". F He said it was deleted without understanding how things worked in opensource Linux environments, and the various uses of Flightgear as it isn't a game, but an R&D tool etc. This is relevant information - at worst it should be explained more.

The situation: Flightgear has 3 branches with different standards of stability and cutting edge features that people want to try out. The section also contains information that is necessary for people on opensource Linux, where a normal way to get software is to compile from source - either from FG source code on gitgub/sourceforge, or using the packages for each Linux distro. This Package management system that will automatically get and compile all FG sources, and software libraries Flightgear dependends on. What of the 3 branches each Linux distro has, what delays there are based on volunteers creating packages, varies. Similarly Mac releases can be delayed sometimes. So the information about platforms being maintained by volunteers is also important. It would be preferable to not delete content, including the implications made by that content for users of a multi-platform sim, if an editor doesn't understand calling it "technical mumbojumbo" - because it can be many years later that the problem is rectified. It's "not something that is covered in normal video game articles" because video games are mainly closed source and distributed as executables even if they're on available Linux, and mainly developed and originate in Windows - and because Flightgear is not a game.

3. Part of This section on Commercial redistribution was removed at some edit many years ago before I got here. The parts relating to the scam reselling Flightgear - and scam behaviors like the scams lying, stealing media from other sims like FSX and calling it their sim. This info should not have been removed. The editor said: "The second one: .. unsourced accusations of lying facebook pages and coverage of irrelevant community bickering.". The editor should have done a basic google search and found sources instead of deleting - about the first result you get is for the RPS editorial - described in this draft which I wrote a day ago. As the 2012 RPS article says (about gaming simmers) "Most serious simmers are well aware of this scam.". The implication here is that simmers should also know about Flightgear. The editor should not have been so certain as to casually delete this info without trying to search for sources first, given he should be aware he didn't know much about simming even from a gaming PoV, and therefore researched the subject. Awareness of his lack of familiarity is doubly worse as he even had problems about Flightgear's notability going by the talk page. The consequence is that the problem wasn't fixed for many years.

The fix for this is to add a sources in a sub-section of Commercial re-distribution called "Criticism from media" - possibly along the lines of my draft which I've not tried adding yet.

4. I started work on a sandbox on adding some content to the article last year, and was mistakenly(?) waiting for the RFC finish, thinking the above and whatever else would be fixed. Thanks for the clarification.

The fix: I haven't tried adding this content to the article yet, but I will try sometime in the next few weeks depending on whether I write more - someone seems to have reviewed it in February and recommended inclusion.

5. I'm not sure the Flightgear article belongs under gaming - Flightgear doesn't have basic attributes of games like story/plot/setting/game design/soundtrack accompaniment to story. At least there should be some type of warning that gaming guidelines on deleting content should not apply - as there may be further people who specialise in gaming and may not have a general "editing sense" or "situational awareness". I use specialise as apparently the editor claimed he specialises in deleting WP:GAMECRUFT (?), and multiple people in the talk page pointed out the guidelines didn't apply to sims. As can be seen raising and addressing issues has the timescale of years, so deleting without situational awareness, and awareness of missing awareness, is a problem.

The fix: Not sure what should be done about that - classifying under something else, or putting a warning about being careful when deleting content a using gaming 'editing sense' when the article draws maintainers/deleters because the article is classified as a game?

Thanks

- Ssvv7 (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking through this, I can see a place at least for the information from the RockPaperShotgun articles. There are other problems that remain though, but I'll create a new talk page entry and talk about them there. Eik Corell (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ssvv7:, just out of curiosity, what part of "...concisely state ... on the article talk page" was not clear? This is not the place to post long justifications and argumentation about your preferred version of the article or why you think certain edits should happen or not happen. The is the place to find out where such discussions should take place and the same answer given earlier is still valid: Talk:FlightGear. Eik Corell has already started the discussion there, I recommend you join him. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Mitch McConnell

Answered

I am sure he is a loved or hated person. Either way, please help keep politicians pages factual and not biased. Children in schools and colleges and universities use Wikipedia. Under Mitch's profile, his picture is a turtle and other pictures have turtles in them. It is funny, yet not very professional.

