Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Bulgarians article

Resolved

 – ANI was created. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Stolichanin has been introducing unbothered bizzare nonsenses with seven reverts today. 45.33.130.174 (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong forum. We have dedicated noticeboards for complaints. Try taking it up with user first. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Feedback Request Page

Answered

 – and user notified on talk page.Tiggerjay (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I cannot figure out, from the instructions given @ Feedback Request how the use the Bot to randomly select editors listed at the page. Could I have some help with this, please? Also, if the Bot isn't working or I choose to randomly select prospective commenters myself, is there a recommended number of requests, at least to get started? Thanks for any help. Regards Tapered (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the purpose of the bot. The way the bot works is that when a Request for Comment is opened, the bot will automagically select editors from those listed on the Feedback Request page. If you want feedback, then, you need to either open an RfC and allow the bot to randomly select editors, or you can contact editors manually via their Talk pages. You can't randomly select editors via the bot through any means other than opening an RfC. May I ask why you're concerned about a maximum number of requests? How many RfCs do you think you might need to open, and at which articles, and for what purpose? DonIago (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Mike Jacobs

Resolved

 – Page in question was deleted. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason why "User:" is listed prior to the name 'Mike Jacobs' on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mike_Jacobs_(soccer_coach)

How can that be removed from the name or title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlssoccer1996 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Mlssoccer1996 "User:" at the start of a page name indicates that it is a page about a Wikipedia user, not an article about an encyclopedic topic. There should never be a page with a title such as User:Mike_Jacobs_(soccer_coach) (as user names should not have such parenthetical inclusions), and I see that the page has in fact been deleted. DES ^(talk) 15:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

In fact the deletion log reads: 10:41, 15 October 2015 Spinningspark deleted page User:Mike Jacobs (soccer coach) (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: There are only trivial close paraphrasing changes between this and the deleted article Mike Jacobs (soccer coach) (deleted as a copyvio)) DES ^(talk) 15:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I just deleted it. It seems to have been created as a reaction to the imminent deletion of Mike_Jacobs_(soccer_coach) for copyright violation. It is no more acceptable to have copyrighted material in user space than it is to have it in an article. SpinningSpark 16:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Media import problems

Hello,

While I have been editing for quite a while, this is my first foray into importing graphics into Wikimedia for subsequent use in an article. My difficulties begin with Wikimedia's request that I open an account, which it twice hasn't allowed me to do.

Even beyond establishing the account, I am pretty much clueless. I have a public domain graphic I wish to import. I suppose I must scan it into my computer, but don't know the procedure for importing it into Wikimedia. I searched for that info, but didn't find it.

Obviously, any help will be appreciated.

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Georgejdorner. Once you have scanned the image, go to Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard If the image is in fact public domain, use the Commons upload wizard. Note that "public domain" is a more restricted concept than most people understand. What is the source of the image, and how do you know it is in the public domain? You will need to have answers for the upload process. If you care to give the answers here, we can advise you further. DES ^(talk) 01:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh and you already have an account, you shouldn't need a different one. DES ^(talk) 01:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

In this case, I am borrowing from an unclassified U.S. Air Force history written by a USAF historian on the American tax dollar. I do believe that qualifies.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It should, Georgejdorner. Strictly speaking, it is PD only if the photo was taken (or other work was created) as part of the person's official duties as a direct US federal government employee, not a contractor. DES ^(talk) 23:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Should have mentioned the historian was a U.S. Air Force colonel on official duty.

A thankful tip of the hat to DES for the assistance.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The concern is not whether the historian/author was on official duty, but whether the creator of the graphic was on Uncle Sam's clock. If they are one and the same, no problem; if not, could be a problem. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "" defined multiple times with different content

Resolved

 – Tiggerjay (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I have this message: Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "" defined multiple times with different content in Dayton Project. If anyone knows what it means (or better still, how to resolve it), this would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye7 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 16 October 2015‎

@Hawkeye7: Fixed with this edit. This is a new software feature, and it's catching some small errors that weren't noticed before. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I had not seen this error before, and didn't know what to look for. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Help with article being mislabled as a place on Google's Knowledge Graph

When doing a Google search for "Trinity Baptist Church, Concord NH" I discovered that Google's knowledge graph thinks the name of the church is Trinity Baptist Church sex scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I found that odd, and investigated. What looked like happened was the article used to be a page about the church itself, but eventually was changed to only be about that particular scandal. When the switch was made, categories, "official website," geolocation, and a redirect were left in place, which caused Google to believe this was still a church. I made some edits along those lines, and they were approved for the most part.

