Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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.


Drive by Editors Constantly Changing My Edits, Help?[edit]

The Real Housewives of New York City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

In one edit summary you said:
"See discussion on Talk:The Real Housewives of New York City page under "Infobox" heading for consensus & conclusion."
When I look there, after only one other editor commenting, I see you say:
"Due to the above preponderance of evidence in support of my revisions ..."
That is not consensus.
While I do find guidelines (MLA) that are definite about ordering of names involving the prefix 'de', we would need to know if there are any 'definite' rules here at Wikipedia. I'll look. You should also. Shenme (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I have looked...and looked and looked and looked and cited quite a few sources on the talk page, and those sources were "definite". I made the edit because the conclusion is obvious AND definite. AnAudLife (talk) 03:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi @AnAudLife: I only see one semi-suspicious IP edit (the most recent one). If you want to pursue it, you can open a sockpuppet investigation here: WP:SPI. But,
On a general note, there's really no rush to re-alphabetize (no WP:DEADLINE). As you've pointed out, your edits have been reverted by multiple users. When that occurs, I tend to wait a week or so to allow consensus to be reached, to give everyone sufficient time to read and weigh in if they care to, to see if we can come to an agreement about what should be done. Single-handedly declaring consensus just a day after you posted to the talk page, citing the preponderance of the evidence, when you hadn't even received a reply yet from any editors, is in bad form. Orvilletalk 03:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello Orvile, The only editor that was repeatedly changing my edits was put on a one week ban due to edit warring, her credibility compared to definitive evidence was bad form. If she really wanted a consensus she could have just as easily let my edit stand and request a consensus, but no, her edit is the only "correct" edit in her mind, I always explained my edit to her in detail, she didn't care. Waiting for any other opinions is futile, there won't be any other opinions and in the end we will disagree. She has been involved in and reprimanded for edit warring 6 times now, clearly she's one of those editors that always thinks they're right and that's not what wiki editing is about, when is this madness going to stop? I'm absolutely convinced she is behind the recent alphabetical edit. Behavior like hers and the fact that there's no real help in Wiki makes me just want to leave it. AnAudLife (talk) 03:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I tried to find definitive Wikipedia guidance regarding alphabetization regarding de but didn't have any luck. Your citations regarding other manuals of style are valid, but consensus is a core principle of Wikipedia. I've tried to be helpful as has the editor directly above me response. Help that has been provided includes the editor reverting your edits being blocked for a week, two editors here (counting me) providing guidance on handling content disputes, and me suggesting that you can open a sockpuppet investigation if you're so inclined (and where to do so). Since consensus hasn't been reached regarding the alphabetization, I think the one action you may have a harder time getting help with is having another go back into the article right now to alphabetize them a different way. Orvilletalk 04:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the help y'all have provided, but I only foresee constant changing if no one can agree. I made the change as suggested, we'll see if there are any more disputes, if so, I will simply give up. I won't lower myself to keep editing just because other people are editing out of spite. Thanks again. AnAudLife (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi again @AnAudLife: This just occurred to me. Since none of us can find anything in the manual of style, and you seem to have done your homework, why not present your findings here Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style to work on getting it added to the Wikipedia Manual of Style? Orvilletalk 04:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh my...I can give it a shot, it takes me a while to catch onto the forms here, but I can certainly try it. Thanks again for your help. AnAudLife (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Orvile, I took your advice and started a discussion on the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style page, we'll see what people think about the suggestion. Thanks again. AnAudLife (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Rye schools[edit]


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

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

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

The problem is not that anyone doubts the existence of the schools. When GorillaWarfare reverted your edit, he wrote in the edit summary "not adhering to neutral point of view". I agree. The wording you used, "have continued to provide a solid academic and faith based education", is promotional, and therefore unsuitable for an encyclopedia. I would also point out that "for 90 years" would be suitable in an ephemeral work such as a newspaper, nut Wikipedia hopes it will still exist 100 years from now — so it's better to write "since 1917" or whenever it was. Maproom (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Secondary schools are considered sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Primary schools and middle schools are not, unless they have some exceptional distinguishing features or history and that it has been well documented in reliable sources. For more information about writing Wikipedia articles about schools, please see WP:WPSCH/AG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Hello, I am an infrequent editor requesting assistance with this page:

