Help desk
< February 11	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

February 12

Anti-nuclear partisans editing out balance

There are quite a few articles written about nuclear energy that completely lack balance. I have tried to add some balance but I am concerned about 1 Mike Rosoft who wishes to only permit quotes from anti-nuclear activists and continually removes the balancing material I put in.

There are quite a few of these articles on nuclear energy and Fukushima and nuclear waste that have been written with an extraordinarily partisan bias. I have corrected some things and tried to provide balance on others. I think there is a strong case that this group of articles are irretrievably partisan and should be edited out en masse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem56 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While you use language like "here are a large number of exciting proposals for new reactors which exemplify the great promise that nuclear fission shows", you are unlikely to convince anyone that it is your opponents who are partisan. Maproom (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The place to discuss article content is on article talk pages. If discussion on article talk pages is not successful, read the dispute resolution policy, which outlines various options (after saying to discuss on article talk pages). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" Thankyou. I only put in the "exciting new proposals" comment to emphasise to Rosoft that my bias could be almost as bad as his. Rosoft has never written anything on the article talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem56 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on dealing with this IP vandal?

I have noticed that an IP user has been engaged in persistent vandalism for quite some time now. They appear to enjoy targeting pages associated with So Fresh and So Random!. They have received repeated warnings from bots and users about their behaviour but have continued their disruptive editing. The biggest challenge in dealing with them is the fact that their IP address continually changes every few days or even every few hours, so they can simply resume their disruptive editing, even if they have been blocked previously.

Can anyone advise me on how to deal with this user? JayJ47 (talk) 07:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic IP vandals are some of the hardest to guard against. The standard tools for a non-admin at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. If the IP addresses originate from a small enough geographic area, some admins will set up temporary rangeblocks but if you're dealing with a truly dedicated vandal (I have seen this before with self-identified autistic vandals for whom the vandalism seems to represent compulsive ritual behavior) then the only recourse is endless vigilance against the vandalism and simple reversions per WP:DENY. If it's one thing this will teach you it's patience.... Good luck. -Thibbs (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is considered "reverting"?

Regarding reverting, edit wars and the 3RR, is making changes to someone else's edit considered reverting? That is, is reverting strictly mean returning an edit to a previous state, or does editing the edit, like, rewriting a sentence, count as reversion as well? --Tsavage (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To find out what is considered as reverting, please read WP:Reverting. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess this section answers my specific question, editing an edit is not considered reverting. --Tsavage (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Technically, any edit can be said to reverse some of a previous edit; however, this is not the way the community interprets reversion, because it is not consistent with either the principle of collaborative editing or with the editing policy. Wholesale reversions (complete reversal of one or more previous edits) are singled out for special treatment because a reversion cannot help an article converge on a consensus version." - WP:Reverting

Wikipedia:Reverting is an essay. Wikipedia:Edit warring is a policy and also more relevant to the stated question. It says: A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material.

There will sometimes be judgment calls. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I asked the same question elsewhere, and I'm at exactly the same point of nearing an understanding. The Wikipedia:Edit warring description links revert to Help:Reverting, where it says, "Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page being restored to a previous version." So when you say there may be judgement calls, does that mean that edits that change existing text but do not literally result in restoring a previous version (unlike cut-and-paste reversion, undo, rollback, or re-saving an archived page) may still be considered a revert in some situations? --Tsavage (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking at a change someone makes and then doing something that makes some or all of the page substantively like it was before the change, even if the wording is slightly different? That's a revert (and one revert is fine -- see WP:BRD). Are you you looking at a change someone makes and then making another change that you honestly think might be an acceptable compromise that you both will find acceptable? That's not a revert. Did you discover that your attempt at finding something you both like didn't work? Stop editing the page (see WP:TALKDONTREVERT) and start discussing it on the article talk page. It really is OK to leave it in a state that you don't like while you discuss things, even though this kind of goes against human nature. When in doubt as to whether what you are about to do is a revert, assume that it is and follow WP:BRD (not BRRD or BRRRD...). When in doubt as to whether what the other fellow did was a revert, assume whatever stops you from editing and makes you start discussing. The key is that whoever gets away from editing the page again and again and starts discussing things on the article talk page is doing the right thing. And if all else fails, go to dispute resolution, starting at WP:DRR. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Very clear and useful and answers my question completely. --Tsavage (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

319th Artillery regiment Wikipedia page

To whom it may concern, I am the Regimental historian for the 319th Airborne field artillery regiment and would like to update and add info to the page. how can I gain access to do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.85.76.26 (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page is at 319th Field Artillery Regiment. It is good that you have declared your conflict of interest and not tried to edit the page yourself, but Wikipedia will welcome your contributions, provided that that the information can be verified by references to published reliable sources independent of the subject. Information which is available only to you, and which has not been published, is unfortunately not acceptable for Wikipedia as it is classed as original research. If you have suggestions for improvements to the article, please add them to the article talk page, together with appropriate references. Thank you for your interest. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note the message at the top of your IP's talk page explaining that your IP may be shared by multiple users of a government agency or facility (and has been flagged for multiple instances of vandalism); therefore, you should create an account. See also: Wikipedia: Why create an account? —71.20.250.51 (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biography

