Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

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.

Archives

Other links
Frequent requests Talk Third Opinion Incident Noticeboard

Democratic Socialism

I just looked up Democratic Socialism and I think your article is inaccurate. I was looking for information and what you have is WAY different than what I expected, in a right-wing conservative kind of a way. I don't know what it should say exactly, I was looking to read up on it, but what I see is grossly wrong. You have lost my confidence after more than a decade of use and support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.122.6.110 (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Moonlight article bias against Orville Lloyd Douglas review

Since March 22nd 2017 Orville Lloyd Douglas negative review of the gay film Moonlight was available on the wikipedia page. Douglas review is IMPORTANT BECAUSE HE IS A BLACK GAY MAN. In Douglas' review he points out the bias and racism of white Hollywood. The article Kentucky Fried Chicken In The Moonlight SHOULD be on the wikipedia page. The positive movie reviews of Moonlight MOSTLY WRITTEN BY WHITE FILM CRITICS. Yet nobody bother asking BLACK PEOPLE what they think about Moonlight. His review of Moonlight SHOULD be available and it is a BIAS it is NOT THERE. Yet this week people have removed the article. PLEASE return the review. Link to article: http://filmint.nu/?p=20474

@Andrewmorrisseyx: (For reference, the page in question is Moonlight (2016 film)). This is a content issue, and needs to be discussed on the article talk page to reach a consensus if editors disagree. If you disagree with the removal, go start a discussion there. Please remember to comment only on content, not the suspected motives of other editors. Repeated use of all caps is considered shouting, and will also cause you to have less chance of being taken seriously. Just calmly state why you believe the material should be included in the article, and if other editors disagree, be prepared to address their concerns. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Moonlight should have Orville Lloyd Douglas review on critical response

Moonlight (2016 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Since March 22nd 2017 Orville Lloyd Douglas negative review of the gay film Moonlight was available on the wikipedia page. I already wrote a comment on the talk page for the film BUT NOBODY responded! Douglas review is IMPORTANT BECAUSE HE IS A BLACK GAY MAN. In Douglas' review he points out the bias and racism of white Hollywood. The article Kentucky Fried Chicken In The Moonlight SHOULD be on the wikipedia page. The positive movie reviews of Moonlight MOSTLY WRITTEN BY WHITE FILM CRITICS. Yet nobody bother asking BLACK PEOPLE what they think about Moonlight. His review of Moonlight SHOULD be available and it is a BIAS it is NOT THERE. Yet this week people have removed the article. PLEASE return the review. Link to article: http://filmint.nu/?p=20474 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewmorrisseyx (talk • contribs) 22:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

You need to discuss the inclusion of the review at Talk:Moonlight (2016 film). I see you have started a thread there, which is a start. The review was originally removed, it seems, because of substantial overcoverage in violation of WP:UNDUE—that is, the single negative review did not merit a full paragraph of coverage where the rest of the reception coverage occupied the same amount of space. Wikipedia gives space based on relative prominence and impact of the source, and does not generally promote or suppress views on the basis of the race of the view's proponents. I am sure there is a way to incorporate the negative review in a satisfactory way, but it won't happen through just repeatedly cramming the source in the article. When a dispute like this arises, editors are expected to discuss it. See WP:BRD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Note that I have combined this new thread with the original, which I noticed after replying. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Actual COI for Talmonbc and articles he's contributed to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP_Points This article is a good example, as it's one he created. I've demonstrated on his talk page with very little doubt that he has a direct connection to the IFPUG, an organization that is mentioned in every article he's edited. He's also undisclosed. I'm going to try to edit the articles to remove bias, e.g. where he states "These are exciting times, as software cost forecasting (and other forecasting) continues to move away from being an art into a science." Either way, I figured I should bring it to others' attention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Talmonbc This is his talk page.

TheTechnician27 (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Use of Pseudo Facts

I consulted Wikipedia to find out who Milo Yiannopoulos was, as he kept appearing in various forms. I wanted an impartial description and background story to him. However, I was disappointed by the number of descriptions that kept saying "alleged to have ..." Alleged about whatever his associations are not real facts as they are not authenticated. The article didn't seem to break any liable laws, but using 'allegations' to describe a character is misleading as it implies an element of truth in the allegation. Saying that he was expelled is a fact; saying he is alleged to be associated with the 'Alt-Right' is not. I don't know how many descriptions of people and items contain this sort of prose, but it detracts from the standard with Wikipedia aspires to hold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javiroll (talk • contribs) 16:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Javiroll:, thank you for sharing your concerns, but posting them here will change little, if anything. The correct place to state your concerns about an article's content is on the talk page of that article. In this case it would be at: talk:Milo Yiannopoulos. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

IPs causing WP:OVERLINK with circular links on pages relating to Indian towns

There seems to be a problem with a set of IPs creating circular links on pages about Indian towns. Currently, it is mostly happening on the page Baruipur; I've tried fixing it and contacting the offending IP about it, but that was ignored. The history of the page is filled with slightly different IPs, and each of those IPs seems to have each edited several other similar pages with circular links, and so on. I'm trying to fix as many as I can, but every time I fix one page, I find three more with the same problem.