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

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

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

I've removed the absurd claim that Blessitt carries 19 billion pounds. Maproom (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Adwalking meets WP:SPA and WP:NOTHERE. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Sirfurboy, this is a content issue. Please relist your concern at WP:DRN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, Thanks. this was not solely content as the issue was the person the article is about was editing the article, but other editors have dealt with that and the user is clearly now aware as he has backed off. From here on in it will be content only so please mark this item as helped/resolved. Many thanks. Sirfurboy (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I need a seasoned editor's help please[edit]

Template:Peter Perkowski


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

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

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

Thank you and kind regards, vic gerami

The process of convincing other editors that a subject is notable does not involve telling them what a great guy you think the subject is. Notability is established solely by citing, in the article, reliable independent published sources with in-depth discussion of the subject. If Perkowski is indeed "making headlines", you ought to be able to manage that. Maproom (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Vicgerami, I wanted to follow up there, though Maproom is correct. The reason you might have run across a thought that you might be paid to edit is that the article was promotional. Note that "promotional", as defined here, goes beyond commercial promotion or attempts to sell. Wikipedia articles must be strictly neutral, and must not promote anyone or anything, even just by "talking them up". The piece has an entirely inappropriate "profile" or "get to know ya" tone, rather than the formal, neutral tone expected of an encyclopedia article. I note that in your DRN posting, you even refer to it as a "profile". Wikipedia articles aren't a "profile", they are an encyclopedia article. (Just to start, references after the first to him would be "Perkowski", not "Peter", and we would say he "has" HIV, not flowery language like "living with HIV". Also, such a controversial assertion about a living person would absolutely require a specific, in-text citation). And it looks like most of the references just name-drop Perkowski or quote him. That doesn't establish notability. For that, it is necessary that multiple reliable and independent sources cover him in reasonable depth, not just quote or mention him. If there are such sources that cover him to reasonable depth, you can certainly give it another go, but be careful not to have any hint of non-neutrality or trying to say or show how great he is. Just the facts, just from the sources. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Much like Wikipedia, editors should not be able to make wild accusations of someone getting paid without proof (citation). Further, I appreciate ‪Seraphimblade‬ explanation and hope that others are not as hostile when editing a rooky's mistake. A little tact is nice when someone new is trying to include the most high-profile queer lawyer currently in the country. I don't expect for ‪Athaenara to walk me through anything, but false accusations are just as much in conflict with Wikipedia's mission as my 'promotional' sounding edit. I didn't realize how much hostility existed in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicgerami (talkcontribs) 04:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Should be all fixed now. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

last names vs first names in movie plots[edit]

Hello, I see a lot of movie articles' plot sections using characters' last names to describe them, but i also see some using their first names. so simple question: which names should we use in plot sections? does it not matter? Thank you. --SacredDragonX (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

According to MOS:SURNAME, for fictional entities the given name should be used, implicitly except where this would create confusion. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
surname only, okay thanks, got it. --SacredDragonX (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
wait, the first name should we used? i'm confused :P --SacredDragonX (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Lol, I didn't notice at first until your post, yeah, it probably is a little eyebrow raising that the rule to use the given name is under the rule titled "surname"! Consider it a negative rule. Q: What's the rule on fictional character surnames? A: Only use it once. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
hmm, still a little confused.. so you're saying after the first time, we should only use the first name to refer to said fictional character again? --SacredDragonX (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Literally, the relevant part is "Subsequent use... For fictional entities, use common names." So I actually shouldn't have said given name. The common name is usually the given name, but the exception is when the character is referred to throughout the movie as something other than their first name. Only a Skrull would refer to Nick Fury by his first name, so he's just "Fury" throughout the article. Almost no one refers to Thomas Anderson by either his first or last name, so he's just referred to as "Neo". So, sorry for needlessly confusing you, you can forget everything I else I said, all you need to know is that after the first mention just refer to the characters by the name that other characters use. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
common name, got it. tyvm for your help --SacredDragonX (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Wrong geographical caption on picture[edit]

