Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Company Logo Outdated[edit]

Hello,

My name is Dan and I am in charge of the online marketing for EXL (EXL). I would really appreciate your help updating the EXL logo that is not outdated and does not reflect the companies current image. I tried contacting the editor, Jovianeye, who uploaded the previous logo but have received no response from him in over a week. I can understand that he is busy but I would like to get this logo updated as soon as possible.

The old logo is at File:EXL Logo.gif. Our new logo that we would like displayed on the EXL page can be found on http://www.exlservice.com/images/exl_logo.png. The name for this file should be EXL_Logo.png. I would really appreciate if assistance on updating this or even some guidance on getting this changed could be provided. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help with this update.

Thanks,

72.76.42.84 (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Drbeadle

Open an account (as an individual, not as a company) and then ask me on my talk page to confirm it. You will then be able to upload images yourself. You will also need to update the fair use rationale aa appropriate. This thread may get moved as you have posted on the wrong page. SpinningSpark 18:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton - no criticisms[edit]

I have long respected Wikipedia. I love the idea of millions of editors.

But I'm shocked that there isn't a 'criticisms' section for Hillary Clinton. She has been a public figure for many decades and has many controversial actions and statements. Condy Rice has a criticisms section, rightfully so. I'll be checking to see if a more impartial portrait of Mrs Clinton is displayed in the coming weeks.

I do worry that Wikipedia is losing its impartiality, I remember looking at Van Jones' glowing description a few years ago. It looked as though Van himself had written it. But, thankfully, it was fixed.

I'll send a copy of this little letter to a few journalist also.


Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catfishman1976 (talkcontribs) 16:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

How about, rather than contacting journalists, you do a little research? You could start by reading Wikipedia:Criticism: "Editors should avoid having a separate section in an article devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Instead, articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources together, fairly, proportionately, and without bias."
Our articles on George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon contain no 'criticism' sections. And neither for that matter does our article on Condoleezza Rice - it has a section entitled 'Public perception and criticism', but that is a different thing. Or come to that, out article on Adolph Hitler. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I need some information.[edit]

Dear sir, My purpose of writing this request is that i need some information about thing that has troubled me for some time, in my country.Which i find it difficult to understand now. one of this problem is unemployment. pleas tell me what to do...G-MYMY (talk)1234 — Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

If you're interested in learning about unemployment statistics for your country, you may have better luck at the Reference Desk. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Dispute involves both content and user conduct--best avenue?[edit]

Hi. I'm involved in a multi-editor dispute (five longstanding, three current) that's been going on for months. Most of the parties involved have been within the bell curve of reasonable, but one guy is a real problem: He's written some biased noticeboard filings and refused to change them, undermined attempts to resolve the dispute, and demanded to see precedents, sources and policies only to ignore or denigrate them once they were found to be contrary to his position. None of that's specifically against the rules, though. He also has his complaints about me. While this is primarily a content dispute, I feel that I and other editors could have come to a mutually acceptable solution by now if not for his efforts (or at least proceeded toward one in a less dramatic manner). Again, he probably feels similarly about me. Should I seek resolution here or elsewhere? Like I said, most of the stuff he's doing isn't specifically against the rules, so this isn't about reporting anyone for an infraction. I want someone who can help me work with this guy, more like a moderator or referee. Like I said, he has his complaints about me too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Large, complex disputes like that aren't likely to be resolved here. I like to think of EAR as the ANI of content disputes; it's best suited for things where there's a clear answer or can otherwise be dealt with summarily. You might try WP:DRN or WP:MEDCOM. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

CLIO AWARDS[edit]

In reading your editorial on THE CLIO AWARDS please be advised that I, Sandra Inbody-Brick, was hired by Ruth Ratny as the Executive Producer of THE NEW CLIO AWARDS. I was the Executive Producer of the LOS ANGELES ADVERTISING CLUB'S BELDING AWARDS for eleven years and recognized nationally for that event. During that time I had elevated the Belding Awards in both entries and attendance at the Awards Show. On March 22, 1987 the show was held at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion at the Music Center with over 2,000 people in attendance.

