Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 128

How to cite paid content with supporting evidence?
A valid & cited account of topic relevant information was removed, reason being the cite didn't show the content. HBO is a paid service and yes, if you have HBO you can see exactly what I stated 18 min into the video, so is paid content censored by Wiki? If so, they have much to remove, e.g. all paid news sources, e.g. any newspaper reference, or anything paid for that matter that could potentially block out some readers. Seems this must be a procedural thing, at least I hope so! Please advise of proper procedure.

That said, how do we report dead/removed citations?

My post was as follows:

Encina is seen and heard slapping Ms. Bland across her face, she recoils away and says "Don't touch me." and she asks why she is being apprehended, in the footage aired in the HBO Documentary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmchtl (talk • contribs) 23:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I can see where your addition may have been confusing. You use Cite news and point to a web page offering a trailer video. If you wish to cite the episode content itself, a more relevant format should be Cite episode. Elizium23 (talk) 06:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I just watched the segment which you're describing in your edit. The commentator interprets what is said as a slap, but that's an interpretation of the dashcam footage and audio. The dashcam footage and audio is a primary source as defined by Wikipedia and primary sources must unmistakably and without interpretation clearly show what they're being used to support. I don't believe that the dashcam footage can be used to support the slap allegation. There's a sound and some head movement, but it's interpretation to identify it as a slap. I do pretty clearly hear Bland say "Don't touch me." however. Whether the commentator's assertion that it was a slap can be used, however, is more difficult. I don't know who the commentator was (I fast-forwarded to the relevant spot), but it might be possible to say that "Commentator X or Attorney X asserts such and such" using the HBO documentary as a source, but that then becomes a question of whether or not the commentator is somehow important enough for his analysis to be given space in the article. Frankly, if the alleged slap is an important element in the case, there ought to be multiple reliable sources saying that and getting hung up on this more-difficult one may well be more trouble than just going out and finding a simpler one. In any event, there is no "reporting" of removed edits or citations. All disputes here are worked out through, at least initially, discussion on the article's talk page and that's where you ought to go next. If that discussion does not work out, consider dispute resolution. There is no prohibition, by the way, on using paid sources, or sources behind some kind of paywall, as reliable sources, but that does not seem to me what WWGB was trying to assert in the edit comment. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 06:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC) PS: Please be sure to sign your talk page and noticeboard posts with four tildes, like this: ~

Attn:TransporterMan, I'm new at this, so just learning the html (or whatever the language this is), so a lot of trial/error & copy/paste of "code". The original footage actually does show the slap, so I referenced the primary footage, but still do wonder about ref a paid source, which is still my interpretation of their comment. But now a new question regarding "signing" which I did see elsewhere, but unsure exactly where to do this? Just "Dmchtl (talk) 07:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)" after anything I post, or could you ptovide a screenshot example? TY! So here goes my next trial/error. Please bear with me folks! DMCHTL ( TALK ) Dmchtl (talk) 07:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

But that's neither here nor there, since that kind of reasoning doesn't enter into Wikipedia editing. The question is what do reliable sources say. I don't have access to the HBO documentary, but I understand that the commentator says he slapped her. Does HBO claim to have commissioned professional forensic analysis of the video that shows him slapping her? Let's assume not for now, since you haven't mentioned it. If said slap could be seen clearly with the naked eye, certainly many reliable sources would have reported it, as it would have been so unusual, so dramatic, andmost importantlyso pertinent to the allegations of battery. No doubt the video was scrutinized closely by news organizations, and, after the slap had been seen and reported by one, all the others would've taken a closer look at the moment in question, also seen it, and also reported it. I have seen no others say that, and that silence is very significant for our purposes. Absent at least two other sources of high quality I will continue to oppose inclusion of this content per WP:UNDUE. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * About the paid source issue, WWGB's edit comment was "none of that content is given in the supplied citation" which says noting about paid/not paid, what it says is — probably, it's a tad vague — that the source doesn't clearly prove what it was cited for within Wikipedia's requirements for such proof. As for your signature, no cut and paste is needed. At the end of your post just put the four tildes (if you'd like a separator from your text such as a dash or a "Yours truly" put that before the tildes. Examples:
 * If in the code editor I end my message with:
 * Regards, ~
 * When I click "Publish changes" The system will generate:
 * Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you go back and look in the code editor, you'll see that the tildes have been replaced with a bunch of code that shows up in the "live" document just like the last line above. You can customize what shows up in your Settings, but you might want to not do that until you're a bit more skilled in Wikicode.
 * It's important that you sign your posts in this way so as to identify yourself and to time-stamp your post. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Noting FTR that you tried again, this time without a citation, with a rationale that clearly violates the Wikipedia policy against "original research". I reverted that. For convenience the slap sound is at +10:02 in this YouTube video. It's far less obvious to meI can't imagine how you think you can see that slap through the rear car window darkened by the shade of the tree. It seems far more likely that Bland slapped Encinia's arm or facehe recoils and backs away momentarily a few milliseconds after the slap sound.

Deletion of essential and much-read content, admittedly lacking adequate citations
Here, an editor has deleted a section of the article "Unicode input" noting, accurately, that the section does not contain adequate citations. However, the section in question, "Selection from a screen", is an essential part of the article. The article lead – the second sentence – reads:"Unicode characters can be produced either by selecting them from a display or by typing a certain sequence of keys on a physical keyboard."Without the deleted section, the article treats only the option to type appropriate keys on a keyboard; the option to select characters from a display is not covered at all (though the lead contains an orphaned image of such a display).

Rather than leave it in its current inadequate state, should the entire article be deleted? Pageviews yesterday, 12/04/2018, numbered over 300. A week ago, 11/28/2018, they numbered 384. Hundreds of other articles link to it. Deletion of "Unicode input" does not seem appropriate.

I have addressed the problem at "Talk:Unicode input". The editor referred to, who has now deleted the section twice, has not responded. As I say on the talk page, while I do use some techniques from the article, I never use those discussed in the deleted section; I am unfamiliar with them and unwilling to undertake the considerable research effort that would be required to add appropriate citations.

What can be done?

I recognize that the instructions for this page ask that I use the template. I have looked at the documentation for this template and don't really understand it. I accordingly apologize for my failure to use this template.

Peter Brown (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I restored the deleted content with sources. See Talk:Unicode input for further discussion. Cheers. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  19:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

2019 Pro Bowl Logo
I'm Having Trouble Trying to load the 2019 Pro Bowl Logo can you help me upload it Please. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Where are you trying to upload it and what's the issue you're encountering? Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Michigan Page
I was reading the page for Michigan. And noticed that the are for the U.P. county count is wrong. It list only for. The missing information is the name of 3 counties that are located in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. In the Eastern Upper Peninsula you will find Mackinac, Luce, and Chippewa counties. Also Marquette County. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.131.179 (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Can you be more specific about where the information is missing? I can't find it on a quick examination and the counties you mention are listed in List of counties in Michigan. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

New files without fonts
I would like a script to search in "special: NewFiles" articles that have no reference (, , ,  uses 18 kB post-expand include size while   only uses 3 kB. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Handling editing dispute with banned/possibly sockpuppeting IP user
I've found myself reverting some repeated edits by apparently the same person using a couple different IPs, with the most recent one having been banned (unsure why). Obviously talk page discussion would be impossible, which also rules out dispute resolution should that become necessary. Nonetheless I don't feel comfortable just repeatedly reverting, especially since the person might pop up using a different IP and make the same changes again. Does anyone have some idea how to address the situation? FWIW the main article in question at this point is Uridine monophosphate and the most recent IP was User talk:2603:3024:400:7400:C9ED:A813:B60:214B. The changes being made revolve around health claims being made by manufacturers of supplements, based on flimsy evidence; the IP user is removing statements pointing out the inadequacy of the evidence. I reverted similar changes made under their previous IP to Red Bull, but the IP user hasn't changed that back. I can also see another editor reverted similar changes to Rhodiola rosea. Sakkura (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

How to handle when a cited source is clearly wrong?
In the article Elizabeth Elmore, it says "Elmore passed the Chicago Bar around 2004", with a cite to an article in the Boston Globe which indeed says she "just passed the Chicago bar" in October 2004.

The only thing is, there is no Chicago bar, in the sense of a bar exam. The linked-to article on the "Chicago Bar" is to the Chicago Bar Association, which is a voluntary local Chicago association of lawyers that has nothing to do with bar admissions or bar exams. Bar admission is handled at the state level, by the Illinois Board of Admissions to the Bar. the IL BAB administers the Illinois bar exam (now the Uniform Bar Examination, but it would have been a state-specific bar exam back in 2004, the date of the Boston Globe article; the state is changing to the UBE starting this year).

The Boston Globe article is clearly wrong; but the stuff I just wrote above is clearly WP:OR.

I'm aware of WP:Verifiability, not truth, but still, should we have information in the article that we know to be wrong? Should we replicate known errors in otherwise reliable sources? I have no sense that the Globe is not a reliable source for most matters; but perhaps an entertainment writer is not a reliable source for legal matters?

One approach would be to just strike the bit about her passing the bar, but I don't think that there's any question that she passed the state bar (the Illinois state Supreme Court roster lists her as having been admitted to practice in Illinois in November 4, 2004), so I would rather not lose the information that she is an attorney.

Ideas? TJRC (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd see about finding another source that says she passed a / the bar and use that; or fudge the current language a bit while referencing the same source; or remove the part about her passing the bar and just talk about her having attended law school. Any of those.  JohnInDC (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This issue turns up more than you might realise, and it's one our policies don't really cover too well. In general, if you (or, even better, a group consensus) are reasonably confident that something cited to what might normally be considered a reliable source is actually factually incorrect, I would remove it completely and leave a brief summary on the talk page. In this case, keep it as "Elmore became eligible to practise law in November 2004" cited to the Supreme Court roster source, and put the explanation on talk. "Verifiability, not truth" is designed for the case where you have multiple different accounts of something with equal plausibility, and suggests you should take what's in the most trustworthy sources, not what you believe to be true. It isn't designed for cases where you're reasonably sure something is false. The verifiability policy doesn't tell you what to write, only what you do write has to be factually accurate and trustworthy, rather than "start with a google books search and throw everything at the article with the subtlety of a 14 ton elephant". Indeed, WP:VNT says "The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" meant that verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though it is not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough)" (emphasis mine) which is why my favourite ammunition to a policy wonk throwing three letter acronym kung fu moves around is to quote from the guidelines and essays in question with something that contradicts what they're trying to get at ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Table layout
Hello. I am currently creating a series of articles about the Italian army in my sandbox. One of them uses a high number of tables. I have tried, but failed, to find an answer to my question at Module:Wikitable and Template:Wikitable. If you would please look at User:Noclador/sandbox/Alpini WW1 you will see a table with three columns and in each column the text begins at a different height. This issue concerns all the tables I created. However the text in the tables below the first two lines should always be aligned to the left and at the top. If someone could please help me with this layout issue I would be very grateful. Thank you, noclador (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * in your code is a CSS class. You don't use Module:Wikitable or Template:Wikitable. Help:Table is the relevant help page. See Help:Table. Start the row with . PrimeHunter (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Thank you for the quick reply and for helping. Your suggestion was exactly what was needed and now all works flawlessly. Best regards, noclador (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Citations edition on Tourette syndrome
Hello,

In last november, I've make some changes to the article citen above. Since that time, has written back my changes and others modifications, citing WP:CiteVar. I want to know if I'm at fault or if I can edit that, all the same.

--Anas1712 (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That article has an unfortunately complex yet firmly established citation style, which shouldn't be changed, as explained by WP:CiteVar. If mimicking the citation style is too onerous, perhaps a compromise might be that you post the information you are interested in adding on the talk page, and see if another editor more experienced with that citation style will help you with the citation formatting. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  01:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello ,


 * I can format the citations, because it's easier to use CitationBot for adding informations, but if CiteVar is more pre-eminent, I shall leave the article as it is.


 * --Anas1712 (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Social media addiction and Digital dependencies and global mental health
Hi I'd just like some help as to the policies around these controversial topics. I've tried really hard to get help with several notices, but it seems quite clear to me that the edits I'm trying to make in regard to their connections with ADHD are being deleted without discussion, and no one else comments. So I'm a bit of an impasse. I've been asking for help from the start, and only one editor has helped me add anything since 12.12.2018. When their edits were put in what they considered to be a more appropriate space in social media addiction they were deleted too. It's all linguistics - the terminology is moving away from "addiction", but we can see that "overuse" "association between digital media use and symptoms" are all the same thing on the same topic. I'm not married to any linguistics, we just have to arrive at consensus. But the medical correlates have to be somewhere. I'm concerned about the false balance of the absence of the medical correlation - which is finally proven in a well designed prospective study, in both pages. Thanks E.3 (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , perhaps discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine which you are familiar with. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Help in making the article more acceptable
Dear Editor,

The article link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jaan_Nissar_Lone. Can you help me format and make this article acceptable as this subject qualifies as per point 12 of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music) shown how this person meets Music bio Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles as there is an interview on DD Kashmir which is a national/ State run News Channel, the link to this is provided in citation no.3. The other citations also do qualify the article, please let me know on the required changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TavadiaP (talk • contribs) 10:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , please discuss with your AfC reviewer or ask for help at Teahouse. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Concerns about another contributor editing Canadian National Hockey League team pages
Hello. I have been a regular contributor to the National Hockey League's teams season pages for over two years now. Since October of 2018, there has been this other contributor who constantly adds misinformation on a team's player statistics section. This user also does not re-organize the players in the statistics section based on a player's total number of points from most points to least, which is what it is supposed to be ordered by. The pages that this user contributes to are the following, 2018–19 Vancouver Canucks season, 2018–19 Calgary Flames season, 2018–19 Edmonton Oilers season, 2018–19 Winnipeg Jets season, 2018–19 Toronto Maple Leafs season, and 2018–19 Montreal Canadiens season. When this contributor first started editing, I believed they were just making accidental numerical errors. However, they have constantly been adding incorrect information since October. Their information also does not come from a reliable source such as NHL.com. I believe that they manually calculate the information, which is why it is often incorrect. I have notified this user many times about both of these issues, and they believe that these are just "easy fixes", and that it is "not that big of a deal". They have also refused to listen to any of the suggestions that I have provided them with. Other editors have also made complaints about this in regards to the statistics being ordered to the user's own satisfaction, and also for their usage of two accounts, which I believe is sockpuppeting. I will provide a link to NHL.com's player statistics |NHL.com - Stats so that you are able to navigate the website. Is there anything that could be done in regards to this situation? Or will I have to continue to deal with this person being able to edit these pages? Any sort of assistance would be appreciated. Yowashi (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[[
 * , please start discussions on the article talk pages about your concerns, and point the other editors to them. If that fails, try WP:DRN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Electronic Harassment and seeming NPOV/cherrypicking violations
The topic of Electronic Harassment is considered a conspiracy theory. I know wikipedia is biased towards science and all the rest, but there are facts from reliable sources that are being suppressed. For example, on the Microwave Auditory Effect Page, a more senior editor than I, sirlanz, tried to add well-sourced information about 'Project Hello', but then received accusations of edit warring. Ultimately, his edit was suppressed and he was banned, a first in his 11 year history here.