Hello, I was just told that there is a bio of me in Wikipedia, so I checked it. It was basically nicely done. Thank you! There are, however, some errors (e.g., place of birth, etc), and to be fair, some omissions of things that should be put in (e.g., current important awards) that are important to various people, organizations, and technical societies. Is it possible for me to just list these and send them to whoever compiled this article? There are not that many. I do not want to get editing something like this myself. Thank you! Best wishes, Elaine Oran — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.181.166 (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is pretty much the same as the one given for the 319th Artillery regiment above (which saves a lot of typing) The talk page for the article is here Talk:Elaine Surick Oran (assuming you're that Elaine Oran). You can list the errors and omissions on that page. If you get no answer within a week or two, come back here and ask for someone to look at it. - X201 (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you made reasonable comments on the user talk page of the primary editor of the article. There is nothing wrong with that, but it would be better to make similar comments on the article talk page, Talk: Elaine Surick Oran. Also, as mentioned above, it would be useful to create an account. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see a need for the professor's middle name to disambiguate the article title, and moved it to Elaine Oran. The longer form of her name is a valid redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cant find article I created

Hello, my username is FanDangoMan82. I have recently created a page with the title 'Professor Mark Coeckelbergh'. When I submitted it for consideration I was told it could take up to 3 weeks but that I could edit the article at anytime. However, when I login to my account I can't find the article listed anywhere? why would this be the case? I have no reference to the article being submitted so I am wondering now if it has been submitted at all. Is there anyway I can check if the article has been received?

Kind Regards

Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by FanDangoMan82 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are presumably referring to Draft:Professor Mark Coeckelbergh. You obviously created this not while logged in to your FanDangoMan82 account, but while logged out, and the contributions are shown under the IP address 86.168.166.104. Your draft was submitted, some 3 days ago, and it is sitting in the queue of over 1500 drafts awaiting review. I would suggest that you add the draft to your WP:watchlist, as the eventual notification of the results of the review will go not to your named account's user talk page but to the user talk page for the IP which submitted it. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have set User:FanDangoMan82 as the submitter.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect company listing for Exterion Media

CBS Outdoor was sold last year and we rebranded to Exterion Media. Can you please create a page solely for Exterion Media as we are in no way affiliated with Outfront Media.

We are happy submit content towards this but ultimately it is damaging our ranking as people confuse us with this US based company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.171.156.66 (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear madam/sir, it is not clear which of our 4 million pages you are referring to. Could you please provide us with the name or website of the Wikipedia page you wish to see reviewed? I have done a search for Exterion Media and Outfront Media on the same page on Wikipedia and did not find any results that would be confusing to the reader. More information is needed to help answer your question. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outfront Media seem to think that they are/were CBS Outdoor. So someone is wrong. - X201 (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to the bottom of it. CBS Outdoor Americas IS Outfront Media. No changes should be made to this. CBS Outdoor International is a separate company that was rebranded as Exterion Media. Platinum Equity is the owner of Exterion Media so I'll add a redirect to that. As regard having it's own article, build something inside the Platinum Equity article and then fork it out when its big enough and notable enough. - X201 (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting my edits for others: I've turned CBS Outdoor into a disambiguation page (it used to direct to CBS Outdoors Americas) and I've created a redirect from Exterion Media to Platinum Equity - X201 (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.0.66 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribution record shows no edits before this empty question, so we can't guess which page you were talking about. Can you give us a wikilink please? - David Biddulph (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please help with my questions

Hello, I am doing a project for my high school business course and would like some help.

1. Describe the leadership and collaboration model that Wikipedia embodies. 2. Describe the supply chain and operations of Wikipedia. What are the quality issues? What are the efficiency and effectiveness issues? Who is and how is the customer effected?

Thank you.

Tori2000 (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do your own homework.
Welcome to the Wikipedia Help desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here not to do others' homework, but merely to aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems.
Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. You can search Wikipedia or search the Web.
If you need help with a specific part of your homework, the Reference desk can help you grasp the concept. Do not ask knowledge questions here, just those about using Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot do your homework for you, but some places that might help you answer your questions for 1) are at WP:5P , WP:CON and WP:MOP and for 2) at WP:V and WP:RS and Criticism of Wikipedia . You might also look at WP:CIRCULAR. You might also ask if editors here would be interested in doing an interview with you to help you understand any questions that you have about the pages.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on the left hand side of every page in the bottom box is a list of other languages. if you scroll down and see a "Simple English" link, you will see the equivalent page with the material presented in a less complicated/nuanced manner. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Policy

Does Wikipedia have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy about paedophiles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.229.73.216 (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Child protection. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kennel cough

Kennel cough is now thought to be zoonoses which means it can be passed on to humans. The article states it can not be passed on to humans.

Many thanks

Izzi82.12.198.102 (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Thought to be"? Have you got any reliable sources that back up the theory? Wikipedia's policy of verifiability WP:V means we need reliable sources for exceptional claims so that readers can check them. - X201 (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing your site

Im trying to write my reference page for a paper and I used your site. How and where do I go about finding that information? I used crazy stupid love, the movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.59.136 (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use Wikipedia as a reference. Use the sources the articles link to, but not Wikipedia itself unless your tutor has told you its OK to do so. - X201 (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia or click "Cite this page" in the left pane of the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]