Thanks, Abce2 (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I've fixed all that I could find, including Baruipur, but I have no doubt that it will happen again once the editor(s) come back online. Abce2 (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Romano Crivici Composer stub

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

I have clicked on the 'expand stub' and expanded the biography and selected works category in the page. It was deleted by Sphilbrick for reason that I don't understand. I cited the source of all my additions as both The Australian Music Centre and Romano Crivici's website - both of which I wrote myself. I am writing on behalf and at the request of Romano Crivici himself.

1. How do I mark this as an expanded stub? Where do I delete the stub template to mark it as an article? 2. How do I get it passed so it is not deleted? 3. How do I TALK to anyone in the talk section? Or perhaps this IS the Talk section? On the Talk tab there is no where to type my questions such as the questions I am asking you now. 4. Are there writers who understand this extremely complicated process and can submit these simple additions to the stub page for me? 5. How do I SIGN these questions that I am asking you now? I will attempt to below but your guideline only has ------

Carlatha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlatha (talk • contribs) 23:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• With respect to the copyright issue, because the wording you added to the article was previously published elsewhere, we cannot accept it without adequate proof that you are the copyright holder. See WP:DCW for instructions, though be forewarned, if the material is promotional or has an unencyclpedic tone, it is very likely to be removed even if you comply with the copyright formalities. Moreover, as you are contributing on the behalf of Romano Crivici, please bear our conflict of interest rules in mind. Especially if you are being paid to make these contributions, you must comply with WP:PAID. These are the most serious issues your case presents. The issue of removing the stub template is just a matter of removing the {{Australia-musician-stub}} at the bottom of the article, but you can expect it to be restored, and your edits to be reverted, if you continue to contribute content in violation of our copyright compliance rules and conflict of interest rules. To contribute to the Talk page, go to Talk:Romano Crivici and click "NEW SECTION" at the top of the page. You can discuss the state of the article and request changes there. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you - I now know how to sign and how to respond. One step at a time.

To clarify !. Are you saying I need to re-write what I have previously written about Romano Crivici in NEW words, so I am not breaching my own copyright? If your answer is YES, I will do that. Are small changes to my wording adequate for wikipedia? Is there any easy way I can submit them for approval? 2. I am NOT being paid. What composer has money to pay anyone?? I am his wife and I do all his writing for him. What do I have to do to prove this and not have my posts removed? Carlatha (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, you needn't create a new section here for every response. You can just click the "edit" button next to the older section.

To answer your question, the instructions at WP:DCW describe how you can contribute text that was previously published elsewhere (and to which you own the copyright). Usually, however, I find that most other sources aren't written with the tone of Wikipedia in mind, and so you should be aware that your contributions may be reverted anyway. I also won't say you need to make changes so as to not "breach" your own copyright, just that Wikipedia needs the appropriate process to be followed for contributing content that has been published elsewhere. It's possible that minor changes wont' be enough, but I can't really tell you.

As I said above, there are rules on Wikipedia with respect to conflicts of interest that you need to be aware of. It is my experience, and the experience of many on Wikipedia, that good-intentioned edits by individuals who have a conflict of interest (i.e., being closely related to the subject of an article) can lead to unnecessary drama partly because of tone issues. I'm not telling you this to tell you not to edit, but just letting you know that you should expect any contributions you make to being subject to change or removal by other editors. Many connected contributors find it easier, and less confrontational, to request particular edits or changes at the connected talk page. Particularly where the sources or proposed text was written with advertising copy or promotion in mind. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism on BLP page that I manage for client

What can be done about repeated instances of vandalism coming from the same ISP address? The page is a BLP page about a client of mine. He asked me to make some revisions to it, to make it more current and reflect his most recent business ventures. I did so. However, he contacted me today that someone had vandalized the page. I fixed it, but I noticed that there have been other instances of vandalism coming from the same ISP, aimed at both my client, and the wiki page for the company he started. (Which he no longer has anything to do with.) The anonymous user has been warned several times. As editing Wikipedia isn't something I usually do, I don't know how to issue a warning or escalate this further. Any information would be appreciated.

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

Thank you, and much apologies if I missed something and should know how to do this.

Maghilleditorial (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Final warning issued to the IP. If it happens again a report can be submitted to WP:AIV for a block. If BLP violations start coming from multiple sources we can look into some level of page protection.

Also, FYI, Maghilleditorial, if individuals are paying you to edit Wikipedia, you must comply with WP:PAID. You are also not permitted to use "role" accounts; accounts are for individuals, and individuals within your organization may have accounts, but you can't have a central account for your agency on Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

OP has been indeffed for promotional editing and a role account username. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Flagging inadequate citations from good sources

According to the documentation, {{Refimprove}} and the related templates apply when more citations are needed or else the citations fail because the source is primary or unreliable.