However, I recently tried to get rid of the old redirect and was met with some opposition, mainly that I'm "campaigning." I don't necessarily disagree with that, since I do want to see the result changed, but I haven't changed any of the substance of the article and I simply want to fix an obviously wrong Google Knowledge Graph issue. I thought I would post here and see if someone with a neutral point of view would be interested in taking a look at the situation, and maybe advocating for the change if it seems like a legitimate change. I'm willing to accept any advice as well. Thanks! BenjaCamp (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Google's Knowledge Graph links directly to Trinity Baptist Church sex scandal and not to the redirect Trinity Baptist Church (Concord, New Hampshire) so I don't know whether the old article name and current redirect are actually affecting Google's choice. The Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. I don't know how Google processes such feedback. I don't think we should change Wikipedia content based on how Google currently uses it. Google could change it at any time, and many other websites use our content. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Please help with draft; my brain is wracked...

Schnitzel_Records_Ltd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Schnitzel_Records_Ltd.

I'm looking for some assistance relating to two issues on this draft.

The first issue is that approval editors have not checked all references, and so are labeling the article as not properly notable. This is not a guess: ref. #2 is an offline interview from the largest alternative radio station in all of Austria, and reference #3 is a 5000+ word interview from a generalist music website that gets very brisk web traffic (+/- million hits/mo.); both references are specific to this business, not about it's bands, have a wide temporal spread, and are not casual mentions. Press relating to the label's activities is covered in many of the other references; often briefly, but not casually. I've actually sourced and read through or checked every reference on this list, and would be happy to go over them with any approval editor or helpful being to determine suitability for the article - whether they should remain in place, or be removed.

The second issue is that the language may or may not be promotional. (I think this may have been fixed at my last edit.) Because I've been unsuccessful in getting approval editors to leave comments on the exact problems or phrases that have occured with the page, and it would be very helpful to have a detail-oriented second pair of eyes on the page, I am requesting assistance to get this published. I'm still a n00b; please help!

15tinybirds (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

First off, never use sites like Discogs, Reddit, or anything else that is written by random strangers, logarithms, or monkeys on typewriters.

Second, usual trick is to start with only the most unaffiliated sources that are specifically about the subject, not affiliated subjects, not affiliated sources. It is possible to get an article made with just three such sources (maybe two if they're both in-depth academic books with no connection to each other beyond being about the same subject). Interviews can be tricky when it comes to affiliation because the subject is has some control over what's gonna get out there and so it's considered somewhat affiliated. Write the article using only these unaffiliated and specific sources sources, no others. Then after it's approved, expand with affiliated or less-specific sources.

Course, there is the possibility that a subject simply won't have enough unaffiliated but specific sources to make an article -- in which case, they just don't get an article (at least for now). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Serious Formatting problem in the article "Yves Congar"

Resolved

 – fixed Tiggerjay (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

In the article on "Yves Congar," the list of seven references appears in the middle of the article, not under the "References" rubric. Under "References" the first three references only appear. I do not know how to fix the problem.

Is there anyone who can?

--Anadessma (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed -- the {{reflist}} was improperly placed in the middle of the article. Deleting caused all of the references to properly collect at the bottom of the page. See this edit if you're interested in what and where it was removed. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Snow Bowl (2008)

Please review my draft. Thank you and leave a note on my talk page. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

It appears that you have already submitted this for review, so expect a reply in a couple of days on the draft page. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I better see a reply in like 2 or 3 days and no more than that. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

You "better see a reply" in 2 or 3 days? Please keep in mind we are volunteer reviewers at Articles for Creation, and we review articles out of goodness. We use what free time we have to do as best we can, so I kindly ask you to tone down your demands. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 03:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Tackling continual vandalism

This page has come under continued attack from a malicious poster who is editing the page with inaccurate and plainly wrong information. I have been asked by someone who works for SICPA about what can be done to stop this.