For the editors out there, adult ugliness on the world wide web towards people you dislike is a disservice to our youth. It also shows the pettiness of immaturity to those around the world watching. Let's be better.

Thank you. ED — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.54.129.38 (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Those pictures were present for only 13 minutes until the person who posted them wisely took them down. Unfortunately, they didn't replace the pictures they removed to put up the joke images, but I have corrected that omission. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3APaul_A._Bonacci

This page needs to be removed, its crazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.31.128.130 (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I have nominated it for deletion and you may add your comments there. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk page as a Discussion forum/Chat Room

Talk:Trans woman (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Trans woman|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) For over a month the has been a non stop rambling tortuous discussion, over several subsections (from here onwards), which has been never ending with NO real Proposals made to actually improve the article in any form. As much as this might be interesting, I do not believe this is what Wikipedia is for.

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not describes a widely accepted standards that all editors should follow. Half way down that page you find WP:NOTFORUM, part 4 of which tells us that Wikipedia not a Discussion forum. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines says Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject.

Am I being too concerned/fussy over this? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you are. The section you started labelled "Remember folks Wikipedia not a Discussion forum/Chat Room/Debating Society" now has over 3,000 words of the same endless discussion. If editors can't reach agreement on something, they should 1) agree to disagree and move on, or 2) request outside comment or dispute resolution. A perpetual back-and-forth of trying to score rhetorical points off each other, in the vague hope that one of them is going to somehow "win" the argument, is not what a talk page is for.--Trystan (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

What would be an appropriate way to stop discussion forum like use of the talk page? Rab V (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This discussion has led to Newimpartial, H Remster, and I finding consensus on something close to: "A Trans woman is a person of the female gender who was assigned male at birth." Now the question is whether the previous RfC already addressed this. The discussion shouldn't be shut down just as it's making progress. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This is true. We're at 1 now. Possibly this has been missed because both the termination of the "rhetorical points" discussion and the progress of the more fruitful discussion have taken place further up the page. For the former, see my post from 20:14, 19 August 2020 in the section referred to above (I'm afraid I can't work out how to link to it), for which the other editor thanked me and moved on. For the latter, see the section Talk:Trans_woman#Created_new_subpage_to_collect_definitions, which has been entirely constructive apart from my early intervention in the "Straw tally" section. For the record, I have no interest in scoring rhetorical points; I was just doing a really awful job of conveying to someone with a different academic background my thoughts about the intelligibility of the first sentence of the article to the non-specialist reader, and it got heated. Now we're making progress, I'd be perfectly happy for my comments outside Talk:Trans_woman#Created_new_subpage_to_collect_definitions to be deleted if appropriate. H Remster (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you can strike through your own words H Remster if it would help make things clearer for other readers. I doubt if we can delete them.

I am seeing light at the end of the tunnel. I must positively admit after a very very very long journey I can now see some fruit emerging (not saying if its useful fruit atm). Apologies for some of my doubts. However 3 folks agreeing on page like Trans Woman after what seemed like an endlessly long and tortious impenetrable private chat room fencing match (which was at times off putting)...is not really a new majority when compared to the huge RfC two years ago. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I haven't said a word about the significance of three-editor consensus! H Remster (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Accepted (you did not). ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Bad faith reversions

Hello, there is a problem in some articles and I need an admin help/advice.

According to MOS:SHOCKVALUE and MOS:LEADIMAGE, "lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred". So I swapped a lead image with female nudity with another lead image without nudity that brings the same context to the topic.