I myself have tried to make 11 edits to the EH page, after extensive communication on the talk page, but every edit is reverted. Other editors then threaten me with a 'ban' and accuse me of 'edit warring'. The outcome of this process is a page of disinformation which suffers from POV biases. If wikipedia is to be a neutral encyclopedia, we cannot allow certain editors to gang up on others in order to suppress information. Please take a look at these pages and let me know what you think. The process I have been through thus far seems to represent the worst of wikipedia. --PaulGosar (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Any suggestions besides boilerplate non-answers? If someone could examine the POV of the article in question and make an impartial declaration about bias that would be helpful. Obviously not looking for the opinions of editors already involved. --PaulGosar (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

EDIT - still waiting for a noninvolved editor to resolve biases. Notable RS being omitted, specifically even the first article mentioned on cursory google search.
 * https://www.wired.com/story/mind-games-the-tortured-lives-of-targeted-individuals/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulGosar (talk • contribs) 23:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

EDIT - STILL waiting for a noninvolved editor to resolve bias issues. @LuckyLouie and @GuyMacon are the editors who have caused the bias issues, and have already made their positions clear.
 * What I find particularly egregious is the inclusion of these two sources as reliable. The study in question observes 10 anonymous accounts and makes a broad assessment about the medical diagnoses of a group based on the links 10 anonymous accounts have posted. Consensus has agreed to include a full paragraph about this nonsense, complete with weasel words, as seen below. This is no way to write an encyclopedia.


 * "As part of a 2006 British study by Vaughan Bell, independent psychiatrists determined "signs of psychosis are strongly present" based on evaluation of a sample of online mind-control accounts whose posters were "very likely to be schizophrenic".[5] Psychologists have identified many examples of people reporting "mind control experiences" (MCEs) on self-published web pages that are "highly likely to be influenced by delusional beliefs". Common themes include "bad guys" using "psychotronics" and "microwaves", frequent mention of the CIA's MKULTRA project and frequent citing of a scientific paper entitled "Human auditory system response to modulated electromagnetic energy".[27]" --PaulGosar (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Paul, myself and other editors missed the Wired.com article in our previous searches, likely because Wired only recently released some back issues online. I can assure you — it was not a plot to "suppress information" or "bias" the public. The article's descriptions of people suffering from the TI delusion are heartbreaking. But overall there is nothing substantially new or different from what we already have in our article. Of course you have the option to discuss the Wired.com source on the article talk page and identify what specific text you think should be included, bearing in mind WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Please note that the behavior of above editor is being discussed at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, with 100% consensus so far for a topic ban from all pseudoscience.


 * Which bring up a question that is actually relevant to this page; occasionally we have an editor who is disruptive in one area and gets topic banned from that area. Many times these editors quit Wikipedia. How can we encourage them to stay and edit other areas? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * User PaulGosar has only edited on pseudoscience; they clearly have little interest in editing on other topics, at least until those topics are "corrected." Is there really anything we can do to retain someone who's been topic banned from their main areas of interest? And as a related question, is there really anything we should do? If someone is ONLY interested in "correcting" one narrow area, are they really here to build an encyclopedia? valereee (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * That's an excellent question. It gets to the heart of why ANI so often imposes topic bans as opposed to just blocking the editor. To my way of thinking, an editor who has only edited in the area of pseudoscience and is now topic banned from that area is a lot like someone who has never edited Wikipedia at all. In both cases we don't know if they are able to make constructive edits, but we also don't know that they can't make constructive edits. So we give them a chance with a topic ban. Past experience has shown that some editors simply can not or will not accept such a restriction, violate their TBAN a few times, and end up indefinitely blocked. A larger groups stops editing. But there are a few who move on to becoming productive editors, and some of them put in six months to a year of building up the encyclopedia, successfully petition to have the TBAN lifted, and then go on to becoming good editors in the area where they had problems before. I would very much like to see this happen more often.


 * PaulGosar, it looks like the Wikipedia community has looked at your edits and decided that they do not meet our standards, and is about to topic ban you from the area of pseudoscience. You can argue that everyone else is wrong (and you will have a chance to ask an uninvolved admin to review any TBAN in an appeal), but right now a bunch of people who don't know each other and have never edited the page in question all came to the same conclusion. But please note that absolutely nobody called for you being blocked as often happens when we are dealing with obvious vandals and trolls. This means that the Wikipedia community thinks that you can be a productive editor and improve the encyclopedia in other areas. I personally find you to be likable when you aren't lashing out at perceived attackers and think you could be a valuable and respected editor. What can we do to convince you to not give up? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes. We are biased.
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once said:


 * "Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.


 * What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t."

So yes, we are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience. We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology. We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy. We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology. We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathic medicine. We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture. We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults. We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles. We are biased towards laundry soap, and biased against laundry balls. We are biased towards electronic engineering, and biased against electronic harassment. We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment. We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields. We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism. We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible. We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts. We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology. We are biased towards Mendelian inheritance, and biased against Lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change.

--Guy Macon (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Italicizing of sources
So I'm not sure if this is the entirely correct venue to ask this question, but I would like someone to clarify whether these sources are meant to be italicized or not: MTV News and Idolator. Now my understanding of this is that they're not print sources, so we do not italicize them. Look at featured articles Lady Gaga and Katy Perry which do not italicize these sources and use them with the publisher parameter which also affirms this. The user Ss112 does not have an understanding of this and keeps reverting me whenever I correctly use them without italics. See this edit for example. I am hoping someone can explain this concept to them. (Note:The reason I came here and didn't go to their talk page is because they have asked me not to post there)-- N Ø  15:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Does not have an understanding of this"...your opinion of what should not be italicised is not fact, I'm afraid. You've just stated it's your "understanding" then subsequently start speaking as if it's "fact" that needs to be explained to me. What is fact on Wikipedia is that online websites that function as regular publications are italicised, regardless of the choice of editors on each of those articles (the artists' articles you've linked) to not italicise them. The only editor here who needs something explained to them is you, . This is not the place to ask somebody who agrees with you to come explain something to me. Oh, and don't tag me here again.  Ss  112   15:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Featured articles which are identified as "some of the best articles Wikipedia has produced" agree with my understanding so I'm afraid you might be in the wrong here. No, its not an editor's "choice" how sources are italicized on featured articles, various editors who give input at an FAC all reach a consensus about it being some of Wiki's best work before it is promoted. And I'll tag you if need be. Stop changing my additions if you have so much problem with discussing and resolving the conflicts it causes, its not very co-operative.-- N Ø  15:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. We follow WP:BRD. Your additions changed what was already there on those articles, so I absolutely will revert you if I disagree and I'm well within my rights to. I know you seem to think so, but featured articles are not perfect or unquestionable, and obviously the editors who helped promote those articles didn't particularly care about whether those parameters were correctly italicised or not—you're presuming that matter was even brought up at those discussions. And no, if somebody's asked you to not tag them, you should respect that. If you don't respect that and think you're above it all, I'll get an admin involved to get you to stop mentioning me. And finally, yes, it was your choice—on the article in question it certainly was your choice to change the parameters. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for what should be done on every other article. If you can point me to a consensus affecting those publication names and which parameters to use them in, please do. Otherwise, we italicise the names of all publications—print and digital. Hence why you will see Pitchfork and Consequence of Sound, etc. etc, digital publications, italicised on album articles. There is a guideline that explicitly mentions that—which specific one it is escapes me at the moment, but I remember reading it and being pointed to it by others when it first came about multiple times, so maybe an editor here will know and point you in the right direction. That changed quite a few years back. We previously did not italicise online publications but we now do. Maybe you missed that that changed while you were blocked/not active here, I don't know.  Ss  112   15:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you find a link to that discussion, well and good. Unless that happens, lets wait for more people to weigh in here. And again, I'll tag you if need arises. This is my first time tagging you this year, so saying that you will "involve an admin" if I tag you again is irrational to say the least. Believe me, I have no interest in dragging this discussion any further than it needs to be. (Seriously, instead of coming up with another snarky reply to this about my past block which you think will provoke me, lets wait for a third party to clarify this once and for all.)-- N Ø  15:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm quite sure it wasn't a discussion, it's a line in a guideline that states all publications should be italicised, regardless of whether they're in print or digital. You're still claiming you're "right" in your own snarky edit summaries, which I find laughable considering the only thing you cited were two FAs where the italicisation of parameters was not even a factor considered at the FA discussion(s), so therefore is the editors who've edited those articles' subjective decision to not italicise them, and not an actual guideline. Also, that wasn't a snarky way to bring up that you were blocked—I would say that about anybody who had an enforced reason to stay away from Wikipedia and not keep up with the developments of guidelines.  Ss  112   16:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Um, I'd be really interested to see this guideline you're talking about. If its truly a rule that "all publications should be italicized" then every single FA and GA on Wikipedia is doing it wrong...-- N Ø  16:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Except guidelines aren't rules that editors have to abide by...? And yes, I just said above I can't recall which guideline it is, but it does exist—I'm not inventing that I was linked to it multiple times by several different editors just for the sake of being "right". And this guideline was written/amended after those articles were promoted to FA. It's obviously not a priority for editors (if they even know about it) to go back around and make everything consistent.  Ss  112   16:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If a guideline exists, that would be the best thing possible. If it doesn't, then we will follow the outcome of this discussion instead. Either way, you going around italicizing every source because of your personal preference, and using "other stuff exists" as the argument to reject any differing opinion is not the right course of action by any measure.-- N Ø  16:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I wasn't even the one who added the sources to the article, nor italicised them originally. That was . Don't accuse me of doing something I didn't do. I reverted you because we italicise print and digital publications on Wikipedia. You're the only one acting on your personal preference here, because you changed the article from what it was with nothing but a couple of outdated FAs to back up what is in the end just your (and evidently several other editors') preference. Honestly. Learn who did what to an article before you throw out incorrect accusations. I repeat: I italicise publications, including websites that act as online publications, because that is what we do on Wikipedia.  Ss  112   16:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm done with this discussion until an uninvolved third party actually offers their opinion. Thank you. You have provided absolutely nada to back up your opinion that the sources should be italicized, so my two "outdated" FAs is definitely better than that. Have fun arguing with yourself if you respond to this with another self-defensive paragraph that is not actually discussing the issue at hand.-- N Ø  16:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for wrongly accusing users because you can't be bothered to actually learn who did what on an article. Maybe if you didn't throw out stupid, incorrect accusations, users wouldn't need to get "self-defensive". Besides, you've done exactly that as well above, and been so arrogant as to actually believe because you can point to two imperfect FAs that it's holy writ that the publications you cited shouldn't be italicised. It's laughable. Have fun trying to stick to not replying; I don't think you'll be able to, as it's been proven elsewhere you're a hypocrite through-and-through.  Ss  112   17:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

"we italicise print and digital publications on Wikipedia" - yes, we do. The work/website parameters in citation templates italicize them as well. Publishers aren't italicized. Lapadite (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Lapadite77, I believe the issue MaranoFan has is that we shouldn't be using the work/website parameter for certain things at all, not that they have an issue with the work/website parameter italicising what is put in them.  Ss  112   17:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Template:Cite web clearly states: "The publisher is the company that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.)" (emphasis in original) MTV News (in this context) and Idolator are websites—nobody can deny that. There you go. MaranoFan is wrong for putting those in publisher= parameters and the precious FAs they cited are incorrect for doing so. Doubtful they'll admit it though, and probably continue to argue.  Ss  112   18:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