Volcanoes National Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The picture of the volcano on Volcanoes National Park page (on the right side) has the wrong caption as it says it's showing Bisoke volcano but it's actually Muhabura volcano instead. How do I change it on the page as it's not part of the editable page? The Talk section of this page doesn't work either. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elxxvs (talkcontribs)

Elxxvs, the article's talk page works fine. It is at Talk:Volcanoes National Park. You could try starting a discussion there, though it doesn't appear very active. You might also ask an appropriate project, listed at the top of the talk page, for their input. Of course, they are going to ask you how you know the caption to be inaccurate, so it would probably be a good idea to lead in with that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

How/when to close a contentious RfC[edit]


Talk:List of concentration and internment camps

Hello! I am looking for advice on when and how to go about closing a contentious RfC at Talk:List of concentration and internment camps, regarding the inclusion of U.S.-Mexico border facilities. I am the one who originally opened the RfC and, per another editor's evaluation of longstanding text and recommendation for a formal RfC, I worded it as a being about content removal (rather than content inclusion).

The RfC has been up for more than two weeks now, with no consensus reached. Currently more editors support "Keep" than "Remove," but as I understand it, consensus in this kind of case is not about a straight up-or-down vote. About one or two editors per day now contribute to the RfC survey, which I personally think is enough engagement to keep it open.

However, another editor has rightfully pointed out that the survey responses remain evenly split, even recently. Given this, and given the contentious nature of the content being discussed, would it be appropriate to now request a formal closure? With the lack of consensus and my clear and heavy involvement in discussion, I clearly shouldn't close it myself.

Whoever responds, thank you for your advice!

--Pinchme123 (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinchme123, early closure of RfCs is extremely ill-advised except when there is an absolutely overwhelming consensus one way or the other, and they are not closed just by head count, but by evaluation of strength of argument. If the outcome is still unclear, it should be left to run for the full thirty days. Once that's done, if the outcome is too close to easily call, you can request that it be formally evaluated and closed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! This is what I generally thought to be the case, but wanted confirmation. I have no intention of closing it early now. --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

song names in plot section[edit]

Camp Rock 2: The Final Jam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, I recently edited camp rock 2, and I included the names of each song they sing in the plot section. however, i am unsure as to whether this is necessary; I looked at similar articles such as Camp Rock and High School Musical which do include the song names in the plot section. The first just includes them in the plot like I did for camp rock 2, the second includes them, although in brackets, so I am unsure as to whether i should include them, and if so, how. Thank you. --SacredDragonX (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Change of Heading for article titled 'Ronald Lawrence Hughes'[edit]


I have edited the article to correct the spelling of Hughes's middle name from "Lawrence' to become 'Laurence'. Unfortunately I do not know how to correct the heading through the edit function. Could the heading be changed please?

I am the son of Ronald Laurence Hughes that is mentioned in the article as Geoffrey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travel9901 (talkcontribs) 01:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I have moved it to Ronald Laurence Hughes for you. I don't have access to the sources cited in the article (except the first, which does not give his full name), but I found this which confirms the "u" spelling. It might be best to cite that source in the article, but I'm not familiar with the style of referencing it uses. Maproom (talk) 06:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Change minimum amount of calories in the Cambridge Diet[edit]

Hello, I am a fully disclosed paid-editor representing The Cambridge 1:1 Diet on behalf of LucrePR. I have been trying to get some of the information on the page changed so that it accurately reflects the diet in its current form. Specifically, the minimum amount of calories the diet prescribes is dangerously wrong. The most recent study puts the minimum calorific intake at 800 and stresses that the diet should only be taken under supervision. I have tried raising this issue on the talk page but everytime I do another editor lowers this number and keeps referring to a source that is no longer online. Essayist1 (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

That source may no longer be online, but it is still a reliable independent published source, and so is acceptable in WIkipedia. That reference should not be removed, nor should the statement which it supports. Maproom (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding information to a page[edit]

