Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Editor Assistance: Requests
  • The description of the issue with which you need help should be concise and neutral.
  • If you are asking about an article that was deleted, please provide the exact title so that we can check the deletion log.
  • Please avoid copying large quantities of article text to this page.
  • Remember to sign your posts.
  • As always, please do not include an e-mail address or other private details.
  • Discussions related to content disputes might better be addressed at the dispute resolution noticeboard.

  • If you would like quick access to some advice for the most common questions and issues, this can be found in the Editor Assistance FAQ.
  • Resolved, stale and other old discussions are archived, but if you need to return to an archived discussion, you can start a new section and note the old discussion. You may search old discussions using the search box in the Previous requests & responses section adjacent to this pages contents index.
  • Assistants: Please tag old requests using the appropriate templates, e.g. resolved, answered, unclear, unresolved, stale, moved or stuck, after approximately five to seven days of inactivity. These templates and notes on their usage may be found at Template:Ear/doc. A thread can be archived after being tagged for two days.

Archives

Fawcett Publication vs Fawcett Published Titles[edit]

I'm working on a bibliography that cites the magazines of a number of short stories. Among the are several 'Fawcett' publications (i.e., Triple-X Magazine (later renamed "Tiple-X", "Fawcett's Battle Stories", and "Battle Stories" (assumes just rebranding of the title from 'Fawcett's Battle Stories'). Though the Wikipedia link for "Fawcett Publications" does not list these publications, specifically, it seems practical to make a link from these titles to "Fawcett Publications" but I'm not sure this is within Wikipedia standards. Can anyone advise on how I should proceed? Thank you. - 09:19, April 21, 2021 user:Tchula65

If you have a reliable source that supports putting those publications on the Fawcett Publications page then you can add them there. Even without that change you can put a link in your new {?) article to Fawcett Publications and, if another editor objects, you can ask them for guidance. (Regarding what I'm guessing is a new article, please see Wikipedia:NOTCATALOG). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
"Fawcett's Battle Stories" is not a title in and of itself. What it is is shorthand for "the Fawcett Publications title Battle Stories". See https://www.mycomicshop.com/search?TID=328371 --Khajidha (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Harassment, Bullying, Uncivil Commentary: Parsecboy[edit]

"Parsecboy" (hereafter "User") has engaged in a pattern of anti-social language and actions following a March 10, 2021 edit I made on USS Mississippi (BB-41) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Course of events: March 10: Original edit by self, adding information on 1919 aircraft launch from USS Mississippi including an annotated photograph containing the time frame, location, and situation: File:NH 43915.jpg (edit | [[Talk:File:NH 43915.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). March 10: Reversion by User, claiming there was no source. March 11: Reinstitution of original edit with explanation of the fact that the photo was annotated (presumably by the original owner/contributor, although that is uncertain). I told User "If you have an issue with the factuality of the photo caption, please describe the basis for your dispute." March 11: Rather than modifying my edit, responding to my comment, or requesting further information, User again reverted the edit without justification, adding the spurious and combative comment "The photo doesn't have a date or the name of the pilot in it, now does it? And how do we know, just from the photo, that it is in fact Mississippi?" March 12: Due to the non-responsive manner of the comment by User, I re-instituted my original edit. March 12: User posted on my personal page, {{La]User_talk:Brucelucier#On_using_photos_as_sources}} a demeaning and harassing post, snidely informing me that I am not "An actual naval historian." April 22: On seeing User's multiple edits to my page I warned him to refrain from posting anything more on my page. I was not able to post on his user page (it was restricted or blocked), so I had to post to another linked page. April 22: User responded 'I haven’t said anything to you in well over a month, what are you talking about? And if me pointing out you were wrong is “harassment” or “bullying”, I suggest you grow up.'