, the 'rules' are here, read them - carefully, both of you, and discover who is right and who is wrong, and if there are still differences of opinion, is one of the best qualified to offer an explanation. And please, keep calm, nothing is gained by throwing around with PA.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for offering an actual link to a guideline. I think this part: "Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized" is probably the most relevant to our discussion, but it still says nothing explicitly about blogs (Idolator) and production divisions (MTV News). I'd like to know SMcCandlish's take on these sources in specific.-- N Ø  18:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh jeez. Here we go. Idolator falls under the category of a news (music news is still news) site with original content. MTV News literally has "News" in its name. Honestly, this is just arguing over semantics now and really reaching. I already linked to Template:Cite web, which is a guideline for how to use that template, which you did not use correctly.  Ss  112   22:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Italicize them, per MOS:TITLES. "It's online, not on dead trees, so it's not italicized" seems to be some kind of fallacy going around, but it  fallacious.  We don't care what the transmission medium is.  Besides, our citation templates will automatically italicize them anyway. I've written this up before, but here's a highly compressed summary:
 * A publication is a publication. Websites that are services (e-commerce sites, university portals, agency/ministry portals, forum/webboard sites, hosting sites for others' wikis/blogs, etc.) and don't have the character of a publication aren't publications for our purposes (unless cited as one; see below).  Websites that do have the character of publications (presenters of editorial content) are publications and receive italics. This includes news sites, online reference works, blogs, e-magazines, webcomics, review sites, electronic journals, wikis (as sources, not as user communities; see below), etc.
 * When a business (publisher), publication, and site (address) share the same or essentially the same name, italicize references to the publication, not to the legal entity, nor to the domain name, unless the domain is also the publication title.
 * "She is an editor for Salon, an online magazine, and also writes for major American newspapers including The New York Times." [publication names]
 * "After leaving The New York Times Company in 2009, she became the vice-president of marketing at Salon Media Group, the San Francisco-based publisher of Salon e-magazine among other news and entertainment sites." [publishers' legal entity names]
 * "The denial-of-service attacks hit several prominent news, e-commerce, non-profit, and government servers for three days, including Salon.com, NYT.com, Amazon.com, ACLU.org, and Copyright.gov." [server addresses as such]
 * When the publication's name is its domain name, italicize it. This is less and less common all the time, since the fad of naming things something like "Foo.com" was stale by the late 1990s.
 * "Jackson published and wrote most of the content for the pet-owner activism and news site CanadianPitBullLegalWatch.com from 1999 to 2005 while still in law school."
 * Wikis and other WP:UGC databases (IMDb, etc.) can be tricky, in that they are both publications and user communities; only in the former context would they be italicized. Thus: "An article at Memory Alpha, a wiki devoted to Star Trek ...", but "Debates about the title of the film spread from Wikipedia talk pages to the Memory Alpha user base, and other loci of Star Trek fandom." User communities and the talk pages and other threaded discussions they have are forums, not publications.
 * When you are citing something that is not normally considered a publication but you are treating it as a publication for the purposes of the citation (e.g., an eBay page for a fact about eBay, like the name of its dispute resolution system), italicize it in the citation, since you are in fact treating the site as a publication in that context, and the cite template will do this anyway.
 * That is, do not manually construct a citation to avoid italicizing, since you'll just end up producing inconsistent citations, which is against WP:CITEVAR.
 * Especially do not abuse citation template parameters (e.g. by putting the publication/domain name in publisher, which is for the name of the corporate publishing entity) in an attempt to avoid italicizing. This just creates unnecessary cleanup work for other people, an annoying waste of other editors' time.
 * If you just hate the idea that a domain name or other name associated with an online publication might sometimes be italicized for some purposes in some contexts, that's simply too bad, and you will have to live with it. (I don't mean "you" in reference to anyone in particular, just the general class of editors who keep going out of their way to try to forcibly de=italicize names of online publications. It's unhelpful, borderline disruptive, and a lost cause, so it needs to stop.)
 * Thanks for all of that, SMcCandlish. I think that clears it up. Much appreciated!  Ss  112   10:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Book without ISBN?
I have been searching for the year of the release of Fate/Zero novels as well as ISBN to rework some references. However, I'm lost here about which of these are the light novels. According to the series' infobox there are only 4 volumes but most of these are far longer. This is the official site. It mentions the date but no ISBN. Here. Is Is it possible the book wasn't given an ISBN?Tintor2 (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Reference both versions of a book?
The list of books on this site does not include references for the reader to go to the books.

All of the books exist in both online and published versions. Is it possible to provide references to both, or do I have to chose one or the other?

Thank you for your help.

Adams1peace (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , can you please clarify what you mean? Do you mean the publications section or the references? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The list of books in the publications section Adams1peace (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It's usually not recommended to post external links to a book's Amazon page because that is considered promotional. There's more info about the guidelines here: External_links/Perennial_websites. If there was an online copy of a book that is public domain and not subject to copyright then I could see linking to that. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  06:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This is very helpful, thank you. I will remove links to the Amazon listings and link only to online copies in the public domain which state that the text may be reproduced if full attribution is provided.Adams1peace (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Ted Bundy
After reading the childhood/early life section of your article I wondered if it is it possible to collect or access forensic evidence that might support my theory that his maternal grandfather is actually his own father? Because his father was never successfully identified and bec both his grandmother and grandfather seemed to be mentally disturbed (and also his grandmother went through electroshock therapy) it could be possible that his grandfather conceived of him with his own daughter (Ted’s mom) which was covered up and also might explain why the grandfather got upset when Ted questioned his paternity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danaglassboyko (talk • contribs) 00:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This kind of research is outside the scope of Wikipedia, which is based entirely upon preexisting reliable sources as defined by policy and without the use of original research as defined by policy. If that theory can be established in such sources, it may be a candidate for inclusion here. Otherwise, not. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding new information next to previously existing citations
I know there exists some article of Wikipedia policy regarding adding new information next to previously existing citations as being deceptive if such information is not in the prevoiusly existing source, but can't seem to find where it is, can some one link me the policy page? Apologies if this isn't wxactly the correct place for this question. —T.E.A. (Talk•Edits) 23:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You may be looking for WP:INTEGRITY. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes! Thank you. —T.E.A. (Talk•Edits) 16:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Inviting other editors to a discussion
Hello, I have faced some problems in some discussions because I found some editors who argue using a lot of fallacies which make disputed issues unsolvable and I can't invite other editors because I dont have much friends here and I fear that I would be accused of choosing biased editors who would support me. Is there any way to invite other editors into discussions indiscriminately and without being annoying. Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * There are various solutions available through dispute resolution. Please click that link to check them out. Remember that except for RFC, there must have been an extensive recent discussion of the dispute in question on the article talk page before other forms of content dispute resolution will accept a case. Discussion through edit summaries only will not suffice. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations made here. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 23:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Seran Kim sources and deletion tags
Hi, 1. Help is needed to determine the sources are reliable for Seran Kim. As a film director, I think IMDb, PRNewswire, and nyu.edu should be considered reliable. If you agree, please help to remove the unreliable source tag. 2. Short film Director who wins awards should be considered notable. For example, there are many short film wikipedia pages. Also, Mat Kirkby is a short film director and James Lucas (screenwriter) a short film producer and they do not have a proposed deletion tag. It is unfair that Seran Kim is singled out for deletion. I added my notes in the talk page. If you agree, please help remove the proposed deletion tag. Thanks, SWP13 (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Questions about particular sources are best directed to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, but do yourself a favor by searching their archive for prior discussions about the sources first, you're likely to get a much quicker answer.
 * Proposals to change the film notability guideline should be made on the talk page of that guideline, not here.
 * Be aware that every page in Wikipedia stands alone. Just because some other page exists does not mean the page that you're interested in should exist. If those pages should not exist, then the proper remedy is to delete them, not to add another nonconforming page. This is all set out in the OTHERSTUFF guideline and is specifically set out as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions.
 * Having said that Seran Kim is simply tagged for a proposed deletion. If you do not believe it should be deleted, you can merely remove the deletion tag and prevent its deletion. If the person who proposed it for deletion still feels that it should be deleted after that, they can then do a more formal AFD proposal which the community will decide.
 * Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 23:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

In the article on Moab
In Moab go to citing of number 16, the authors name is Edwin Thiele not Thistle, it is correct in other parts of Wikipedia.

Thanks Vicki Kline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkline1 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed! Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention, but next time you see something that can be improved, feel free to be bold and make the change yourself. Novusuna talk 11:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Change to "Female Athlete Triad" wiki page
Hello, This is in regards to the page Relative energy deficiency in sport.

I am a member of the Female Athlete Triad Coalition, which is a non-profit organization founded to educate the public of the health consequences associated with the condition. I noticed that when searching for the female athlete triad wiki page, it is now redirected to the "relative energy deficiency in sport" page, as of December 2018. This change is not accurate, as they are in fact separate entities. Without going into too much detail, the RED-S group has tried to "re-brand" this condition with out the knowledge (or approval) of the researchers/ physicians who make up the Female Athlete Triad Coalition. Triad research has been conducted for the past 30 years and because RED-S is new (est. 2014), there is no scientific evidence to support that Triad and RED-S are one in the same.

We tried to remove the "re-branding" comment and do not wish to remove RED-S entirely, but it should have it's own separate page with relevant content. Currently, the RED-S page covers solely Triad material, which is inaccurate.

We please ask that Female Athlete Triad and RED-S remain separate pages until there is an official consensus on this topic.

Femaleathletetriad (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I will let other editor(s) assist you with your edit request as well as your conflict of interest and username problems. As you can see in the article history, it was changed by me to the new name Relative energy deficiency in sport due to the source given, which is definitive and also clearcut and repeated in secondary sources like the BBC source (not given) which are reliable sources. The primary source name change states The IOC expert working group introduces a broader, more comprehensive term for the condition previously known as ‘Female Athlete Triad’ ... update and replace these documents ... so it is by definition the new name that replaces the old name by the body that defined both (from my understanding). See WP:NAMECHANGES, where this new name is used in multiple secondary sources - BBC, Athletics Weekly plus about 17,000 Google hits. Looks like I erroneously missed off the full old name, now fixed. Widefox ; talk 16:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I just double checked the article, the old name wasn't omitted by me, but removed after by Femaleathletetriad . Please don't do that again. Widefox ; talk 16:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Need help on Posting my 1st article
Hi,

I have been facing difficulty on posting an article I prepared. Kindly help to upload. Paul Joseph Vithayathil 18May1929 to 7July2018

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vithayphil

Kind Regards

Philip Vithayathil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vithayphil (talk • contribs) 08:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The draft you wrote isn't in the proper condition to be an article. There is no sourcing, and the content doesn't suggest the subject is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia.  I recommend you read this first Your first article. You can also work on the draft in your sandbox rather than on your user page. Info here: Help:My sandbox. Cheers. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Shortest constitution.
Hello. I've read in the page : Constitution, that the constitution of Monaco is the shortest constitution in the world, at 10 chapters with 97 articles, and a total of 3,814 words. But recently I have constructed an article that defies it : the Constitution of the Latvian Socialist Soviet Republic contains only 7 chapters and 31 articles, with only 769 words (high estimate). Can the fact in both pages be altered to provide this new reference?--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your challenge will be to find sourcing that substantiates what you are saying. I looked up the Latvian document you used as a source and can't find it, let alone read it.  Your best bet would be to start a discussion on the Constitution talk page. Cheers, <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Here you go. Here is the original text of the constitution.--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your link shows the constitution, but the statement needing validation is that it's the shortest constitution. Unless a reliable source validates this, we can't confirm what you are saying without looking at every other constitution and doing a word count. I still think you'll have more luck at the Constitution talk page where others more knowledgeable about this will be. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  00:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Cadet Honor Code
Hi, fairly new here, so sorry for any mistakes on my end. I’ve watched Wiki for some time but have not edited before joining. I’m keenly aware and familiar with the subjects and details of these two articles and I’ve watched previous edits be deleted or reverted without discussion improperly. Worst of all, I’ve watched current and relevant references be deleted in both aforementioned articles. Most recently, I continue to be harangued by user:Ewen Douglas, who is claiming I am a sock-puppet to a user:stargazer. I am not a sock-puppet but a real person, familiar with these subjects and institutions, who is trying to enhance accuracy by including accurate references (one from an institution’s own website). Please assist or advise. I appreciate your assistance.Slaphappy19 (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The subject matter you're attempting to edit, your actual edits, your user and talk page elements, and even your manner of writing on other editors' talk pages are identical to Strgzr1 and 117.82.228.51; both blocked editors. Your claim that you are not the same person stretches credulity, to say the least. If you're truly interested in improving Wikipedia, a good start would be to come clean about your multiple accounts first. Ewen Douglas (talk) 13:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This is user:Ewen Douglas’ only response to any and all requests to come to an agreement on including references he keeps deleting. Please note dates of his edit above as it is merely a cut and paste response. Any help would be appreciated, thanksSlaphappy19 (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Could you please answer the question about multiple accounts? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This has now been reported at Sockpuppet_investigations/Strgzr1. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Is WP:ETHNICITY being properly applied?
Per WP:ETHNICITY,
 * "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability."

In the case of actors, athletes and activists, I do believe this is very notable:


 * 1) Actors often get roles based on their ethnicity and birthplace origin.
 * 2) Athletes have national eligibility rules for international competitions. You can see this during World Cups.
 * 3) Activists who espouse their ethnicity or nationality in their causes are definitely notable for it.

I have noticed certain users being very adamant in removing any mention of "XX-American" or "XX-born Canadian" without really taking into consideration the subject and how the XX may be relevant.

One such user is very active in this. I'm trying to use this to better understand the situation before I approach anyone else on this, if indeed they are correct.

A couple random examples:
 * M.I.A. (rapper): An ethnic Tamil refugee from an ethnic confluict, father affiliated with Tamil separatism, Tamil identity prominently featured in her activism and art. Surely "Tamil" is part of her notability.


 * Mena Massoud: A little more tricky. Based on the fact most of the roles are playing ethnic roles, is being "Egyptian" a part of his notability?