As you have accurately reported on June 13, 1991 the Advertising Industry's best know award show explodes into a frenzy in which attendees storm the stage and steal Clio Awards. On August 19, 1991 Clio owner Bill Evans has turned to a small Wall Street firm to find investors for the awards show and insists "There will be a Clio's for 1992."

On September 27, 1991 Ruth Ratny's Screen Intl., the Chicago-based publisher of Screen Magazine, purchases the Clio trademark for $10,000.00, and on February 17, 1992 ADWEEK'S headline story was, "INBODY-BRICK GETS THE HONOR OF PRODUCING 1992 CLIO AWARDS." The story was written by Betsy Sharkey, who today is a movie and film editor with the LA TIMES.

It's content is as follows: LOS ANGELES - Ad vet Sandy Inbody-Brick, who has produced awards shows in the West for nearly a decade, has been named executive producer of the 1992 Clio Awards. Resurrecting the Clios will be a formidable task. The once-coveted Clios were debased last year when then-owner Bill Evans never arrived at the show, leaving a caterer to emcee and the bills unpaid. The show ended with angry contenders rushing to the stage. Chicago-Based Ruth Ratny bought the name after the fiasco and began trying to rebuild. "I was at the Belding judging last weekend," says Inbody-Brick, referring to the Ad Club of L.A.'s show which she has produced for one years. "Sitting with judges from around the country, I heard a lot about what they thought needed to be fixed with the Clios."

On September 4, 1992 the Los Angeles Times article by Bruce Horovitz "HELLO CLIO, WHAT'S NEW?" also raised the issue of whether or not the event would take place at all. It's content-in-paart is as follows: "Clio, with the help of two ad women, is desperately trying to re-sell itself in a new and improved package and repairs an image tattered last year when one gathering erupted in a statue-grabbing ruckus and another ceremony was canceled because the Clio-owner couldn't pay his bills. The 1992 Awards Ceremony is scheduled for September 15 in New York City's Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. To produce the show Ratny , has turned to Los Angeles ad woman Sandra Inbody-Brick who is best known for producing the last 10 Belding Award shows, the West Coast's top advertising competition. Inbody-Brick implemented new standards for judging the competition. In the past, the judging was loosely run and criticized for its lack of organization. "If the Clios falls flat on its face this year, I know it's my face that will be flattened." Most ad executives say they expect they the Clios will survive. But, if the Clio Awards is another flop again this year, said adman Phil Dusenberry, "you can kiss it goodbye forever."

Well, the show went on with Tony Randall as the host and there were over 500 advertising people in the audience! It was a success and the Clio's are still going strong. I played a significant role in bringing them back after the fiasco and would appreciate that information being included in your commentary on the Clio Awards.

Sincerely,

Sandra Inbody-Brick ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandra Alhadeff (talkcontribs) 18:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of copying the foregoing to Talk:Clio Awards#Edit request along with a {{edit request}} tag. A reviewer will eventually consider it there. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The Family Man movie page[edit]

Just wanted to inform someone the page is mixed up with The Family Guy cartoon in listing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert L. Wilkinson (talkcontribs) 08:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Assistance Request to add Reference in SIF page[edit]

Dear Editors , found a reliable source and would like to add in page Save Indian Family . Can any one hlpe me as i unable to add the same due to limited knowledge. SIF Network NGo Ruproy1972 (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

See WP:CITE for full, easy to follow instructions. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Editnotice change proposal[edit]

I just noticed that the editnotice at the top of the editing page refers content disputes to the dispute resolution noticeboard. That's a mistake: it ought to refer them to the Dispute Resolution page since many disputes could be better handled through additional talk page discussion or at Third Opinion or even through formal mediation. Are there any objections to making that change? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Well spotted. That would be a useful change. My 2p. Simon Irondome (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

How to request for a review on a document IN sandbox[edit]

after your done editing in your "sandbox", how do we move forward to requesting the editorial team to review it? Thanks guys!