On the following page the player is recently be sold from Napoli to Cagliari I already added the paragraph about Cagliari that bought the player I am trying now to include the following source but I cannot refer it into the reference at the bottom page, when I click on edit in references paragraph I do not get the list as it showed in the web page. Any chance to explain to me how to do it so in the future I can edit it by myself? Thanks Falankuk

2019 AFC Asian Cup#Qatar football shirt fan incident[edit]

Hello. Me, User:Anbans 585, User:Wikiemirati and User:Masgouf are in dispute about 2019 AFC Asian Cup#Qatar football shirt fan incident. Anbans 585, Wikiemirati and I have have discussed the issue on the article's talk page and the discussion resulted in this but some still disagree with the shape of the paragraph and I'm not sure if it complies with Wikipedia policies and I wish your help to resolve this. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Super ninja2, please continue the discussion on the article's talk page. If that fails, please take it to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Name/career path change. Would like my page deleted.[edit]


Hoping someone can help as I've tried to delete information from this page and/or have it deleted completely so I may start fresh.

Reasoning is: I have change my name from Brad Fillatre to Bradley Arthur Maxwell. I am embarking on a new career in music and thereforeI do not wish any association with my previous alias or to have personal information about this part of my life on the wikipedia (as it pertains to family members, birth town, date of birth, and so forth).

I really would just like this page deleted so I can create a new one once I have a new bio written.

Please help me. I am not that familiar with wikipedia but keep getting requests rejected.

Happy to provide whatever proof you need! My website has info and you can see my old label's post here regarding the name change as well as with a quick google search.

Hopeful for a deletion so I can start fresh. I am the one who created the page originally with my wife but now I can't remove it :(

Best, BradBradleyarthurmaxwell (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Bradleyarthurmaxwell, please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley Arthur Maxwell. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Please DO NOT delete the Alice Little page.[edit]


To Whom It May Concern, My name is Charles William Luke II, I go by C.W. Luke II. Beg my pardon, but I do not know who I am addressing and I hope that this gets to the correct person. I was recently informed by Miss Little that edits that I made to her Wikipedia page has created issues between you and her. Alice had absolutely nothing to do with the actions that I took. After she first announced she had a Wikipedia I went to the site to check it out. I had never used Wikipedia before except to view information on subjects a handful of times over the years. My understanding was that they are a site that welcomed input from everyone. Additionally I did not know that Alice had paid a 3rd party to create and maintain the page for her.

I have been a follower of Alice on social media for the past year. Frankly, I admire her and when I read the page I felt it was a little dry. She shares so much about herself with her audience and I felt like the article needed more heart. Mainly to see how big of a heart that I have come to know that she has. Unfortunately I did not consult Miss Little prior to making my edits. She was not complicit in any way to my actions. It was a result of my good intentions and ignorance that has led to this discrepancy. Alice does not deserve to be punished or fined as a result of my misunderstanding. I had not intentions of undermining the service you provide or to create turmoil for Miss Little.

My hope is that this issue can be resolved with this message clearing the air and that you will give Alice a chance to continue to do business and maintain her Wikipedia page. She is a unique person and helps people in what most people would consider and unconventional way through her industry. She is making history and should be included in the Wikipedia encyclopedia for others to learn about her and continue to be educated by her. Educating people and helping them is her passion. It has caused me extreme sorrow to know that I may have jeopardized her ability to do this with you through Wikipedia. Please, please...PLEASE! Do not hold her at fault for my mistake. Thank you!

Sincerely, C.W. Luke II — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyber69surfer (talkcontribs) 05:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy links: Alice Little, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alice_Little. Cyber69surfer, the article is likely to be deleted because its subject fails to meet Wikipedia's standards, particularly regarding her notability; not as a punishment, or because of anything you have done. Maproom (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Cyber69surfer, we understand your concerns. However, Wikiupedia is an encyclopedia and its use to promote a person, product, or service is strictly forbidden. Also creating articles for pay is only allowed under extremely restricted circumstances according to our strict Terms of Use. In other words, if the subject has paid for an article to be written, then there is clearly an element of promotion, and a Conflict of Interest on the part of the user who created it. This often results in the article being deleted and and the paid editor and others who have a COI being blocked. Based on our policies, our editing community decides by consensus on what articles or content are retained. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)