Comments: 1. User frequently locks his user page, making it impossible to respond directly. Instead, he links to another page. As a result, it is impossible to know how much of a continuing problem his bullying language and behavior is. Due to the confluence of Comments 1 and 2 (below), I suggest User be restricted from this tactic, as it obscures his history from other users. 2. User has engaged with other users in a similarly contentious manner: Talk:USS_Mississippi_(BB-41)#Verification_needed (edit | [[Talk:Talk:USS_Mississippi_(BB-41)#Verification_needed|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and User_talk:Parsecboy/Sandbox#Rape_during_the_liberation_of_France (edit | [[Talk:User_talk:Parsecboy/Sandbox#Rape_during_the_liberation_of_France|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). In the latter instance, he "informed" another user, Marcher77 that Marcher77 also was not a "real" historian and a liar: "Somehow I don't believe that." Again, due to his frequent habit of locking his user page, the extent of his bullying behavior is hard to determine, but I suspect it may be extensive.

It seems User has a proprietary attitude toward articles he has an interest in. He also lashes out at other users in violation of Wikipedia policy. I suggest he be warned against this tendency. Obviously, his comments undermine Wikipedia's goals and should be discouraged. Thank you for your time.--Brucelucier (talk) 05:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Brucelucier, the user in question is an administrator with over 100,000 edits. When a newer user is being told by a very experienced user that their edits are problematic, it may be smartest to just accept the feedback and move on. Can you reply with some diffs of this user's problematic behavior? Examples of what diffs look like: [1][2]. Diffs are very concise and a great way of presenting behavioral evidence. Can you also provide a diff or aticle title to this full protection you mentioned? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Novem Linguae, is it usual procedure to tell people to "accept the feedback and move on" when a user is being abusive? Perhaps there is a better forum you can suggest, because I do not believe this user's methods are acceptable. Brucelucier (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Brucelucier, can you give diff links (as Novem Linguae has described above) to the abuse you allege? Without seeing what Parsecboy has done, in context, it's difficult to judge. Maproom (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@Brucelucier Honestly I do not see any base for your accusations, it would indeed be good to provide us some diffs. The conversations between you and Parsecboy I have seen on the talk pages seem to be nothing extraordinary.
@Novem Linguae Also Admins can misbehave, would not be the first one in history here, no matter how much edits they have. Although in this case I do agree on your assessment. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

First off, a couple of things for Bruce: my userpage is locked, that is not where messages go. No one has any reason to edit it apart from myself, and as I have encountered my fair share of vandals over the decade and a half I've been working here, I prefer to keep it locked to avoid nonsense being posted there. Also, it's generally considered bad form to bring up an individual at a board such as this and not notify them.

Second, here's the extent of my interaction with Bruce:

If providing a source that he asked for and then responding to his accusation on my own talk page constitute harassment and hounding, then hey, lock me up. But maybe one of us is just a wee bit overly defensive about being wrong about something. Parsecboy (talk) 10:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Abdullah bin Laden, son of Osama, is said to be in Maryland, USA, when he could only be 14 years old, with a younger brother in some terrorist related action. I question the accuracy of this post.[edit]

Abdullah could only have been about 14 at this time and based on the impression you get from Lawrence Wright's, the Looming Tower , I don't think this is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:88:301:2290:B1CA:DD0B:E38D:BEB0 (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey there. What article is this in regards to? Usually this kind of feedback is posted at the article's talk page. You click on the article, then you click on the "Talk" tab and make a section there. That way people who specialize in the article can take a look. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

John Smith VC .[edit]

John Smith's VC medal was in the Brian Lane Collection of Indian Mutiny militaria, and was sold by Sotherby's on 1 Dec., 2017.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.111.130 (talk)

Wikipedia has over 200 articles on people named John Smith. Admittedly only a few of them could have served in the Indian Mutiny; but it would still help if you could give a link to the relevant article. Also, can you provide bibliographical details of the auction catalogue and lot number, or a web link to the lot page for the medal? Maproom (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

National Fascist Party[edit]

Hi, I fear that I need your help in solving this (senseless) dispute about this logo's size.