Which brings me to ask another question. If someone is born in a country and there is no source they have renounced that citizenship (and the country has dual-citizenship) is there additional onus to prove they are of that citizenship? Because most times we don't have a source about whether someone is American or Canadian citizen either, the wording just seems to go by where they are either born or living in, but that doesn't prove they are citizens necessarily. So then isn't that onus then being inconsistently applied? ~DA1 (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there a "most people don't care" policy on Wikipedia?
I've been working on Wikipedia for ten years now and edited thousands of articles, mostly for the WikiProject Albums. I have also written my fair share of articles about music artists and some of them reached the Good status on Wikipedia. The fellow wikipedian Hatto0467 asked me to write an article about the Japanese band Band-Maid for the Italian Wikipedia and to translate it for the English one, which I did. I knew very little about the band before starting my research. The status of the article is poor, with incomplete information, poorly sourced material and trivialities. It reads like a diary. The article I translated added much content and could have been an improvement, although it needed more refinement for grammar and references. It was properly researched, respected the policies of Wikipedia as much as possible and could surely be changed and shortened with a good peer review. However, in the brief space of four minutes since its publication my edit was blanked by DragonFury with this justification written on the article talk page: "the information is correct, seemingly well-referenced, and it's undoubtedly of great interest to fans of the band but of very little value to most readers." Editor GimmeChoco44 wrote that the article contained "too many trivial details which fall outside the scope of an economic and focused Wikipedia article". What my fellow editors wrote prompted some questions, which are: Thank you. Lewismaster (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Who decides what is of interest for "most readers"? If I recall correctly, the lead section should be concise and summarize the content of the article to hook readers, but the article should be as complete as possible. Am I wrong or my old age is playing tricks on me?
 * What is an "economic" article?
 * Which criteria should I use to omit info in an article? Too much detail does not help much.
 * Articles should indeed be "complete" if by "complete" you mean "comprehensive" rather than "all-inclusive." As an encyclopedia, we aim to provide an overview of various subjects rather than a collection of all available information on them. Personally, if I want to know if something's "of interest to most readers," I just ask myself: "would I really expect this information to be present in a printed encyclopedia?"
 * I think "economic" here simply means "concise."
 * If there are no reliable sources available to reference a piece of information, it should probably be omitted; other than that, it's a matter of judgement. Editorial disagreements over each other's judgement are to be expected and can be ironed out via talk page discussion. 78.28.54.83 (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, economic means "concise." In reference to the revision in dispute, I'd point to the guidelines below. The lengthy edit submitted contained (a) several subjective points without citations and (b) several points with citations that ventured into "macropedia" range. When an edit of such length is submitted, you run a high risk of having other editors revert it rather than take the time to go and correct/revise each point. "Why is this essential?" and "What does it add to the quality of the article?" are key decision factors.
 * Good_article_criteria
 * Summary_style
 * GimmeChoco44 (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand and, to a degree, approve all the reasoning expressed above. I also understand that all of the biographical articles that I wrote would have been blanked and reverted following those rules, instead of reaching Good status. I still have the feeling that, being the article of Low importance and extremely sectorial, a "most people don't care" policy involving strict conciseness of the text and reduced editorial work was applied. I have seen in the past massive edits on more popular topics treated differently. But I don't want to complain. I will probably use some of the text I wrote to expand other articles, as GimmeChoco44 suggested, and leave the main article as it is. By the way, Good_article_criteria was vandalized and do not offer much advice. Lewismaster (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Accuracy
I was looking at info about the Missisippi river. (And the Iowa river). On the Miss. Site the Iowa is not listed as a tributary. On the Iowa river site it is. I already knew that the Iowa empty's into the Missisipi. Just a note incase you want to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B018:56A8:743A:2EDA:592:33C1 (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Website closing
The website Sports Reference is closed down. Many athlete-related articles, including some one line articles in which it is the only reflink or source, should be updated accordingly. 2604:2000:EFC0:108:398A:F10E:DDE3:A8A0 (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC) Please disregard; comment above based on one anomaly (https://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/search/athlete_search.cgi?search=edit+perenyine+weckinger+) 2604:2000:EFC0:108:398A:F10E:DDE3:A8A0 (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Promotion of papers authored by a particular person
I was reading Diffusion Equation and noticed that most of the text in the History & Development section seemed to be copied en bloc from a study. In looking at the edit that added the content, I found it was indeed a paper published in a journal I can only describe as less than reputable. But then I also found that all of the edits from the IP address did the same thing in several instances to varying degrees, all with the same work or others published under the same author name, which makes me feel like the intent was to create artificial references or increase visibility. The sections that were basically plagiarized will need to be refactored, but my question is should this be reason to actively undo edits or only be a factor to keep in mind when reviewing them, if at all?kumowoon1025 (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for noticing this. I've removed the material from Diffusion equation and will look at the other additions. I removed the section because the first three paragraphs were a direct copy and because the rest is about the author's own research. The paper was has a license to reuse the material but not one that is compatible with Wikipedia. I could find no other sources for the author's conclusions and Wikipedia doesn't publish such original research. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

A request to update.
I would like to ask if it would be possible if Mark Dice's page could be updated with accurate information on his accomplishments which are not on the page?I am just wondering why it's so dated.Seems a little unfair .Thank you.2601:844:4300:923E:5DD2:14D:5E79:F4E5 (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You can make an edit request if you can't do the edit yourself because the article is protected. I did notice this though because the name Mark Dice rang a bell: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  02:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Imagemap Parameter
Hello there, I'm editing the article Fellows Road and no matter how much I try, I can't seem to be able to get an image of the road working with the ImageMap MediaWiki extension, help is greatly appreciated. Berrely (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Location Map
Good Day

I created the article Alpini and Mountain Artillery formations in World War I. User:Goran tek-en was so kind to create a relief map of Northern Italy with the borders of 1905 for the article: File:North Italy relief location map 1905.svg. Now I am stuck, as I do not know how to create a location map module like i.e. Module:Location map/data/Norway North with the new map. Currently two Location map+ modules with a map of all of Italy are used in the article, both of which should be replaced with the map created by Goran tek-en.

My request would be for a more experienced editor to please create the module required to use File:North Italy relief location map 1905.svg. User talk:Goran tek-en has stated that he has the map limits and as soon as they are needed will provide them. Thank you in advance and with best regards, noclador (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Solved it myself. This post can be archived. noclador (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

What is the article rating procedure?
I would like to get e new rating of the article. If possible also some feedback.Retal (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Here are some guidelines for the ratings for Project Mesoamerica WikiProject Mesoamerica/Assessment <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  01:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And here's info on requesting peer review. Peer review. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  01:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Please let me know if you would use this Chrome Extension
Please let me know if you would use this Chrome Extension that I am thinking about creating.

This Extension will add two checkboxes to the left of each listing on the "Recent Changes" webpage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges

The 1st checkbox means that you are interested in that listing. The 2nd checkbox means you are not interested in that listing.

Your settings are automatically saved, so the next time you display the "Recent Changes" webpage, it will show the listings in one of the following three modes: 1. Only show listings that you are interested in. 2. Show all listings, except those that you are not interested in (all listings that don't have the 2nd box checked). 3. Show all listings. --

I am aware of the Special:Watchlist page. My extension will not require going to another page, it will interface directly with the Recent Changes webpage. Also, Special:Watchlist doesn't exclude listings, it only adds listings.

Is there already a browser-based tool that provides this feature (without downloading anything)?

ToolCreator (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , no idea about people using it, but you might want to consider implementing it as a user script, so that people don't need a browser extension to use it. Gaelan 💬✏️ 19:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Why are links red? I'll also include the list of them
Listes of red links: 120-130 Loop 129 140-149 Loop 142 Loop 143 Loop 144 Loop 145 Loop 146 Loop 149 2x Those links are red. Can you fix them Jayscott253 (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Those Wikilinks appear in red because there are no articles about those Texas 'Loop' roads. The way to 'fix' redlinks is to create the non-existing articles (the other option being to remove the double brackets, so that the words will appear as black and not linked anywhere). David notMD (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I've drafted about Loop 149. What's next? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayscott253 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * After you submit a draft to Articles for Creation and it is accepted as an article then any Wikilink to that article will appear as blue. As written, Draft:Loop 149 (current) will not be accepted as it has little content and no references. Same for Draft:Loop 142 and Draft:Loop 129 which it appears you submitted as User:Jayscott478. For any editing going forward, use only one User name or you will be blocked. David notMD (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * sigh* ok, then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayscott253 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Moving A Page - Red Burning Skin
I'm a new member of wikipedia, therefore I have certain editorial restrictions placed upon me. The wikipedia page Red burning skin refers to the condition now commonly know as 'Red skin syndrome'. The registered charity for this condition, ITSAN confirms this change in the first sentence of it's website. Many other website's also commonly name this condition 'red skin syndrome' and it's the name that has become into majority use.

I would like to request the wikipedia page 'Red burning skin' be moved to the more commonly known name of 'Red skin syndrome'.

I would appreciate your assistance with this matter.

Many thanks Jordan-mg (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To request that a page be renamed, please see requested moves. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Editor request
Hello,

Article name: Sung Chang

I am looking for an editor who could improve my Wikipedia article.

My page is uploaded, however, it says the article has many problems and lots of clean-ups needed.

Please let me know how I could go about this.

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfecartists (talk • contribs) 00:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Committed suicide vs died by suicide
Hi. In your update about Kelly Catlin you wrote she committed suicide which is an outdated and harmful term

She didn’t commit a crime, she died of a mental health problem

She died by suicide

I know tone can come across as rude via email but this one is heartfelt and hopeful

Thanks for listening — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1014:B022:427F:5566:3279:4924:30E (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There have been many discussions about this and consensus has generally been committed suicide is acceptable and encyclopedic. Phrasing it in most any other manner is bound to violate WP:NPOV but also "died by suicide" is redundant. We would not say "died by murder" or "died by electrocution" because both outcomes require death. Praxidicae (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keith Flint, one of the most widely viewed Wikipedia articles right now, uses "taken his own life", for what it's worth. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm also not opposed to that as it's factually accurate and not redundant. I think that "killed him/herself" would be a bit too terse for an encyclopedia but still better than what is the equivalent of "died by death/died by suicide." Though it appears a solution has been found for the article in question. Praxidicae (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * and I'm finding this pretty interesting. I'd had no idea there was such lengthy discussion of this. I do buy into the argument that committed suicide implies criminality; I'll be very interested to see whether consensus changes over the next however many years. valereee (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Can't seem to undo a page move
Hi all, I moved City Line (Merseytravel) from its original page title of 'City Line (Merseyrail)' but editor consensus is that it should be undone. However I can't seem to undo it without running into some kind of conflict with the redirect page. How do I fix it? ADTelo (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, if you can't move a page for technical reasons, you can request such a move at Requested moves (section 3 with various subsections depending on the specific situation). If your move request is uncontroversial you can simply use section 3.1. (please add a brief reason about the consensus and/or background for the request in the "reason=" parameter). PS: Maybe the issue is resolved already (not sure), but for future cases you can use the linked request page. GermanJoe (talk) 09:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw this going on, there was a chain of about four moves involving two different people. I've moved the article and its talk page back to where it came from, City Line (Merseyrail), and move-protected it. Also cleaned up a pile if leftover redirects. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Can confirm User:Redrose64 fixed it, but thanks for the tip - I'll keep that in mind in the future. Cheers. ADTelo (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Dominiquè DeVeraux
How can this name be added? Author of ‘Cinderella’, I Wish! Published by Troubador Publishing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bajanqueen1967 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Two ways:
 * Use the Article_wizard to write it yourself and submit it for review.
 * Use this process to request that someone else write it. Be aware that there's a huge backlog for this process and it could take quite awhile before someone even looks at it, perhaps months.
 * Also be aware that whatever process you use, an article will not be accepted unless it includes at least two citations to reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia in order to satisfy our notability requirement for biographies. Those sources must be significant and non-trivial or just in passing. If you are the subject of the article, you must not write it yourself since you have a conflict of interest. Good luck, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Ronn Torossian
-- Ronn Torossian -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronn_Torossian Controversial page. Very extensive political page added. Seems long. Additional eyes needed. Therhehassasa (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The bio for Boots Jaffee is hard to find and the images that are connected to it are not of Boots Jaffee
The images attached to the bio information for Boots Jaffee are not correct ...none of the images are Boots Jaffee with the exception of the bio itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boots Jaffee (talk • contribs) 00:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has no such article. If you are referring to results on Google, we cannot help you with this request. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Indeed it is very hard to find. This old draft without any photos is all I could find: []. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  01:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Origin of the name Khuzistan
Hi dear Editorrs in this page : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_name_Khuzestan

We have a great deal of problem with what appears to be Persian Editors Community, There are phrases in Article that ment to change clear historical records and don't even has a Refrence, any request for Refrence being removed by these editors with no logic, we even explained the problem in Talk page but they refuse to responded and keep reverting the ask for reference

Ted hamiltun (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC) Ted Hamiltun

Suggested Content Being Ignored and Disapproved
I am a contributor who has clearly declared their COI for a particular article on Wikipedia. For this article I have made several content suggestions only on the talk page that fit the format and tone of Wikipedia's guidelines. In addition, the content being suggested adds factual information to the article that readers would find interesting.

However, each suggestion has been either ignored or disapproved with only the following as a reason "an editor feels this would not improve the article".

If there is an editor who would like to review or assist in providing an explanation as to why this is happening it would be much appreciated.

