Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
1leftarrow.png Help:Contents
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.
  • Please click here to post your request. 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.


Other links

Otto von Bismarch -[edit]


User talk:Joraejean At one time, under otto von Bismarch,...sub catergory "Socialism", there was dates attached to his new policies of ...what we call now 'workers comp', 'social Security'and 'socialized medicine". I think it was 1848...but all that info is now gone.

I have no idea how to 'reverse' this back...since I don't know when it was changed. I can't immage why it was removed.

Please put it back the way it was...or add it to the current'Socialism' category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joraejean (talkcontribs) 19:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The edit history of Otto von Bismarck can be found here. If that information was previously in the article it will be in the history somewhere. It may be tedious, but you can find it there. You might note, however, that there are now separate sections in the article about that kind of policy, under Otto von Bismarck#Social legislation, including a subsection on a law of 1884 which seems to be what you're talking about. Perhaps you're looking in the wrong place or perhaps it has been moved since you first saw it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Naming convention for US political parties in election results?[edit]

I've spent some time looking for an answer to this question, and also looking for the best place to post it. I didn't post on any article talk page as there are so many articles involved. Hopefully this is a good place to begin. If it's not and I should be posting this elsewhere, please let me know. I'm a fairly low-volume editor (a few dozen edits) and don't have an account, so I'm trying my best.

Getting back to the point, I'm wondering: Is there a policy/template/convention for referring to US political parties in election results tables in articles? I first noticed this while reading articles relating to Appalachia. I found several variations with just a cursory search. For example:

Lincoln_County,_Kentucky uses "Republican" and "Democrat"

Manhattan uses "Democrats" and "Republicans"

Middlesex_County,_Massachusetts uses "Democratic" and "Republican"

Onondaga_County,_New_York uses "Republican" and "Democratic"

Santa_Barbara_County,_California uses "GOP" and "DEM"

It appears that most of the "Democrat" uses are found in Republican-leaning geographic area articles. Many appear to have been made by the same editor. This usage is often seen as an epithet these days, as Democrat_Party_(epithet) notes. I would think that information like this, set off in a separate table and used in a large number of articles, should have a common convention/template, and certainly not one that uses epithets.

Also, if this is something that needs standardizing, is there a way to do so short of manually editing hundreds of articles? Again, I'm fairly new here, I don't know how major changes are implemented.

Thanks in advance for your help. (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Mangesh Ghogre[edit]


Can someone advice if following entry on Mangesh ghogre is notable for a article Mangeshghogre (talk) 09:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)mangeshghogre

That will be one of the things evaluated when your request for an article is considered. In that regard see the recent response to the similar request you made on your user talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)



Hoping that someone can give a more definitive answer regarding the information found within the first two sentences of FXCM's page. There has been a long standing discussion regarding their ongoing regulatory investigation. The article's Talk:FXCM page might shed some light on that.

One argument states that the first two sentences, and therefore Google's knowledge graph, should contain information about ongoing regulatory issues and the sentence: "fraudulent misrepresentation" to its customers. The other argument suggests including that information in the first two sentences of the piece is excessive and not befitting of other Wikipedia pages relating to businesses undergoing regulatory or PR issues (see here.

If anyone can suggest what is appropriate in this case, that would be much appreciated. Please reach out with any questions. Many thanks for your help. LQDR Lqdr (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, so first discuss it extensively on the article talk page - one edit each isn't sufficient and discussion about one another rather than about the content doesn't count - and if that doesn't work utilize dispute resolution. BTW, every article stands on its own here except for the effect of our policies and guidelines, so raising differences between this article and others will not prove to be effective unless required by policy. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

If Russia banned Pyeongchang Olympics, how to deal with this entry?[edit]

Russia possibly banned because of state-sponsored doping program. If Russia excluded Pyeongchang, how to deal with this entry? Simon 1996 (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[1]

There's three possibilities: The first is that Russia is banned, in which case the article can be moved to something like: Russian ban from the 2018 Winter Olympics. The second is that they are allowed to compete normally, in which case the article will remain where it is. The third is that the there will be some form of a partial ban, such as occurred in the Rio Olympics, and we will still have the article in the same place, but it will look like Russia at the 2016 Summer Olympics. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


Article Removed - Help[edit]


Hi there -

I would like more information about the following article: Colle+McVoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It was removed for unambiguous advertising or promotion but the page was setup in good faith. The article is in fact for an advertising agency, but it is meant to be educational and for references purposes, not for promotion. We believe it is important to be represented in Wikipedia due to its overwhelming popularity and use as a quick-answer tool.

There are many other advertising agencies that have operating Wikipedia pages, so I am curious what we may have to do to meet the requirements for this type of article. Do we need to link more within our article and be linked in other articles?