But there is an user who is reverting those edits just because he likes the old images more. So instead of following Lead Image guidelines, it seems that he will try some edit war to force his preference. The articles are Outline of BDSM, Master/slave (BDSM) and List of BDSM organizations. I'm asking to some admin to take a look in case he reverts the edits for the 3rd time. Thank you very much. gabibb2 ^✉ 16:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This isn't really an admin board so you may not get results here. To get admin attention, post this at WP:AN after carefully reading and complying with the instructions there. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much! gabibb2 ^✉ 22:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I am Christopher S. Adams, Jr., Major General, USAF (Re) and wish to replace and update my photograph which, IS NOT an official Photo. This my Third attempt to remove and replace the present photo. Please provide the procedure to remove and replace my photograph.

Moved to Talk:Chris Adams (general) § Photograph

File:Christopher S. Adams, Jr.

Major General, USAF (Ret)

Creating User talk:Mary A. Adams - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mary_A._Adams&action=submit

Proposed Official Photograph Attached.

Courtesy link to article Chris Adams (general). Theroadislong (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia accounts cannot be shared. 17:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Also asked at the Teahouse and now being discussed at Talk:Chris Adams (general)#Photograph and User talk:Mary A. Adams#Shared use. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Involving File:Roblox Adopt Me Gameplay.png

Someone updated the image with a completely new image, because they were concerned my previous version could trigger photosensitive epileptic seizures. I didn't see anything "seizurey" in my image when I uploaded and verified it. I found out checkered patterns could trigger PSE seizures (the checkered heart pattern on the wallpaper in the screenshot), but I don't think is is a usual PSE concern (flickering lights, which is a common PSE trigger, are usually concerned). Also Wikipedia:Content disclaimer says that Wikipedia holds media that can trigger PSE seizures of any cause. How should I deal with this? (I already left a message on the new image's uploader's talk page, but they haven't responded yet and I would like word from y'all guys.) ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 22:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

PrincessPandaWiki, I see that HunterProt has "updated" the image by replacing it by a completely different image with the same name. That's definitely wrong. If they think their image is preferable to the checkerboardy one for use in the article (you haven't told us which article), they should upload it as a new image, and then discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Maproom (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Help with Fanfiction.Net?

Someone did not like my cleanup of the article, which was done in the purpose of making the article more encyclopediac with less reliance on primary sources. When I tried to revert back to my cleanup, they revert back to their version, which is similar to how the article was before, with statistics of "most popular sections", "longest fanfiction" (I didn't like how they got rid of a longest fanfiction bit with reliable secondary sources), and information on disallowed fanfiction, which may be WP:FANCRUFT. They justified their revision with more sources, which are all primary. Can I have some word of advice? ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 23:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Welllll... generally speaking, edits may be reverted per WP:BRD and then the ball is in your court to make your case -- which you are doing here, but should be done on the article talk page instead. Other editors watching the page will (hopefully) chime in and, and (after some back and forth probably) you'll maybe get consensus for the change, or maybe not. I would just copy your plaint above directly to the article talk page, as is.

If you're trying to recruit editors here to go over to that page and support your argument... mnmh I would rather that the first step would be to talk with people who are watching the page, they will know the subject better. If that doesn't work and you can't convince each other or find a compromise, I guess an RfC would then be in order. That'd be the way to go to get new unbiased eyes on the matter. (FWIW, for my part, it doesn't appear to me that your arguments are a slam dunk, except for the part about restoring the sourced longest-fanfiction bit. The article is not too long. But that'd be for people interested in the entity to decide, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

What if no one goes on the talk page? ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 12:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

See DISCFAIL for the best solution for that problem if you're trying to get one or more particular editors to engage. A RFC is intended to attract editors who are not currently involved in the dispute. In either case, be sure to carefully read, understand, and follow the instructions. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Wrong Information

All the information posted about waqar zaka is either wrong or fake details, I request you to please fix it or else allow me to fix, Mr Waqar Zaka has asked me to move legally against all the information posted against him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaheryar Shabbir (talk • contribs) 12:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

