Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Payza

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

The "criticism" section and advert template tag are repeatedly removed from Payza. I believe this action is by Payza staff as the article is written like an advertisement and edit comments suggest the criticism section has no evidence, despite citing seven different sources. Xmeltrut (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You need to open a discussion on the article talk page to resolve this. If necessary, start an RfC to attract additional comments. I would comment that several of the sources in the deleted section are blogs and forums. These are not normally considered reliable sources and will detract from your case. I would recommend limiting any future addition to unarguably reliable sources. SpinningSpark 08:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Spinningspark with respect to the criticism section; you need to start a discussion about its presence in the article and improve its sourcing. With respect to the advert tag, I agree that the article is somewhat troubling, and as such the tag may be merited... but frankly, since you're concerned about the article enough to post here, I would advise you to just be bold(!) and fix the advert language yourself. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Confusion over requesting deletion of image with multiple duplicates

I noticed that a user uploaded the same image twice to Wikipedia (File:Photo of Rick L. Weddle.jpg and File:Rick L. Weddle.jpg), as well as once to Commons (File:Photo of Rick Weddle.jpg). In my attempt to fix this, I requested speedy deletion of the first one here per F8, and the second one per F1 and F8. However, since the filenames here and at Commons are different, I was forced to use both db-f1 and db-f8 on the second one rather than db-multiple, because db-multiple assumes all filename parameters are the same. Was this the best way for me to do what I did? --71.199.125.210 (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The tagging is fine, but the first one has an incoming link which needs to be retargeted to the Commons file name before it can be deleted. SpinningSpark 00:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

retitle an article or add content for breadth

I'd like to preclude an intense disagreement, so I'd like to know what is generally preferred across most of Wikipedia.

There are two articles, one on a specific subject and the other on a wider subject that summarizes the specific one. The wider-subject article is mostly nonsummary content. Both articles link to each other.

I'm planning to add new content on a related subject to one of the articles. Either article would be suitable, but I think some editors will object in one case and some editors will object in the other case. Between the following editorial choices, which is generally preferred in Wikipedia?

1. Add the new content to the specific-subject article, because it's within the article's scope, defined by the article's title.

2. Retitle the specific-subject article to make its scope narrower and to preclude or exclude the new content; and add the new content to the wider-subject article only.

3. Create a new, third, article for the new content (if notable) and retitle the old specific-subject article to narrow it to preclude an overlap of scopes. Right now, I don't know if I have enough for notability, although I do have enough for weight.

It's possible that the most frequent editors of the old specific-subject article will object to all of these solutions and won't propose an alternative that grows Wikipedia's content within policies and guidelines. What they're likeliest to accept is adding the content to the wider article and leaving the specific-subject article titled as it is, but that would result in the specific-subject article being titled to cover more than it does after the most frequent editors will have refused proper content for it, resulting in an impression among Wikipedia readers that no such content exists.

I have not identified any of the articles here because before I do that I'd rather explain why editorial work is needed and the present draft of that explanation is extensive; and a dispute before that posting may be harder to resolve.

I'd like what I propose to be closest to Wikipedia-wide consensus. I probably need to select one of the first two options. Consensus may change, but I try to stay within Wikipedia's norms. Does anyone here have any recommendations or thoughts?

Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone here have any recommendations or thoughts? Yes. Provide some specifics. Identify the articles and explain why you weren't satisfied with the discussion on the article talk pages. Msnicki (talk)

If you don't want advice on a specific article probably the best we can do is point you to some relevant guidelines: WP:Splitting, WP:Article titles, WP:Summary style, WP:Article size. SpinningSpark 17:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

When there was discussion at the article's talk page or in edit summaries, the content was deemed false, sources had not been identified except those already cited, and editors preferred not to discuss it further. I have more sources now but the refusal to discuss remains. Given the article's history, what I need is the norm across Wikipedia. I didn't find one though the links suggested, but I'll try again to see if I missed a sentence on point. Neither article in question is too long. This is a complicated issue. Maybe there isn't a norm, but I don't want to go to a dispute resolution forum if I can solve the problem without having a dispute. If you have ideas that apply generally to most articles, that would help. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

One partial answer was in the policy WP article titles (the Considering Title Changes section), which prefers that stable titles be kept or that the matter be referred to Wikipedia:Requested_moves, probably in preference to debating at an article's talk page. In this case, the article titles are stable, which means the proposed new topic should be added into the specific-subject article. Adding the content will probably be strongly objected to, but at least there's a policy to point to.