1. A few months ago, Beyond My Ken and I had a brief confrontation regarding the size of the National Fascist Party's logo and we agreed to use a 120px size. He proposed it first and I supported his choice, even if the previous version of the logo was quite larger (160px, as you can see from this previous version of December 2018);
2. A few weeks ago, he unilaterally decided to reduce the size, using 75px, without any consensus and, when I reverted his edits, he accused me of advertising a fascist party;
3. After an edit war, of which I regret, I was inconclusively reported by BMK to the Administrators' noticeboard, and we started a discussion on the apposite talk page. Other three users partecipated in the discussion, two of them supported 120px, one of them supported 100px;
4. Yesterday (and today too), he decided to switch the size to 100px, asserting that there's a consesus. I think there isn't a consesus, but I'd like to have your opinion about it.

Thank you. -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The image display, like a thumbnail in the text body, is usually a default, viewable but not overwhelming other parts of the article. This ought to avoid disputes about what appears to look best to editors and provide a reader with information that can be clicked to enlarge if they wish. The last point is crucial. These disputes are not unknown, but it is recommended to be careful where one advances theories of page design (maybe not articles about fascists). ~ cygnis insignis 17:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
cygnis insignis, thank you! But if there's no consensus regarding this edit, how can we keep the previous version, preventing further edit wars? I'm not new to Wikipedia, but I must admit that I'm not a great expert in these stuffs. We're waiting until other users will express (or clarify) their preferences, but anyway, I'd like to listen to your opinion about the dispute's results. It could help. -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Why New Zealand is not a federal state for no reason like Australia?[edit]

Please Explain and get your answer, please! I hope you may understand what's going on with my question. Cyberllamamusic (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

New Zealand I think this a federal country, not a unitary country, unlike Australia. I hope New Zealand will be a federal status country by the near future amen...

This was also posted to Wikipedia:Teahouse#Why New Zealand is not a federal state for no reason like Australia? Please only post in one place. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Hello (talk) I already removed my post on teahouse that's your argument solved up.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Editor assistance. You have new messages at PrimeHunter's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, I want to talk again about why new Zealand is a unitary state not a federal state like Australia? please explain the underlying cause! Cyberllamamusic (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

It is usually considered rude to remove a post if someone has already taken the trouble to respond to it, especially as you do not appear to have read it. The Teahouse editor explained to you that the proper place to ask your question was at the ref desk. The Teahouse and Editor Help are for questions on how to use Wikipedia, not general knowledge. Curdle (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Why LIthuania is semi presidential republic not parliamentary republic?[edit]

Please explain the oddities why Lithuania is semi-presidential, unlike Estonia and Latvia which is both parliamentary. Lithuania is supposedly a parliamentary republic so the baltic tigers have synchronous them. I hope that prime minister Lithuania will be more powerful than the president. I think it is wrong to be a semi-presidential republic for Lithuania, but even know that Estonia and Latvia are both parliamentary not semi-presidential. The only problem is why baltic trio countries the 2 are parliamentary but the 1 is only the semi-presidential please explain to us! make us know about the baltic tigers regarding the government systems. Cyberllamamusic (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

As above; The Teahouse and Editor Help are for questions on how to use Wikipedia, not general knowledge. Curdle (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

hi jacking information[edit]

i cant log in 76.184.170.171 (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Dispute page deletion[edit]

[[3]]


An article I wrote was deleted on 11th December 2019 by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RHaworth User:RHaworth and/or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%C3%9Ejarkur [[4]] I have no idea why this person would make the decision to delete my article -

Draft:Dominic Hassall (dentist)

It was written by me about a world-renowned dental educator and professor so that people who are interested in his work can learn more about him and find his papers and research. I fail to see why the user who deleted the article has deemed the page to be 'unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view'

It seems quite an unusual and destructive activity to autonomously patrol Wikipedia looking for articles to delete. Perhaps Wikipedia should be looking at the credentials of these people.

I would like the article to be restored as a draft so that I can review it and make any changes that may have triggered such an excessive response from this person.

Flowonline (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Flowonline, hello friend. The article was deleted by RHaworth for WP:G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). That means that the article was not written from a neutral point of view, and would require a complete re-write to make it sound factual, neutral, and encyclopedic. To obtain the deleted draft text, you can try posting on his talk page, or posting at WP:REFUND. Or you can try writing the draft from scratch, taking care to make the draft sound as factual and neutral and possible. You should avoid using words like "world-renowned". Hope that helps, good luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)