Tsmith47 (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Tsmith47, it would help if you'd give us a link to the specific talk page sections so we don't have to spend our volunteer time checking your contributions history and trying to figure out what you are talking about. valereee (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * No problem, happy to do so. The edits and contributions I have been providing are found below

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bob_McDonald_(businessman)#U.S._Secretary_of_Veterans_Affairs_-_Some_Proposed_Changes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bob_McDonald_(businessman)#Some_Proposed_Changes_-_Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bob_McDonald_(businessman)#Political_Affiliation

Tsmith47 (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

List of political parties in Europe
Greetings, I noticed in the template: The "states with limited recognition" section shows that a "page does not exist" for political parties in Artsakh. However, List of political parties in Artsakh does exist. Is there any way someone could add it to the template? Much appreciated! Archives908 (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

-Or-if an editor could perhaps "teach/explain" me how to do it, I'm all for learningArchives908 (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The link went to List of political parties in the Republic of Artsakh when you posted. I have changed it by following Template:Europe topic and say .[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:List_of_political_parties_in_Europe&diff=889028238&oldid=567178723] PrimeHunter (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Undeleting a talk page
Hello, could someone please look at this old failed proposal for the Manual of Style: Manual_of_Style/Identity_(failed_proposal). At one point it was located at Manual_of_Style/Identity_(proposal). It seems like, when the page was moved, its talk page was lost. When you click on "Talk" you're just redirected to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. I'd like access to that talk page because I'm helping to collect old discussions about identity. Could someone please restore the missing talk page? Thank you! Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 05:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The deleted pages only ever contained redirects. The actual talk history was simply archived with the main MOS archive set. This is how the talk page appeared at the time the page was moved to its current location. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. Thank you! Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 06:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Pizzagate
Your article on Pizzagate says that Pizzagate is a conspiracy theory that was “widely debunked.” It then cites several news organizations that “debunked” it. Yet it never says what exactly was debunked, nor how it was debunked.

Point by point:

1. “Much of the purported evidence cited by the conspiracy theory's proponents had been taken from entirely different sources and made to appear as if they supported the conspiracy.”

“Much of?” Even if it were true that much of the evidence was taken from “entirely different sources,” much of the evidence was taken directly from Comet Pizza’s and James Alefantis’s own Instagram account, including several disturbing photographs of children with sickening commments under them, like “hoetard,” and references to the “kill room.”

The fact that some, or even “much of” the evidence was false obviously does not “debunk” the evidence that is actually evidence. Only a stupid person would assert that. Does Wikipedia have stupid people writing and editing and approving entries? Evidence, yes.

2. “Theorists linked the conspiracy to Comet Ping Pong through similarities between company logos and symbols related to Satanism and pedophilia. However, The Times noted that similarities were also found in the logos of a number of unrelated companies, such as AOL, Time Warner, and MSN.”

The symbols and logos of Comet and Besta Pizza are clearly identical to, not just similar to pedophilia symbols. If AOL or Time Warner or MSN also have logos similar to pedophilia symbols, that does not change the fact that Comet and Besta’s symbols are identical to pedophilia symbols. That “debunks” nothing. Take a logic course. You are just embarrassing yourselves by citing that.

3. “Theorists claimed an underground network beneath Comet Ping Pong; however, the restaurant actually has no basement, and the picture used to support this claim was taken from another facility.”

The only source of the assertion that Comet Pizza doesn’t have a basement is Alefantis himself. I’m a 2013 article in Philly.com, however, Alefantis is quoted talking about buying tomatoes for Comet Pizza and canning them “in the basement.” He also says his other store, Buck’s Hunting and Fishing, located nearby, has a basement. So, again, you debunk nothing.

4. “Theorists claimed John and Tony Podesta kidnapped Madeleine McCann using police sketches that were, in fact, two sketches of the same suspect taken from the descriptions of two eyewitnesses.”

Again, no logic whatsoever here. Who cares if the two images were allegedly of the same suspect taken from two different witnesses? Why do you think that changes the fact that one of them looks exactly like John Podesta and the other looks exactly like Tony Podesta? Nothing can “debunk” that fact.

In summary, articles like this destroy Wikipedia’s only commodity: its credibility. This is why people laugh when anyone cites Wikipedia as a source for anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:181:C400:3D7C:C862:F290:F912:D17 (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This page is for help on how to edit Wikipedia; if you have a question about that, please be more specific. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. If you have the aforementioned concerns, you should express them either directly on the talk page of that article or by using Bold, Revert, Delete. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Budapest (2018) film image
For the life of me I can figure out how to get the Budapest film poster to the info box. Cannot figure out if it is copyrighted? I would like a step by step instructions. I Have read at least 5 how to image instructions and am just lost. If someone would just load the film poster to the info box that would be great. Thanks Eschoryii (talk) 04:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * What you really need is not an image, but more sources. In its present condition, the article would not survive a deletion nomination, see the notability guideline for films. You need at least two independent non-trivial sources. The TV Guide one may be enough for one of those two, but you desperately need a second source since your first one is a dead link and (I can't check it since it's dead) may have been a PRIMARY source to begin with, which can't count towards those two. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Examples portion of “Lagrangian (field theory)” references non-existent material and equations.
The examples section starts out “To go with the section on test particles above, here are the equations for the fields in which they move”, but there is no section on test particles.

At the end of the paragraph, the article continues “when substituted back in equation (1), the Lagrangian equation for the test particle in a Newtonian gravitational field, provides the information needed to calculate the acceleration of the particle.”, but there is no equation (1) in the earlier portion of the article.

How can I alert a qualified editor to this problem?

2600:1010:B02D:233F:C499:2F55:7F0C:EC3F (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * There's no such thing as a "qualified editor" here: all editors are fungible since any editor can edit any article and we judge edits not editors. Having that technicality out of the way, however, use the edit request method to post the request to the article talk page or, much better yet, register an account and fix it yourself since Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and anyone includes you. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Issue regarding the history section of the France article
Hello everyone,

My request might seem a bit strange considering I do not own an account on Wikipedia.

I posted a comment (titled "Lack of objectivity in the history section") at Talk:France last year (on November, 9th) regarding an issue with the contributions made in May 2018 by the user Odoures on the history section of France article. These contributions, by focusing on a specific aspect of French colonisation and decolonisation of Africa and Asia (the death tolls that is), result in a biased view of French contemporary history. For this reason, I asked for these contributions to be removed and put in a more appropriate article. This comment got no answer and has been archived by a bot since then. Following Wikipedia's policy, I tried to discuss the issue with Odoures and sent him a message last January but got also no answer.

Not sure about what to do next, I am seeking advice from the community. Thank you in advance. A French reader — Preceding unsigned comment added by A French reader (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * First, it is a fact of life here that requests and modifications made by IP editors are often given short shrift. It would be in your own best interest if you were to register an account to make requests or other edits here. Next, it is unlikely that Odoures is going to reply, since they have been indefinitely blocked from editing since July, 2018. However, the edits he made that you're complaining about were improper block evasion by Odoures sockmaster Krajoyn at the time they were made and could have been deleted without consideration of their appropriateness due to that fact at that time. Unfortunately, since time has passed they may have been further edited by good faith editors whose work ought not to be deleted simply because the original edits were block evasion. On the other hand, it looks like that Krajoyn returned several more times to that article using new sockpuppets, and other sockpuppets also added material which might be removed as block evasion. It might be that the edits made to Odoures' edits (if any) were all also made by sockpuppets and can all still be removed as block evasion. I, to my disgrace, have neither the time nor inclination to work through all that, but I'm going to ping who tried to remove those edits by Odoures at the time they were made (though Odoures restored them and added more after Blaue Max's attempt) and who is still an active editor on the France page. Perhaps Blaue Max might be interested in working through the history (or, for that matter, just seeing that they're not that great and taking on removing them). If there is going to be any additional discussion about this matter between the IP editor (aka "A French reader") and Blaue Max, it ought to take place at Talk:France, perhaps restoring the IP's original request and copying over a copy of this request as well, just so other editors there will know what's going on. Regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello TransporterMan . Thank you for your answer and for having explained to me the whole background. Following your advice I will use an account from now on. The revision attempt made by  was very good. I think a new revision like this one is much needed. Regards, RMSBCM (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Map update
Greetings,

On the page Armenian Genocide recognition, under "Position of the United States" the map needs an update and wondering if an editor could please assist? Alabama should be colored green as the State recognized the Genocide on March 20, 2019.



Much appreciated! Archives908 (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Archives908 Let's ask the maker of this map, Goran tek-en, to please amend File:US_states_that_recognized_Armenian_Genocide.svg on Commons <b style="color:seagreen">Bhunacat10</b> (talk),  19:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Goran tek-en (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Goran <b style="color:seagreen">Bhunacat10</b> (talk),  11:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

How to structure the lead section of a controversial, political topic?
Hi. I'm involved in an editor dispute over the neutrality of the lead section of Neoliberalism. Could an editor here please give their opinion?

Most of the discussion has taken place on Talk:Neoliberalism. I would also appreciate comments on how disputes like these are generally best resolved. Temporary political account (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Postscripts
What is the policy or guideline in using postscript information in film articles?Eschoryii (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Eschoryii You have a reply from CodexJustin. Manual of Style/Film (a guideline) does give a good deal of advice on layout of film articles, but doesn't seem to mention postscripts. To discuss this further maybe Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film could be good places <b style="color:seagreen">Bhunacat10</b> (talk),  20:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Advice please - Refusal to publish
Hi I have been trying to publish a page on an Australian Band active in the 1990s. The page was deemed to be not significant enough to publish however I believe that this judgement is not only incorrect, but substantively so. The band in question is The Daisygrinders and the page is located here: The band in question was active for 6 years and became a highly regarded act across Australia. They have published works and are currently available on Spotify <a href="https://open.spotify.com/album/0nsDsH57zWiVp3rEnGCLub?si=oPvhce2lQSuWdZ91A4OQEQ" rel="nofollow">Link text</a> as well as back order catalogues through their record label Half A Cow (Sydney). They have been listed in the publication "The Who's Who of Australian Rock", as well as having mentions in other texts. They have released 1 Long Player, 1 mini album, 4 EPs and numerous singles. They played festivals (Big Day Out 1993 and Radio FBI benefit Hordern pavilion). They have supported international acts, The Smashing Pumpkins, Pavement, Buffalo Tom, Teenage Fanclub, Paw; as well as local acts You Am I, Powderfinger, The Clouds (national tour), Tumbleweed, RatCat, Spiderbait, etc... Can someone please clarify to me, how a still currently signed and published act with this kind of history doesnt qualify to be in Wikipedia? I have personally seen bands of lesser notoriety published on Wikipedia with way less references to back up their claims. Any detailed response would be greatly appreciated.Drewza7 (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , it looks like the draft has been deleted because nobody significantly edited it in the last six months. It does seem like the band may meet some of the criteria set out at WP:NBAND, but perhaps they want to see specific claims of which criteria the band meets? Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Imagine on Comarnic Town
Ondin Hi. I noticed with my friends that in Google search results as first shown image comes from your website. The picture does NOT show Comarnic City but a street old sign from a ceramic factory ruin and the blue sky ONLY, without any nice streets, buildings, people, trees....city life in few words. Could you please be more accurate in showing a good looking town picture of Comarnic CITY, my lovely town? By showing default odd images under our city name on Google search, you do not make us a favor but breach on a huge scale the reputation of our people and places. Please promote my town this time. Thank you. Regards, Ondin Dinescu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ondin Dinescu (talk • contribs) 15:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We have no control over what Google displays. They pull info from wherever they want to to build that box that they display. We can only guess where in Wikipedia they pulled the info and why. You can ask Google to fix this. Click on the tiny little gray "feedback" link below the right-hand lower corner of their box. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  20:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , If you have any nice pictures that you took and are willing to donate them under a free license, I'm sure Commons will be happy to host a couple if you upload them using the File Upload Wizard. There are no guarantees that this will make it show up in google images but it can only help. It seems our article on Comarnic doesn't have any images right now, so if you add a image to it I think the chances it'll show up in google are good. You can also upload your photos to google maps, which may help as well. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

--Ondin Dinescu (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Cochin Jews - Christian Groups as "Related Ethnic Groups"
Two users are constantly adding things about Christian groups to the Cochin Jewish page. Neither of them are going to the talk page prior to editing. I oppose their additions because it is irrelevant, unverifiable, and unreliable. Thank you. YaLindaHadad (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * YaLindaHadad The infobox contents should reflect what is in the text of the article. If reliable published sources support the existence of a significant relationship with Group A, then that can be included in the article (with references) and Group A can be identified in the infobox. If no such sources are found then Group A doesn't belong there.
 * As you state, these matters should be thrashed out on the article's talk page. Disputes should not be pursued by edit-warring names of groups in and out of the infobox. Neither should extended discussions be carried on via edit summaries <b style="color:seagreen">Bhunacat10</b> (talk),  13:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the other users are not going into the talk page which I started to resolve this and will make edits with discussion in the edit summary. YaLindaHadad (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you asked them to do that, YaLindaHadad? Notifying the other editors involved: Theohms, Thomast48, LightHouse349. It appears to be a debate over the validity of different sources. Ideal if you can resolve this among yourselves by reasoned discussion on the talk page. Failing that, a post on the talk pages of WikiProject India or WikiProject Judaism may attract other editors with knowledge of the subject matter. Please don't edit-war, any of you <b style="color:seagreen">Bhunacat10</b> (talk),  21:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible subtle lack of NPOV
Does this line in the article not seem a bit libelous and containing adjectives relating to personality which are inappropriate for an encyclopedia: "Stemming from her controversial, blindsiding, alienating, dog-eat-dog, in-your-face and acrimonious tactics teamed with her eloquence and craftiness of game play on The Apprentice".