Thanks so much for your time and response. We appreciate you getting back to us when you have the chance. Best, Tyler Colle+McVoy

And01205 (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It is a violation of Wikipedia policy to edit Wikipedia on behalf of an organization, see WP:ROLE. I have reported the violation and it is very likely that your account will be blocked. If you wish to take up the cause of publishing an article about your firm, you may set up an individual account and do so, but know that Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy strongly recommends that you not do so and, moreover, if you are doing it as part of your job duties — that is, that if you are being paid to edit Wikipedia — that you must follow the requirements set out at WP:PAY. As for the previous article which was deleted, it is the tone and promotional nature of the article which results in a G11 deletion (click that link for details on how G11 works). If your firm is notable (see WP:ORG for the standards for organizations) it may well be that an article about it might be written which would pass G11. However, you should not write it. If your firm is important enough, someone unaffiliated with the firm will eventually write the article and you can perhaps jumpstart that process by making a request at Requested articles, though it may not help much since there are several thousand requests which are ahead of yours. However, you should be aware your firm has no right to be represented in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and does not exist to promote organizations, individuals, or anything else. If your firm is not notable, no article can be written about it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Promotional article[edit]

Steve Abadie-Rosier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, this article is a big self-promote ad, very few and poor sources, self published books except one, I don't know what to do and have poor English skills, maybe it should be deleted like on French Wikipedia. Ziloyz (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a lot of stuff in there that's not really supported. Was it in fact deleted at :fr? JohnInDC (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the clean-up, it was deleted at :fr in 2009 and 2010 [1]. Ziloyz (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Protected pages[edit]

Measles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [[2]] If a page is "protected to prevent vandalism" but has statements of fact with no citations, how do you suggest that a citation be added? Sorry if link format is wrong. Is my first time asking a question and wasn't clear on instructions for posting link. Barkway (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)barkway

Offer suggestions for improvement on the talk page of the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Help with a dispute and edit-warring[edit]


List of Kerala cities by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm involved in a bit of edit-warring at this page regarding its content. It's supposedly a list of cities of a state in India, sorted by population. I think that the data provided is (1) wrong; (2) original research, if at all it's correct; (3) sourced from inauthentic sources (a website with no references, or methods listed; and honestly, plagiarising government data, albeit, doing a bad job at it as well). In other words, it violates WP:V. The editor who created the page was rather aggressive when I first made an edit, editing the list and using verifiable, government census website data. They reverted my edit with an all-caps message to not edit the page. I have tried engaging with her/him on the article talk page Talk:List of Kerala cities by population, but they don't seem to get my point. It has gotten to where they are simply reiterating what they've said, while also engaging in ad-hominem attacks.

There are no other editors engaged in editing the page, and I suspect that the entire page has been set up to get traffic (or credits for links from Wikipedia) to a non-authentic website. Requesting help arbitrating the debate. Thank you!

Neogarfield (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

You're at the wrong place: Consider one of the dispute resolution processes at the dispute resolution policy. If there's just two of you involved in the dispute, Third Opinion is a great place to start. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Many Personal Wikipedia Pages are in Discussion for being Taken Down[edit]



I had a question... I am new to wikipedia. But I have noticed that many wikipedia pages are up for discussion to being taken down and I am not sure why because the people are notable.

For example, Lynda Goodfriend, a star from Happy Days, and chair of New York Film Academy, her page says it needs more reliable sources? But when I look at the wiki page it looks notable to me?

Another example is Glen Bell, the founder of Taco Bell, his page says it needs more reliable sources. I am not understanding why these notable people/figures pages are in discussion for removal? Is it because the articles are old? How many reliable sources do they need to keep their pages continuing or how often do new articles need to be posted if that is the issue? If someone could explain to me why these issues are happening that would be appreciated.

Best, Chevysarethebest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chevysarethebest (talkcontribs) 19:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

First, neither Glen Bell nor Lynda Goodfriend are currently being considered for deletion. The tags that you're seeing there are, essentially, notices of concern not notices that some deletion process is currently under way. Second, "notability" does not have its ordinary English meaning in Wikipedia. It means, instead, that an article meets certain criteria which are set out, in detail, at NOTABILITY. If those criteria, which I'll let you read on your own rather than attempt to explain to you, are not met then the article is not considered to be notable enough to be in Wikipedia no matter how well-known or important the subject of the article might otherwise be. In most cases, articles need to have a minimum of two reliable sources which discuss the subject in with more than just a passing reference or mention. Finally, also remember that "reliable source" also means something different than its usual English meaning. Click on that link to see what it is. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Transporterman,
I said it was in discussion for removal because, "If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted." was said on Lynda Goodfriend Wikipedia page [1]
Also, on Glen Bell page, "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)" I assume the page has the possibility of deletion.
Chevysarethebest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chevysarethebest (talkcontribs) 21:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I understood what you meant, but until someone actually bothers to nominate an article for deletion there is no ongoing discussion about deletion. Tags such as those often remain on articles for months and years without anyone starting a deletion discussion. So there is a possibility of deletion, but that's true of every article in Wikipedia, tagged or not tagged. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)