If you are aware of false information in the article Waqar Zaka, please give details, preferably with supporting references, at its talk page. I see you have already asked there "Kindly delete all the wrong information", but you've said nothing about which information is wrong, let alone provided any evidence. Maproom (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Maproom, The claim is that All the information posted about waqar zaka is either wrong or fake details. I could just nominate the article for deletion, that would solve the problem. Vexations (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Seeking advice on how/whether to proceed

Melanie Stansbury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have suggested edits on the talk page of this article. I suggested them indirectly because I have a COI, which I have disclosed with a tag on the page. I would like to have a dialog about those suggestions (and additional ones based on subsequent research) with the editor who responded to my request for edits, or another editor(s) (preferably other, because I feel that my motives are misunderstood by the one who responded). My hope is to work more collaboratively with someone to add new content to this article. I am more than willing to accept a veto of any given part of my entire request, but I don't think that everything in it is inappropriate for Wikipedia (I have read other articles about politicians that have very similar content to what I am suggesting--See, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Blood#:~:text=Carol%20Blood%20(born%20March%205,member%20of%20the%20Democratic%20Party).

You can find my additional discussions with the editor who responded to my request by searching for Melanie A. Stansbury on his talk page and on my talk page (entire page). Thank you. BiostatSci (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)BiostatSci

Editor assistance requested / reporting negatively biased editing and possible vandalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Errico

Hello, I would like to request assistance and report vandalism by someone who is continually policing that page in a seemingly biased/negative nature:

The user Grandpallama (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Grandpallama) is negatively mis-characterizing professional accomplishments AND repeatedly removing cited, sourced and accurate information.

Myself and several other users have addressed these issues via edits and also in the Talk page with Grandpallama, but the user has not taken any of that into account and has continued this negative editing behavior each time it is attempted to be resolved.

Any assistance you can provide would be greatly appreciated and I thank you in advance for taking time to read this.

2604:2000:1480:8B72:78CA:B539:8682:1AA0 (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I see that you and Grandpallama have been discussing things on the article's talk page, as you should. I see no evidence of bias, and certainly not of vandalism, by Grandpallama. Your case might look stronger if you withdrew those accusations. It would also help if you registered and used an account – a long-standing editor with thousands of edits has more credibility than an IP address with only five edits, four of them to the same article. Maproom (talk) 10:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Maproom. The history of this article, specifically of IPs and SPAs that have appeared to puff up less notable aspects of Errico's career, or to add peacock, promotional language, led me to suspect COI and place a corresponding notice on the talkpage some time ago. There are other telltale signs, too, that require only minimal digging. Grandpallama (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Seeking editor advice on how to proceed

Impact_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_on_the_meat_industry_in_the_United_States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have been subject to language from an editor on my talk page that is insulting and inappropriate. Looking to stay cordial and productive but the editor in question makes that difficult since the editor appears to weigh in on most of the edits and additions for the page. I am offering suggestions and have for over two years had a COI template on my personal talk page. Since this is the first time I am experiencing language from another editor that seems inappropriate, I am seeking advice on how to proceed.

Thank you, Hello-Mary-H (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328 has criticised your attempts to add misinformation to an article. The language he has used appears to me clear but civil. If you find his criticism hard to handle, you should stop trying to get misinformation added to the article (you're unlikely to succeed anyway). Maproom (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Upgrading Article Quality?

Hi this is RJ Bustami, and I wrote and edited the WikiProject Medicine page on Brief Resolved Unexplained Events (BRUE). I took a lot of time in researching the topic, writing a lot of information, and adding to the source list as well as getting it peer-reviewed during a WikiProject course earlier this year. How can I start the process of upgrading the Quality of the article, as it is currently labelled as a "Stub" article, which was the label prior to my additions and edits?

Best, RJ--Rjbustami (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

You can request a reassesesment on the medicine project page. Specifically Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment_or_re-assessment. ---- Work permit (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)