Came for an opinion before bold removal as I have never come across a subtle lack of WP:NPOV like this before. Thanks in advance,  16:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Please report issues about BLP contents at dedicated BLP Noticeboard.  – Ammarpad (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you will do  20:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, in over 15 years as an admin, my only use of a help line was user:Angela! So I'm helpless on my iPad 2
Hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerzyA (talk • contribs) 08:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , what do you need help with? Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

National Museum of Brazil
Last year someone merged the article "National Museum of Brazil fire" with National Museum of Brazil and there's an discussion about of the merge was needed. Some more experience editor could check in National Museum of Brazil#Merge with fire article to solve this question? The tread didn't receive any new messages since last October. Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Rather than requesting help here, the proper way to encourage neutral comments on editing discussions is to put an RFC on the talk page. See Requests_for_comment <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Erick Soares3 (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Picture of Gopalakrishna bharathi is wrong
The existing image in Wikipedia page of Gopalakrishna bharathi is wrong. Picture of living legend Sri Raj kumar bharathi is wrongly updated in place of Gopalakrishna bharathi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savitha Savitri (talk • contribs) 09:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you refer to the Wikipedia page Gopalakrishna Bharati then it has no image.
 * Symbol move vote.svg Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Requesting assistance for typing error (fix) in one of my talk contributions - under Talk:Convolution
This request refers to assistance with correcting an error that I noticed that I had made with a value. I attempted to correct my mistake, as well as to add just a few extra details for purposes of clarity. However Deacon Vorbis is making false accusations about my posts/contributions, and is behaving in a somewhat unreasonable manner. He/she is reverting corrections to my own posts/edits in the talk page. The moderators/admins of wikipedia can easily know from my records that I make contributions for decent purposes only. If I make an edit, and if I add a proper reason for the edit - such as 'corrected a mistake/typo', then I believe that I should be allowed to make the correction - as an edit. I do not expect a very reasonable edit to be reverted, and I don't expect a Wikipedia moderator to come out to falsely accuse me of being 'disruptive' - especially when I have had previous discussions with them, such as mentioning that us regular users/contributors of Wikipedia do not actually see a never-ending list of edits. There was no intended disruption caused. The evidence is all in the records/history of the talk page. Thanks for your help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Convolution

Thanks! Actually, I don't have to ask the maths guys, since I'm only pointing out something very simple. For example, a function....defined by g(t) = sin(t) for t greater or equal to zero, and is equal to zero for t < 0. Now, if you plug in t = 0.2 into it... you get approximately 0.2. And if you plug in t = -0.2, you get 0. So clearly, a mirror imaging (about the vertical y axis) process is not merely handled by magically making 't' become '-t'. KorgBoy (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I would like to correct at least 1 typing error. The error is in the line "you get approximately 0.2.". It needs to be corrected/changed to "you get approximately 0.0035". So the corrected passage (with additional details for purposes of clarity so that potential future readers - if any - don't get confused) needs to be presented as shown below:

Thanks! Actually, I don't have to ask the maths guys, since I'm only pointing out something very simple. For example, a function....defined by g(t) = sin(t) for t greater or equal to zero, and g(t) = 0 for t < 0. Now, if you plug t = 0.2 into it... you get approximately 0.0035. And if you plug in t = -0.2, you get g(t) = 0. Here, g(-t) is definitely not equal to g(+t). So clearly, a mirror imaging (about the vertical y axis) process is not merely handled by magically making 't' become '-t'. KorgBoy (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

KorgBoy (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I've responded to this at the article talk page. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Mark Twitchell Article
User Verissa77 only edits the Mark Twitchell article, and only does it to emphasize Mr Twitchell's failed film-making career, and distract from the real reason for Mr Twitchell's notoriety, namely as a serial killer. I suspect that Verissa may be Mr Twitchell, or a close accomplice. I'm not sure how to handle this, I have already made clear in the page's talk page my stance. Relevant article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Twitchell

Thanks, tayroc122 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tayroc122 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

deletion query
I would like to know why my page has been deleted and is now a redirect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Jones — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabber21 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It was because of this. And, be aware that claims of page ownership can be conduct violations here, see WP:OWN. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I've seen this issue a number of bands and musicians I follow. Even saw an article come and go for a band I was once a member of. Any entity that's included in Wikipedia needs to have well-proven, established notability as evidenced through 3rd-party sources. It seems like "Pete Jones" lacked significant 3rd-party coverage and, when coverage of that nature did exist, it was mostly in reference to larger groups that Jones was a part of. Best of luck with editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikkei (talk • contribs) 21:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Please RevDel My Post
Please rev delete my post from IP [REDACTED - Oshwah] on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexandria_City_Jail. I didn't realize this would publically post my IP and will log in for all future posts.

[REDACTED - Oshwah] 02:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅ -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Consensus Disagreement Between Editors
There has been a long debate on Talk:Rigel regarding the content of the 3rd paragraph in the Introduction of main Rigel article. Arianewiki1 has tried many times to gain consensus for several versions, but have had all the text repeatedly reverted. Arianewiki1 has recently made an new section "Third Attempt With Introduction" Both Attic Salt and Cas Liber have seemingly attempted to stonewall the discussion, claiming I am not seeking consensus or that I falsely "... want “consensus” immediately after making wholesale changes."  The Section "Third Attempt With Introduction" has three versions of the disputed text.

This has been made more difficult because a third editor, Lithopsian, has refused to interact with Arianewiki1 on talkpages. Regardless of this, they have made a further reasonable compromised edit here that doesn't change the context. (The last edit before writing this.)

There needs to be some kind of advice is get past this current impasse without any further escalation. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I suspect that is becuase Lithopsian (and many other people) are tired of your ad hominem comments and general combative editing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * To break a contentious consensus impasse, you can draft an RFC on the talk page. See Requests_for_comment <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Italicization
Should The Oregonian be italicized (it's a newspaper) in the article and in the title? If so, I can't remember how to italicize just part of an article title. Thx. Bri.public (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Bri.public I expect you want  <b style="color:seagreen">Bhunacat10</b>  (talk),  18:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Otto Kade
Hilf! I made a mistake when linking this new article to its original German one which should be Otto Kade (Musikwissenschaftler)

Please, can someone help me out? Thanks in advance LouisAlain (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * LouisAlain ✅ by changing the link in Wikidata.  Thanks for the new article <b style="color:seagreen">Bhunacat10</b>  (talk),  09:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC):


 * Thanks a lot. LouisAlain (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Harborfields High School Notables
I am trying withing the rules to properly have myself relisted in the Notables section of the Harborfields HS page. I do not have a personal page yet here but I do have a website and quite a few external new mentions. I am certain that I am the only polo player to graduate from HHS. Personal page http://flatoutfarm.com/about.html FRom the US Polo assoc. https://www.uspolo.org/certified-polo-instructors/ken-cresswell https://www.visitaikensc.com/whattodo/detail/polo_lessons_at_fire_star_polo  I ran the 1st polo match in Turks CAicos  https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10205902850875908&set=a.2518082596889&type=3&theater    This all being said. I believe I was wrongly removed from the listing.

Thank you for any help Ken Cresswell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polodude10 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Ken Cresswell Let me explain that there are no "personal pages" on Wikipedia: there are articles about people who satisfy the "notability" criteria, basically "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". A personal website, or an entry in the website of a sporting organization you are a member of, do not qualify as independent sources. With all respect to your sporting exploits, Wikipedia is not the place for you to try to publicize them. This essay: "Wikipedia is not about YOU" expresses the matter bluntly <b style="color:seagreen">Bhunacat10</b> (talk),  09:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Pop tunes named "Once in a While"
I am not sure if this is the proper place to make this statement but the page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_in_a_While_(1937_song), is at least partially in error. I believe there may be more errors associated with this song in Wikipedia. The page mentions the 1937 classic "Once in a While" as being the earliest song with this name and it lists some artists who covered the tune. There were many artists even in its original year, including Louis Armstrong who covered it. However, there was a (different) 1927 tune by Louis Armstrong and his Hot Five that also was named "Once in a While". It was recorded in 1927. You can find it on you tube. When I first heard the 1927 tune I figured it must be a strongly modified fast jazz version of the 1937 tune. However, it was recorded 10 years earlier and, apparently, was a hit. It is hard to believe (although possible) that another songwriter would have written a ballad with the same title only 10 years later. Surely, I thought, he would have been familiar with the 1927 version. I can find no information on the 1927 version but a recording of it is on youtube and the New Orleans band, Tuba Skinny, plays it (quite well I might add). That recording, some 90 years later is also on youtube. I have found no lyrics for the 1927 tune and if they existed they would be hard to fit into a fast traditional jazz tune.

The only explanations I can come up with are 1. Louis and his Hot Five created their tune in 1927 but, knowing that most similar tunes were derived from earlier tunes, I find that hard to believe. or 2. The 1937 ballad was written before 1927 and had been unpopular and "lost". This is also hard to believe.

Any comments or help will be appreciated. Thank you, conny roussos (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC) Constantine (Conny) Roussos


 * Conny Roussos, thanks for raising the question. The first place to go with it would actually be the talk page for that article. To take it further, you or some other editor would have to find published sources referring to the 1927 song. Without such sources, your interesting deductions would I'm afraid amount to "original research", which we don't do here. Perhaps a post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz or Reference desk/Entertainment may elicit some help <b style="color:seagreen">Bhunacat10</b> (talk),  10:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Review and updates
Hello, Wiki editors, I noticed that the Partners + Napier company page has outdated information. Would like to respectfully work through an editor and follow proper process to have this updated with neutral factual changes only. I've listed requested changes and cited sources through 3rd party media coverage, etc. Appreciate the help and any feedback. Regards, Gregg

Here is the Wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partners_and_Napier

Requests for review: 1- first sentence remove jargon "ideas agency" and replace with "advertising agency" 2- add "employing over 160 people" 3- add "Headquarters in the Metropolitan building in downtown Rochester, NY" (firm recently moved) 4- add "The 40,000 square foot office is organized into “neighborhoods” that house groups working on the agency’s three largest client fields — food and drink, health and wellness and technology."

All requests above are directly cited in 3/23/19 Democrat and Chronicle article here:https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/money/business/2019/03/23/partners-napier-moves-over-160-employees-into-new-metropolitan-space/3246036002/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreggDinino (talk • contribs) 22:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Gregg, thanks for your intention to follow Wikipedia process here. I've copied your request to Talk:Partners and Napier, which is the correct page for you to raise any concerns about the article. If you wish to make further edit requests at any time, our page Edit requests gives full details on the recommended way to go about it. Oh, and would you please "sign" any further posts you make, to make it easy to see who to reply to. Regards <b style="color:seagreen">Bhunacat10</b> (talk),  10:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Trying to create an article
Hi, I'm trying to create an article and was referred to this link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biblezon Catholic Tablet (talk • contribs) 16:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Visit Articles for creation. If you have any questions about how Wikipedia works, please ask at the Tea House, and always remember to sign your posts in Talk with four tildes at the end. -- Alexf(talk) 21:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Advertising Nicotine Products-VUSE/ALTO
98.165.51.189 (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)I was very upset and disappointed that you are using HLN or any television network to promote any Nicotine product as you did with VUSE/ALTO on 5/6/19 at 12:50pm. No matter how you try to disguise it you are promoting a very harmful DRUG. I thought there was a law about not promoting any drugs on advertisements? Please re look at your sources for getting money for your network you shouldn't have to go this low!
 * It's unclear why you are posting this criticism on a Wikipedia editor's assistance board. Wikipedia does not promote any products on television. Please ask a question that requires editing help. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

There used to be a More Eyes/Editors request form on WP?
I'm a returning editor and remember it from about 8 years ago. Has it been deprecated for WP:Third Opinion? I've looked through half a dozen pages and can't find it or anything similar.

In short, this page has awful readability for such a fascinating and important subject. I've tried to engage on the Talk Page with minimal response. WykiP (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would try to ask for more input at one or more of the WikiProjects linked near the top of the talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

List of enclaves and exclaves - needs help with definition
I'm asking here since the talk page and WikiProject Geography are inactive. This is not about content disputes.

On List of enclaves and exclaves, List of enclaves and exclaves and List of enclaves and exclaves, I have added some definitions, but I would appreciate it if someone could check their accuracy and expand the details a bit more.

On that page, only semi-enclaves and semi-exclaves, pene-enclaves and pene-exclaves (inaccessible districts) have definitions. --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Chelston-temp-1 It's an interesting article and appears comprehensive. But rather than rely on your fellow-Wikipedia editors (sorry you've drawn a blank: there are not many who are still genuinely here to "build an encyclopedia"), if you have specialist knowledge of the field could you not seek out some published sources for the definitions and cite them in the article? <b style="color:seagreen">Bhunacat10</b> (talk),  13:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * @User:Bhunacat10: I don't have specialized knowledge, unfortunately, that's why I'm seeking assistance. --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand 's comment: there are not many who are still genuinely here to "build an encyclopedia" - he's not a particularly prolific editor himself. However, niche articles may not receive as much attetion as other more popular topics. You may get more resonance to your request if you post at WikiProject Geography. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I took it that the questioner would already have tried a post at that WikiProject before concluding that it was inactive. Meanwhile it's odd that an editor who hadn't been seen on this board since January would show up now to make a disparaging remark about a colleague (total 30,000 edits and 50 new articles if you care to check my userpage) <b style="color:seagreen">Bhunacat10</b> (talk),  08:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Notification on respective articles to show there is an ongoing discussion taking place
I’ve started a discussion on the Game of Thrones talk page regarding an editor who has removed all Infobox images from every episodes article. I thought posting it there would be a good central location, but no one likely knows it’s there.

I’d like to place a template at the top of each episode’s article stating where this discussion is taking place, as there’s rogue convos happening on multiple episodes talk pages.

1) is this allowed? 2) if so, what’s the ideal template?