I was hoping someone could give me some advise as what I've read suggests that just continually re-editing the page isn't the way to go.

All help gratefully received. Iain

Iainplunkett (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That's an issue for the French Wikipedia. Dispute resolution procedures usually work the same way on the major language wikis. Use the article's talk page to try to reach common understanding. Also leave a message on the talk page of the person who is adding the material. I would suggest that you're far more likely to reach common ground if you avoid accusatory labels like "malicious", "vandalism" etc. Also, a person who works for the organisation in question is usually not the best person to judge if the material is "right" or not as they will want to present their organisation in the best possible light. I suspect that this is *not* vandalism, just a disagreement over how to present info about the company, but if I'm wrong Vandalisme en cours is the last resort, *after* trying discussion with the user. Valenciano (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It appears to me to be a disgruntled ex-employee. The content being added is really about internet speculation with very little fact behind it. I'll suggest they reach out but I'm not sure about the reception they'll get. Thanks for the French link.

I do have a slightly wider question. It seems that whoever put the page up has disappeared long ago. I was wondering if the best way forward was to approach someone on the Wiki team to create a brand new SICPA page to replace the existing one? That way there can be no conflict of interest. I was then wondering whether that page - say it's written in English - could be ported (with correct translation) onto the French and German Wiki so there is consistent and approved content.

SICPA doesn't currently have an English page and I think it should as it's responsible for the inks on over 80% of the world's banknotes - including the UK. I'm just trying to find the best solution that will incur no conflict of interest. What do you think? If you have any other suggestions I would be very happy to hear them. Thanks again.

IainIainplunkett (talk) 09:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Question about relative weight of competing theories in an article

I'd like to start by saying I'm not sure if I'm asking this in the correct place. However, this is perhaps the place where people can tell me where I should ask my question if not here. My comments related to a discussion on an article talk page here [[1]]. The discussion relates to establishing the relative weight between two competing, scholarly theories. Going forward should we treat them as roughly equal or treat one as the minority POV and thus give it less weight? Currently this question of weight hasn't affected the article content but it might in the future. Because I can't cite any particular edits to the article as NPOV concerns I didn't bring this up as on the NPOV noticeboard. Alternatively, I considered the RS noticeboard but both sides are acknowledged as reliable scholarship, the question is only should they be given equal weight.

In the above link we have two competing explanations for change in voting patterns. One is the top down theory, the other is the bottom up theory. The top down explanation was the original and the two primary scholarly sources regarding that topic are about 10 years older (both 1996) than the two primary bottom up works (both 2006). At the time of publication in 2006 one of the bottom up scholars acknowledged his view was the minority POV. In 2011 another scholarly book said the bottom up POV was the "dissenting - yet rapidly growing - narrative..." and listed a number of authors who have followed the lead of the two primary bottom up works.

In scholarly work the number of citation a publication receives is a strong indication of scholarly endorsement of a topic, theory etc. I used Google Scholar to check for # of citations to date for the four primary works in question:

• Top Down Book #1: 165 times since 1996 (122 after 2006)
• Top Down Book #2: 125 times since 1996 (79 after 2006)
• Bottom Up Book #1: 354 (published in 2006), 251 of these were after 2010 when the "rapidly growing" statement was likely written
• Bottom Up Book #2: 138 (published in 2006)

Given the above do we give less WEIGHT to the Bottom Up theory because it was a minority theory when first published and "dissenting - yet rapidly growing" 4 years later? Thus the two scholarly opinions of relative weight, at the time they were written, say it was the minority POV. Alternatively, do we treat them with equal weight because "rapidly growing" combined with a clear citation margin in favor of the bottom up publications suggests the theories are at least equal competing theories in the eyes of scholars as of 2015?

Thanks for any thoughts both on the topic and where I should have posted this topic! Springee (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Springee has compiled his own research about the number of citations found on Google Scholar and has put forward his own argument that these citations indicate that the minority bottom up viewpoint should be given equal weight as the top-down viewpoint. The top-down viewpoint has actually been identified as the majority viewpoint in scholarship by multiple sources, and the bottom-up has been identified as the dissenting viewpoint or as running contrary to the majority top-down viewpoint. From the OR noticeboard "'Original research' includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia."Scoobydunk (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)