How does one flag a claim that does have a citation from a reliable non-primary source but one which does not adequately support the claim? Peter Brown (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Would it make sense to rewrite the text to match the source? JohnInDC (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

If it's not possible to fix the issue immediately, I'd use Template:Failed verification (see "When to use" for more details). It doesn't question the source's general reliability, but only its erroneous usage in a specific case. GermanJoe (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you want either {{additional citation needed}} or {{better source}}. The former would be used where you want to retain the current source for some reason, like that the current source is noteworthy for some reason. The latter would be where the current source has some problem with reliability or specificity and should just be replaced entirely by a source that fully supports the claim. Realistically, though, I don't think it matters terribly whether you use either or {{failed verification}}, particularly if you use the "reason" parameter where it's available. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all! I used {{failed verification}}, which produced ^{[not in citation given]}, describing the problem perfectly. Peter Brown (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Revamped Actinophyrid page, could use a look from another editor

Hi all, I've been working on the Actinophryid page for a while now and it could use another pair of eyes to check for any mistakes that I've made while rewriting it, as well as any advice about structure and edits to make in the future. There's a section in the talk page where I've summarized my edits. Also, I wasn't sure where to post this kind of a request so let me know if this isn't the place to ask for that. Daemyth (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

demagogue

Demagogue I question whether a demagogue can ONLY occur in a democracy? I was surprised by the seeming, redundantly stated, requirement that it be in a democracy. Merriam-Webster does not mention democracy as being necessary to the definition https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demagogue. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition doesn't mention democracy either https://www.wordnik.com/words/demagogue. I am afraid to post this on the demagogue article's talk page, for fear I might commit some grave sin (even here, to some extent), but hope you can clarify the issue. Waterflaws (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Waterflaws: I think you might get a better response at one of the reference desks. Though really, if you're asking in order to seek changes to the article, you'd be better served by asking at the talk page, though perhaps with a slightly different argument. You're not likely to get far by arguing that because a variety of dictionaries don't mention "democracy" in the definition of "demagogue", we ought to follow suit. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we can do things like provide in-depth coverage, whereas a dictionary just provides the bare definition of a word. For instance, you might ask whether, in light of evidence that the word in common usage doesn't seem to necessitate a democracy, or at least what's commonly understood to be a democracy—i.e., western democratic republics as opposed to oligarchies. Since, at least in theory, some form of democratic republic appears to be a requirement in international law today, there are few governments where demagogues couldn't arise. Anyway, I think if you want to get change to the article, the central issue would be whether there's a disconnect between what the article says and what the common understanding of the word is (and how to address such a disconnect if it's present). And remember, I'm not talking about the technical, expert meaning of the term that political science professors might use, but the common meaning in the English language that everyday people use, since the latter represent a larger number of readers. That's not to say an argument should call for the elimination of the specialized definition in the article, but that if there's a disconnect between the article content and the general understanding of the term, a discussion of the technical understanding of what a demagogue is should be couched, or at least introduced, in terms of the general understanding of the term. Hope that helps. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

To suggest that a demagogue can only arise in a democracy is to make a positive assertion, which requires sources. I don't see any such sources and I also note that several of the examples are from the Roman Republic, which was not a democracy. I'd suggest you make a bold edit and remove all examples of this assertion from the article, with a note on the talk page. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Need help editing my client's wikipedia page

I don't know where to begin...but I'd like to start with the logo. How can I update the logo to the new rebrand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianleexyz (talk • contribs) 01:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: Given COI editing notice. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Adam Leitman Bailey

Talk:Adam_Leitman_Bailey#Lawsuit,_again

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Law Connoisseur (talk • contribs) 18:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

(The editor above appears to be seeking comment on the linked discussion. I've cleaned up this entry a bit so that others can make sense of it.) JohnInDC (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

William Wyler

My name is David William Wyler, I am the son of William Wyler. My three sisters and I have been trying for several years to change the wrong information on our father's page (he was a well known film director) about his birth name. William Wyler's birth name was Willy Wyler. The automatic bots of Wikipedia say that his birth name was Wilhelm Weiller - THAT IS WRONG!! Whenever I change his page and this information, Wikipedia bots automatically change it back.

Please help. David Wyler — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwyler (talk • contribs) 18:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello David. There's a few things you should be made aware of regarding Wikipedia policy:

• Editors are advised not to directly edit articles when they have a conflict of interest regarding the subject. Instead, request changes on the article's talk page or use the {{request edit}} template on the page.
• The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Do you have a reliable source for your father's birth name? Using yourself as a source would be considered either a primary source (not preferred for this kind of content), or original research (totally forbidden).

The quickest way for you to resolve this problem is to provide a reliable source on the article's talk page and let another editor introduce the change.

Let me know if you have any further questions about this. --Chris (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The birth name we have at present is not supported by any citation or source, so I've now removed all mention of any birth name as we can't support any assertion as to what it was, and left a note as to why. David, if you have a published source about his birth name, you can tell me about it on my talk page and I will add it to the article. And you can discuss the article on its talk page. - Nunh-huh 19:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)