Thanks!!--Templeowls17 (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Answered at the helpdesk. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page Undeletion
A page with the above name has been reported as deleted. It was active from 2014 to October 2017. Around early 2018 it was not found. The reason for deletion is unknown. The personality whom the said article describes is a social worker in Pune, Maharashtra as well as an RTI activist. We request to discover the reason for deletion and the process to undelete the same.

My name is Padmashree Ghangale and I am a new user. On behalf of Vijay Kumbhar I have initiated this request.


 * Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I see you have discovered the process, Requests for undeletion. For the reason, see Articles for deletion/Vijay Kumbhar. If you intend to edit WP on behalf of Vijay Kumbhar, please take the time to read Conflict of interest.


 * Based on this googlesearch it may very well be possible to create a WP-article about him that survives, but I have not actually checked any sources. WP:NOENG may be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. May we please request to undelete the page. There are numerous reliable sources through which we can confirm the notability of this person. His presence on the internet is of value to the Indian people who are pursuing their right to information. Below are all the channels that have published his work over the years. 

Please advice how may we proceed with undeletion of the said page.


 * Follow the instructions at Requests for undeletion. Requests made here at this forum will be ignored. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment to : when you're trying to convince Wikipedia editors that a subject is notable, a small number (e.g. 4) of good sources is far more effective than a large number (e.g. 25) of poor or worthless sources. In particular, a source reporting what the subject has said does nothing to establish notability. What counts is what others have said about the subject. Maproom (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

deleted edits
Looking through my edit history, I have four edits that have been (seemingly) deleted, and I can't figure out why. They were all at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents with the following timestamps: All four comments are still visible to me and I can't come up with a reason why they might be deleted. Can anyone shed some light? Thanks! --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 11:19, May 15, 2019
 * 10:41, May 15, 2019
 * 10:40, May 15, 2019
 * 10:38, May 15, 2019
 * The redaction was made in response to another edit on the page by a different editor. Every revision of the page between the offensive comment being added and subsequently removed has to be redacted, as it contained the comment in question. Consequently, your revision has been struck as collateral damage. As far as I can see, your comments are still present in the ANI thread you contributed to. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prettyboy_Reservoir
The subject article has an error. The Prettyboy Dam does flow into Gunpowder Falls. However, part of the page confuses 'Falls' with 'River.'

This can be excused, but for the reference that the river below the dam separates Baltimore and Harford counties.

It does not.

Gunpowder Falls is wholly within Baltimore County.

When Gunpowder Falls empties into the tidewater portion (just east of the US 40 bridge), it is then known as Gunpowder River. At that point, the 'river,' (again, the tidewater portion) does become the boundary between Baltimore and Harford counties.

To sum it up, Gunpowder 'Falls' is wholly in Baltimore County; Gunpowder 'River' is the boundary between Baltimore and Harford counties.

Allen Brougham — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.1.198 (talk)

Definitive birthplace for Patty Duke


An editor changed Patty Duke's place of birth from Queens to Manhattan. I did a quick search, determined the change was incorrect and changed it back, messaging the editor a courtesy heads up. The editor pointed out that Patty Duke's biography states she was born in Manhattan (Bellevue Hospital). Trying to get a definitive answer I dug a bit deeper only to discover that multiple sources give conflicting information, and they all seem to be drawing from the same Associated Press article.

Bellevue Hospital, Manhattan, NY
 * her autobiography
 * Orange County Register - https://www.ocregister.com/2016/03/29/oscar-winning-actress-patty-duke-dies-at-69/
 * Irish Times - https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/film/child-actor-and-oscar-winner-patty-duke-dies-at-69-1.2591371

Elmhurst, NY
 * Los Angeles Times - https://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-me-patty-duke-20160330-story.html
 * prior Wikipedia entry

Queens, NY
 * The Associated Press - https://www.apnews.com/a0b794cd623e47f98815ceb1d4b17db1
 * Chicago Tribune - https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/tv/ct-patty-duke-dead-20160329-story.html

Can anyone find sources from earlier in her life that haven't been muddied by the AP death announcement to help us resolve this? Thank you! Orville1974 (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * unless there s a Patty duke scholar out there who has written the definitive book, I would stick to her autobiography here on pge 8, she pretty clearly says she was born in Bellevue hospital. It was published in 2011, well before the AP article. Possibly the rest are confusing where she was born with where she grew up? Curdle (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Help needed with editing
Hi, I need help editing articles and adding them to lists. I do a lot of editing, but can not do it all by myself as it is just too much work, can anyone please help me? Davidgoodheart (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a very general request. If there are specific articles you need help with, have you considered going to those articles' talk pages to request help from other editors interested in those subjects? You might also solicit help on the list pages' talk pages.  People like their lists to be complete. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Davidgoodheart. It would help if you cited the articles you need help with and the list that you mentioned. I am sure editors would be able to have a look. If it is within my expertise or I have access to relevant sources, I could also contribute. Darwin Naz (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

By The Sea 2002
To: The Wikipedia Editors

This Is In Regards to: The Wikipedia Submission for the Independent film: By The Sea 2002

This is Simply the Backstory of By The Sea we are sharing:

Dean Huh–aka Dean/East (me) and Dean/West (Dean Barnes) – were both aspiring filmmakers at the time…Whenever, we had the chance – we went into networks/studios like CBS, Paramount and Lifetime to pitch our projects– only to get shot down every time.

Finally, in October 2001, we decided to “green light” ourselves and shot the independent film: By The Sea in 9 Days – mostly along the shores of Rhode Island at the Weekpaug Inn (see: Wikipedia). Despite having stunning blue skies to shoot with every day, everyone was truly pre-occupied with the tragic events of 9/11which had occurred two weeks earlier.

In April of 2002, By The Sea sold out 3 shows at the Providence Festival of New Latin Cinema (run by the college: RISD). Next stop, New York for a screening at the Dolby Labs for people from: New Line Cinema and the Weinstein Company. I thought we had an easy film deal. Instead, the acquisitions executives watched By the Sea and left.

I remember siting in Central Park thinking: what fools we were for blowing our savings on this film. Somehow, during my 4 hours on the park bench, I came up with a simple strategy: just play the festivals we were invited to, take the press/stories from these festivals and show them to film distributors – in hopes of making some deal.

Little did we know, By The Sea would be on the festival circuit for 8 years (Most Festivals Contacted Us- We Did Not Solicit Them) and earned accolades from Festivals in: Honolulu, Los Angeles, Tiburon, St Louis, Miami, Boston. Swansea Bay, England, Eilat, Israel and Everglades, South Africa.

During our 8 Amazing Years some of the By The Sea highlights were:

2003 Three Imagen Awards (Latin Oscars) Nominations including Best Picture where we competed against: Selma Hayek’s “Frida.”

By The Sea had a feature story in the July 29, 2002 Daily Variety, because we one of the first small indies to use Special EFX.

Gloria Estefan allowed us to use her music on the By The Sea film featured at Film Festivals.

Desert Mountain Media signed a Domestic Distribution Deal With By The Sea

CinemaNow signed a deal with By the Sea.

EBS signed a Foreign Distribution deal with us and had a Cannes Screening.

Today, By The Sea 2002 can still be found on Amazon by searching: “By The Sea  Elena”

We hope you’ll Consider the Submission (we have already made) for the listing of By The Sea 2002 on Wikipedia, so film buffs and aspiring filmmakers may be inspired by our truly amazing journey.

Best Regards, Dean H. Huh — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeanHH! (talk • contribs)
 * , while your enthusiasm is appreciated, the purpose of Wikipedia is not for people to tell inspiring stories about themselves. Rather, it is to write encyclopedia articles in a neutral way using facts verified by reliable sources. If you would like to tell your story, please consider a personal website or social media instead; that's not going to be a good fit here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

This is more undos than I can handle
the Muscle Shoals Sound Studio article had a series of edits by 2605:a000:d160:400:513d:4d6b:26c2:1b89 that destroyed a chart in "Selected recordings" that someone had carefully set up. I don’t know how to undo so many edits, can someone do it? Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * , I believe I fixed the issue. Copypasting "lost" content from old revisions into the recent version via clipboard with the source editor often works for me, if one doesn't want to do a full rollback of several versions at once (just be cautious not to click "Save" while editing old versions). Disclaimer: I haven't checked the broken good-faith edit for factual accuracy, but it seemed uncontroversial. GermanJoe (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll sleep better tonight. I have changed the format of the chart and written the editor who was trying to add to the chart.  His edit was not well researched - this was not the hit version of the song, but I can add it anyway to keep this ann editor happy. Carptrash (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Request for editor assistance
Dear fellow wikipedians,

I have written an article about a notable company in the area I grew up. Before submitting it for final review I'd like to ask if someone is willing to have a look at the article with me. I particularly hope to learn about improvements notability and NPOV, but I'm sure there is more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dotsonti/sandbox

Thanks, Dotsonti Let's Talk! 09:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , At first blush it seems OK. I recommend you click the 'Submit your draft for review!' button and our AfC team will check it out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for having a look. I also asked for feedback on the IRC English Wikipedia help channel and suggested I check reference 6 (Wiki, not reliable), 7 (Altor, not independent), and 8 (Interview with a company employee, not independent). I will improve my referencing and then submit it. Do you agree?  Dotsonti  Let's Talk! 13:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , that is correct, those sources are not acceptable. See WP:SOURCE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding edits.
There is no alma mater displayed on the profile of Shamsheer vayalil after opening his page on google. Anyone please do have a look in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.230.131.43 (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, we have no control over what is displayed on Google; Google is a for-profit company unconnected to the Wikimedia Foundation and our projects such as Wikipedia. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  18:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Citing searchable databases without direct URLs that can't be archived?
I would like to cite two sources (searchable databases) that can't be captured by the Wayback Machine and don't have direct URL. It would be possible to take screenshots. As an example, the "Centralized Disciplinary Database for the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Movement" allows searching by name or sport, but the URL for all searches is https://safesport.org/userviolations/search

I've searched the help documents and can't find instructions. How can I do this? Thank you! --021789et (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the fact that they're in a database would prevent their use, you'd give the URL and the search terms used to find them. But I'd have some serious reservations about that information being usable under the BLPPRIMARY policy (and I believe that site would be considered to be a Primary source since it only uncritically compiles and reports the information from the original source sites). It would be far better and better suited for Wikipedia to find it in a secondary source, such as a newspaper or sports publication. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Request for advice re. how to deal with User:ChrisToast1
I first came across the disruptive edits, vandalism, and (what I would consider to be) BLP violations made by the above user in January of this year. For unrelated reasons, I was paring down my raw watchlist today, and decided to check back in on their recent contributions, which after a break from editing, were near identical to the ones I reverted a few months ago. Here's why I feel that I could use advice on how to proceed: Any advice much appreciated, and thanks in advance. --Jonie148 (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * All their edits are blatant vandalism (nb. I understand that this is a term which should be used with caution), however the articles the user has vandalised so far haven't been large enough to attract attention to their disruptive behavior (niche interest pages that I suspect few Wikipedians watch). For this same reason, their edits often stay as the current version for days at a time. I don't feel it appropriate to take it upon myself to stalk their contributions every few days - this would make it seem like I have a personal vendetta.
 * Their response to my first warning on their talk page was entirely unrepentant. Should I be taking a more soft approach than using stop templates? I don't feel tempted to, since they haven't made a single productive edit to date, and you can't squeeze blood from a stone.
 * From what I can tell, they haven't at present been given enough warnings to merit me making a request for a block at the Administrator intervention against vandalism board (and again, they're only vandalizing low impact pages, and doing so infrequently).
 * I added an additional warning at User talk:ChrisToast1. It seems his (her?) editing has slowed down (nothing since April 27) so this may not be an issue anymore, but if it occurs again, you can start a thread at Administrator intervention against vandalism. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, thanks! --Jonie148 (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

List_of_Proton_launches_(2010%E2%80%93present)
The numbers on the graph are not good. There shouldn't be numbers like 2.5 or 7.5 because there is nothing such as half a rocket launch. The numbers should be without decimals only. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Proton_launches_(2010%E2%80%93present) 14.162.96.167 (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The chart is correct, just confusing. You'll notice that none of the bar values line up at half numbers.  Nonetheless, I posted your question at Module talk:Chart to see if the values on the Y axis can be forced to be rounded numbers only. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * responded with a good suggestion that I implemented. It was to add the parameter 5. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

PedrixCake
Hello, recently a user called PedrixCake has been writing vandalic messages on my talk page for no reason, he doesn't stop and I am tired of his vandalics edits on my talk page, insulting me and putting templates for no reason. Thanks for your attention. LuxDavid June, 6, 2019 —Preceding undated comment added 09:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Users PedrixCake, LuxDavid, and Holybreen all blocked per WP:NOTHERE. – Athaenara  ✉  16:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

LuxDavid
Hi, User LuxDavid has been editing my talk page for no reason He started with putting a banned user text in my talk page. I am new to wikipedia so i thought it was something wrong. I tried to complain but he didn't listen to me and keep putting insults in my page. I ask for help for him to stop publishing insults innmy talk page. Edit ban or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PedrixCake (talk • contribs) 07:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've looked at 's contribution history, and failed to find anything constructive there. I support 's view that admin action would be justified. Maproom (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * , if you have an issue regarding a user's behaviour, please take it to WP:ANI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Users PedrixCake, LuxDavid, and Holybreen all blocked per WP:NOTHERE. – Athaenara ✉  16:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible attempt to skew vote on an AfD nomination
Someone who entered a "Keep" vote on an article nominated for deletion provided a fake signature. They signed it as (which does not exist) but then SineBot signed the comment as 157.131.205.94. There has been repeated vandalism on the Allie Teilz page from an IP removing the article for deletion template. I thought that the fake signature could be an attempt to interfere with the vote (e.g. WP:DISCUSSAFD says "the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination may be given more weight when determining consensus"). Is there a guideline or somewhere to report this kind of thing? (Sorry if I have asked this in the wrong place.) Thanks. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Abbyjjjj96, I've been involved in that discussion and will add a remark on the AfD.  Orville1974  (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, done. I've also cautioned the IP about impersonating other users (and encouraged them to register a username).  Thank you for noticing.  Orville1974  (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for helping. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism and Undocumented additions to "Telechrome" article
Re:

Between 2016 and early 2018, I corrected errors in Wikipedia's "Telechrome" article. I also provided authoritative sources. Meanwhile, another author inserted a paragraph alleging that Telechrome could make lenticular, autostereographic images. In "proof" of his fringe hypothesis, the author cited articles in Wireless World and Popular Mechanics. These articles mention Telechrome, but *not* Telechrome autostereography, or lenticular means.