Another possibility is to create a subarticle of the specific-subject article under the WP summary style guideline, but I don't know if there is enough to support notability for a new subarticle, although there is enough for weight, and even if there is there may be a conflict over adding a summary paragraph into the specific-subject article. On the other hand, the guideline favors merging elsewhere rather than splitting, which discourages creating a subarticle.

The WP article size guideline and the WP Splitting information page didn't apply since neither of the articles is too long.

So I guess the norm by policy would be to add the content to the specific-subject article and not rename it, rather than to add the content to the wider-subject article and rename the other. Knowing a norm avoids having a method unique to one pair of articles that would make it an unjustifiable exception in Wikipedia. Thanks.

Nick Levinson (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Help with Blackboard Inc. histmerge issue

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

Hello, I am looking for help with an issue that resulted from a histmerge a few weeks ago. I had created a draft version of the Blackboard Inc. article in my user space, where I worked on revising and updating the article. After discussing the changes with other editors, the draft was moved live to replace the then-current version of the Blackboard Inc. article. However, when this merge happened the original revision history of the article was replaced with the revision history from my user space.

Does someone here know how to restore the original revision history so that editors can see all the previous version of the article? I should note that my work on this article was as a paid consultant to Blackboard Inc., which was clearly disclosed to the editors who were involved in reviewing the draft.

I've tried following up with the administrator who moved my draft version live, but he says he doesn't know how to fix the issue, either. Can someone here help with this? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not possible to fully merge the two versions because they have overlapping histories in time. It was a bit of a blunder for User:DGG to delete the existing article since the history should be kept for licensing reasons. You should simply have pasted in your new version. The best I can do is restore the old history and move the history originating in your userspace to Talk:Blackboard Inc./Old history. SpinningSpark 15:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! You're right, it would have been easier without the histmerge. I think your compromise is the right one; the more important history is certainly the full history of the article over the years. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Need citation mystery help

I'm way over my wiki time budget but have two added citations getting red error messages that I haven't been able to figure out what the Css is complaining over (the process/format used to work fine!). Cite#15-16 (?or 17- look for red! <G>)

• 15th is first here

If someone can fix those up, I'd appreciate it. I can be reached here if there is a time sensative question.

• One possibility -- there are mediawiki '?' and '=' characters in the links... may be the issue?

//FrankB 20:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you see where the error messages at N3V Games#References say "Unknown parameter"? You have tried to use two parameters (|summary= and |Substantiation=) which are not known in that template. Simply remove them. Click on the message's "help" link for more information. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I used neither parameter, ... if you look at the source: url, date, title..., these were very basic cites, as the source is a wiki history and not going anywhere. Those are the interpretation of something being expanded by the scripting. Hence I asked for the help. I did add a caveat as a comment about the site being a login site, and that it goes down mid-day periodically. Are comments parsing wrong? // FrankB 13:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

  Those errors were introduced by this edit of yours, and were just removed by this edit of user Michael Bednarek.

  If I might make two suggestions: 1) Where other editors are working on the same article it is often handier to raise questions like this on the article's talk page. 2) It often facilitates locating errors if you do your editing in smaller hunks, checking each one as you go. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Well thanks for the heads up, but it doesn't explain the problem. Did point out an irresponsible editor with delusions of grandeur... I certainly wouldn't ever hire. The edit in which it went away, was a revert of my whole edit. TRY AGAIN. The problem is still there as I just put the 5.706 characters back. I hate reverts but this brought the company history into the current decade, not abandoned it in 2007! So can anyone else figure why those cites fail?

Oh, as to the other point, that article has been all but dormant for a long time. I really really really don't care to invest the time I spent running some of that down, this kind of hack and slash attitude here is why I rarely contribute any more, but as I have since 2004, when an article needs content, sometimes I still do. This one did. It can still use more, but I don't have the time on THIS wiki when this kind of rape occurs to AGF edits so often. I'm much too old for endurance contests any more, but if this is the quality of editor you want, you all deserve the crap many articles have become. WP:MOS is far too regimented as applied by some people. WP:IAR has been forgotten all too often. The mission, is to deliver information. NOT be stylish. Too many young editors sans perspective of a longer life don't realize that they are handicapped by their own age. Have a good wiki, if you can keep it. // FrankB 03:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)