Probenciano (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Probenciano: I've added a box at the top of Draft:Joe Phoenix with a "Submit for review" button. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Probenciano (talk) Thanks so much @John of Reading —Preceding undated comment added 07:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we add links to Refdesk and IRC chat?[edit]

It occurred to me that a great many requests for help on this page might be bettere handled in other channels:

* Request for information should go to Wikipedia:Reference_desk
* General assistance (e.g. how to edit, how to use a template, what kind of content is appropriate) might be better served by Wikipedia:Help desk/chat which is usually well staffed during most English speaking country's daylight hours.

We have this information in the wp:helpdesk but not the confusingly similar Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests? Would anybody object if I included this information in the header, possibly borrowing the same style from the Helpdesk? --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The page I created is deleted.[edit]

I have been trying to create a page about Sushmita Banerjee, a noted Indian Classical danseuse. However, the has been deleted due to lack of reference. Vidushi Sushmita Banerjee is a renowned artiste and have a commendable presence on the internet. I can't figure out what I am doing wrong. Please help. Madhulinabardhan (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

What page has been deleted? I don't see any deletion messages on your talk page. This is your only edit. However, if she is a noted and renowned classical dancer, there should be third-party articles about her that you can cite to establish her artistic notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
@Madhulinabardhan: The article was at Sushmita Banerjee (Kathak Exponent). It was deleted a few times for promotion, which is entirely correct. It included a bunch of language like "...one of the most distinguished...", "...revived the Katha Shaili of Kathak under the able guidance...", "...graded artiste...". There were several decent-looking references listed, and it's possible we could have an appropriate article on this individual, but it must be written in a neutral, not promotional, tone. Also, the massive list of performances, accomplishments, etc., is not necessary. If there are a few that are extensively noted in reliable sources, those could be noted in the article text. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Two book pages deleted[edit]

Almost immediately after I created two book pages, they were nominated for deletion. The pages both cited several reviews that were independent of the books, the first requirement of notability. I feel strongly that the sources themselves were notable. One of the books, for example, was featured for an entire episode of Glenn Beck's television program. Glenn Beck may be right wing, but he is obviously notable. Some claimed that Glenn Beck was not notable as a reference and was "self published," for example. Other sources were right wing, as well, including the New American and the Western Journalism Center. It is my understanding that "right wing bias" is not a disqualification for notability, just as "left-wing bias" would not be a disqualification (as I pointed out on the deletion page). The pages were: Barack Obama and the Enemies Within and The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress."ReneeNal (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

These two articles were deleted as the result of an articles for deletion discussion. You are correct that we would not delete an article for being about a right-wing subject; we certainly have articles on Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and other notable right-wing figures. However, notability is not inherited. The fact that these individuals mentioned something would not make that thing notable. It appears that the clear consensus at those deletion discussions was that there are not at this time sufficient references available to maintain those articles. We generally want to see a pretty good range of sources to help maintain neutrality. You can try speaking with the closer of the discussions or requesting a deletion review, but given the clear consensus at the discussions in question, that's very unlikely to change the result. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your response. Were you able to see the actual articles? The references in this case would not apply as "inherited." The various independent (albeit right-wing) articles (and an entire television episode with a syndicated radio host) are way more than mentions. I would like to appeal these deletions. Can you advise?ReneeNal (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I already "advised". Speak to the deleting admins first, go to DRV if you can't come to agreement with them. Like I said, I don't give you good odds, but that's the route to appeal if you want to. My own views of the articles aren't relevant since they were thoroughly reviewed by the discussion participants. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Tsunesaburō Makiguchi[edit]

Discussion moved: Moved to the main EAR page. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Even though I have retired from en.wikipedia this edit has caught my attention [1]. In the talk page the reasons for the edit has been given as follows: [2]. Besides the fact that the edit as such is purely POV it also defies logic. How can a group founded in the twentieth century predate a group originally founded in the late nineteenth century?? Besides that the edit deletes well-resourced material. The reason for me turning to this noticeboard is that I am officially banned from articles relating to Nichiren Buddhism. For that reason I decided to retire … none the less I fear that certain articles on the subject are being white washed yet again. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)