I added a paragraph that explained that Telechrome autostereography is speculation. I then explained why. I cited the patent, which contains *no claim* that Telechrome has an autostereographic capability.

At the end of September 2018, someone deleted my contribution. My references are also missing. (This author erased several of my other edits, too.) The reason that he gave for deleting the "lenticular Telechrome" critique is that his Popular Mechanics reference supports it. Yet his source *never* mentions "lenticular Telechrome." I used the "talk" feature to contact the other author. Within a few weeks, my "talk" comments vanished.

My goal is this: (1) To remove the fringe "lenticular Telechrome" hypothesis. Or (2) to restore my text about how alleged "lenticular Telechrome" would not work. (Example: There are no lenticules in the Telechrome tube. Authoritative sources fail to mention "lenticular Telechrome." ) I seek to avoid an edit war. How may I resolve this conflict? ColorWheel (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi ! The first step in the dispute resolution process is usually to start a discussion on the talk page of the article (here). You can notify the parties of the disagreement using the ping template . If they fail to respond after some time you can make the changes you want. If the discussion stalls, generally your options are to list the disagreement at the Dispute resolution noticeboard to start a moderated discussion or advertise via Requests for comment to hopefully draw more editors to the discussion. The full policy is documented at Dispute resolution. Since this is about "original research" (where content added to an article is not in the sources) another option is to list it at the No original research/Noticeboard. Good luck! Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Finding many dead links
I used to be a prolific editor, but fell out after losing my helper, so am out of practice. Would like to contribute again, ie getting rid of dead links to pages no longer relevant or no longer active websites/references. I just need a quick tutorial on how to get back to doing this. Or should I just make a note on the pages “talk page”?

Endobiont 00:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Careiter (talk • contribs)


 * , is WP:LINKROT what you're after? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Auto-Confirmed Issue
Hello. I have performed way more than 10 edits and my account has been existing for longer than 4 days. Yet, I do not have auto-confirmed status. Can anyone assist with this? I understand that this can happen in rare cases and that it has to be done manually. Thank you in advance. Callofduty259 (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , Please see Special:UserRights/Callofduty259. You are a member of the Autoconfirmed users group. Vexations (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Vexations But I cannot edit any semi-protected articles. Practically, I do not have that even though it says I do. Please see if you can fix this. Callofduty259 (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , what is the article you're trying to edit? Vexations (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Not a specific one. Just I do not even have an option to perform an edit. It is for ALL semi-protected articles. VexationsCallofduty259 (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I have just reached 100 edits. I have no idea why I cannot edit semi-protected articles. Callofduty259 (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't know why you can't edit semi-protected pages. I checked the bug database, phabricator, to see if there are any known bugs. There don't seem to be any that resemble your problem. I would try to log out and log back in. I would try a different browser. I would try to see if the protection level that I see is the same for me and another user (that's why I asked you to name an example). I would try to change my editing preferences for Editing mode to show me both editor tabs, and I would try to purge the page that I cannot edit. I'd also check what the page information link in the toolbar shows me about the page that's not working. Vexations (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Vexations, it is resolved. Callofduty259 (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

We have a dispute about a racist mascot at Salesian College Preparatory they used to have
✅ The school used to have the chieftain mascot but it was considered racist by members of the community and declared offensive in this headline from the Contra Costa Times, however the link is now dead, does anyone have some better sources for this material that was content removed from the article? Anyone that is good at the wayback machine or lexus nexus for example? I think it is important for posterity to get it right when a school changes its mascot even if it is under pressure.Ndołkah (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * While Salesian is not the focus of this article, there is a mention that their mascot was changed: .  Orville1974  (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Article Porygon
✅ I redid the article Porygon and I'd like to have it reviewed for it to be a actual article on Wikipedia. I don't know how to do it so can someone please help? Porygon-Z (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow! That was quick.  I'll take a look and leave notes on the article's talk page.  Orville1974  (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I did it right, but at least I tried, right? Porygon-Z (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I left notes on the talk page and tagged the article itself. It's a good start, but in general, the article needs independent, third party sources and inline citations that demonstrate WP:GNG and/or WP:FICT.  Right now, it's unclear where the information came from, and whether Porygons have met Wikipdeia notability standards.  Orville1974  (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Can i look online for one? Does that count? Porygon-Z (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, but you will need several (2-3) sources talking about Porygons. You'll then summarize the content in your own words in the article, citing where the information came from.  Orville1974  (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Where do I summarize it at? Porygon-Z (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Your paraphrasing/summary of the sources is what you use to build the article itself. I recommend taking a close look at other Pokemon articles in the mainspace (including following each citation link), to see how other editors have built articles by summarizing/paraphrasing reliable sources.  Orville1974  (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So if I find a site that says the same stuff I wrote, can I just cite it and move on? Porygon-Z (talk) 04:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Writing articles should work the other way around. You write from the sources, rather than trying to find sources that match what you've written.  I know in this case, you started with a pre-written and poorly-sourced article, which may have made your job harder. You should start by trying to find reliable sources for what the article currently says (and add the citations into the article).  Everything else should be removed.  Then anything you want to add after that scrub should come from your summaries/paraphrasing of reliable sources (WP:RS) with additional citations.   Orville1974  (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright then, Can I use Bulbapedia? Porygon-Z (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Bubapedia is another user-sourced cite, so it doesn't meet reliability standards.  Orville1974  (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure what I did there, but i think i cited a source, right? Porygon-Z (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Close. I just fixed it.  I recommending using the cite button at the top of the page, and pasting the URL into the automatic tab to have Wikipedia help you generate the citation for now as the easier way to include your citations.  I also added a reference list template to the page, so you'll see your references popup down there as you insert citations in the article.  Orville1974  (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright got it! I'll cite some more! Porygon-Z (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How does it look? Porygon-Z (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It's looking better already. I removed some content that was too detailed (read more like a how-to WP:NOTGUIDE) and added citation needed tags for those statements that still don't have sources.  Since everything going forward is going to be article content specific, rather than posting here, add comments to the article's talk page to engage other editors and get further help tweaking/reviewing the article.  Good luck!  Orville1974  (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But since it's a draft, will anyone see it? How can I publish it? Porygon-Z (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Edit your draft in source editing mode and insert this at the top: .  Orville1974  (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright i'll try. Porygon-Z (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not being clearer. You just needed to insert the submit part between the nowiki markup in the last message.  I went in and adjusted the article to insert the template.  It's now pending review!  Keep an eye on it in your watchlist for feedback.  Orville1974  (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic talk-page-bloat collapse request
Hello - could a disinterested party to go to this discussion and collapse anything off-topic (WP:FRINGE discussion is about content, not behaviour). In spite of the 'off-topic' warnings, my two tries have been reverted (to cries of 'censorship!'), and the discussion is now a tl;dr bloated mess. Thanks. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 13:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Factual updates
✅

GreggDinino (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)GreggDinino Hello, I would appreciate editor help adding 3 factual updates to the Partners + Napier wiki page. 1- Can you please updated the page name changing "and" to "+" as this is the legal business name? 2-Project Worldwide is now made up of 15 agencies not 12. Can this number please be updated within the profile? 3- Please update the citation needed for revenue from $17 million to $23 million 4- Please add Sharon Napier as current CEO and Courtney Cotrupe as President GreggDinino (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)GreggDinino


 * Hi In the article's referenced third-party sources, it appears the common format of the name is Partners & Napier.  Per our Manual of Style, "Note, however, that Wikipedia article titles are usually given the most common name in reliable sources, which might not be the official name", I've changed the name to Partners & Napier.  There is already a redirect in place for Partners + Napier to the article.  Orville1974  (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Page update
✅

GreggDinino (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)GreggDinino Hello, I would appreciate editor help adding additional factual updates to the Partners + Napier wiki page.

1- Please update the citation needed for revenue from $17 million to $23 million and year from 2009 to 2018 2-Please update from 4 locations to 3 3-Add recent Ranked as a "Most Effective Agency" in North America by Effie Worldwide's Effie Index Thank you, GreggDinino (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)GreggDinino


 * Hi The changes you've requested are all derived from primary sources.  In order to be considered a reliable source (WP:RS), the information you'd like to change should come from independent, third-party sources.  Please also see WP:NOTPRESSRELEASE.  As for the name change, in the answer above, you'll see I've changed the name to use an ampersand per our manual of style and the most commonly-used naming convention in the article's references.  Orville1974  (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Manuka, Australian Capital Territory
✅ A user has been editing the opening paragraph of the article Manuka, Australian Capital Territory to add a false claim about the "Mayor". The claim is false as Manuka doesn't have a Mayor (check out Local government functions if you're interested).

I've reverted the changes twice now, and the text has been re-added both times. The second time the text was re-added by a different user, but there's a similarity in the username, so I suspect it's the same user. After my second revision I added a section to the talk page here Talk:Manuka, Australian Capital Territory, but since then the text has been re-added to the article and without any response on the talk page. As a new editor of wikipedia, and before I revert again and get into an edit war, I wanted to reach out and see what you could do, or if you can give me any advice. Thanks so much for your help! Tsnoad (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Thank you for not getting into an edit war.  Taking this discussion to the talk page article is the best thing to do.  I have reverted the addition, as the source being used was a personal website for an individual with apparent political aspirations who has obviously not been elected to the as of now non-existent government position, and added more details on the article talk page.  Orville1974  (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Okeus
✅ There's an edit war going on at the moment that's crying out for an experienced editor to split this into Okeus (company) and Okeus (demon) and a disambiguation page. Not something I'm confident enough to do myself. Whether the company passes WP:CORP may be an issue. Philip Trueman (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi The company article editor completely overwrote the existing article with self-sourced promotional material back in February and hasn't been back since.  The overwrite was just recently reverted back.  The most recent edits appear to be well intended vandal patrols reverting themselves (at first glance, both articles look valid so I can see why).  I'm reaching out to the company article editor to help them create an article appropriately (and help them find sources as everything they've provided so far are trademark registrations and the company's website).  Orville1974  (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

New Article not appearing on Google Search
Hi, I have a question. I created my first article called the Devarakota Estate. However, it is not appearing on Google Search when I looked for it. How can this be resolved? Callofduty259 (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , new articles are not indexed for search engine pickup until they are patrolled. Once that occurs, the article will be set for search engines to pick up, but it will still take some period of time before they actually spider them, and that part is beyond our control. So be patient; as long as no issues are found, it'll show up eventually. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Thank you. Is there a place where I have to place this request for patrol at? Like can I ask someone to patrol it that has the ability. Callofduty259 (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No. A new page patroller will get to it eventually. Again, please be patient, and it will show up sooner or later. There are other articles waiting as well; yours is not more important than those. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course. I was wondering if there is anything more I had to do on my part. All articles must be given equal importance, and I have no issues at all with waiting. Thanks again for the help. Callofduty259 (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , there are currently around 8,000 articles in the queue, please be patient - this could take several weeks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, Thank you for letting me. As I have stated, I was curious in knowing the process since I am new to Wikipedia. I was not implying or suggesting that that articles I created should be given priority over the many thousands of equally well formualated ones. I am grateful for the information.Callofduty259 (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Horses?
You post in the “notable personalities” dead horses and sometimes cats and dogs Come on You mention in the beginning of the article: Personalities. Not animals Please stop posting dead animals. That makes no sense It is ridiculous Thank you MP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.58.122.227 (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi!  I couldn't figure out which article you are talking about.  You can post directly to the article's talk page by clicking on the talk tab at the top of that article or you can identify here the article you need assistance with.  Thank you!  Orville1974  (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Loop 526 was a blue link, however the link got deleted and then the link that used to have detailed information about Loop 526 turned red.
✅

The detailed information link about Loop 526 was blue, and now red. Please add detailed information about Loop 526 so the link will turn blue. Any help is appreciated! Thanks, Jay Scott Jayscott996 (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi where are you seeing the red link?  Orville1974  (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The red link for Loop 526 is under List of state highway loops in Texas. Jayscott996 (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi again I saw your response on your talk page.  There are quite a few red links on the List of state highway loops in Texas as you've noticed.  It looks like editors are working on filling in the missing details, but you are more than welcome to help.  I know they'd appreciate it.  You can join this team WP:WikiProject U.S. Roads, or just visit their page for guidance, and starting filling in the missing details, citing reliable sources WP:RS, about roads you're interested in yourself. Happy editing!  Orville1974  (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jay Scott

7th Parachute Regiment Royal horse artillery
Please look into this one as it is out of order and detrimental to a fine Regiment                           Thank you. Nigel Beazley ex 7th — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.19 (talk) 09:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone made an unhelpful edit yesterday, and it was only partially fixed up afterwards. I have restored an older version. Does that address your concerns? If not, please post details at Talk:7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone made an unhelpful edit yesterday, and it was only partially fixed up afterwards. I have restored an older version. Does that address your concerns? If not, please post details at Talk:7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)