Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 2

Archiving guidelines
I was about to go through and archive the request board, but I can't recall the guidelines for how old things need to be before archiving. My two part request:1)can someone please repost the guidlines? and 2)can we possibly include them (or a link to them) in the header of this page? D rew S mith  What I've done  00:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The guidelines for archiving are in the header, Drew. Anything may be archived after being tagged for two days.  As for tagging guidelines, we haven't written those up yet since we've changed the actual tags.    Fl ee tf la me   00:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. While that is helpful, I was actually asking about the specific guidelines for when a request is old enough to be archived. I know the standard is resolved gets archived fairly quickly, while unresolved and stale usually last a bit longer, but I don't know how much longer. D rew S mith  What I've done  01:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Back up the page there we seemed to settle on 2days for resolved, 7 days for answered and 14 days for others. I'll try to write a new header this week and that should help to make it clearer. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I remember seeing that a week or so ago, but couldn't find it now. Either I missed it or it was archived. Anyway, my connection is really slow today, so archiving would be a pain in the ass. I'll probably do the archiving tonight. Just to be sure, is it 2 days from the date of the tag being added or two days from the last edit? D rew S mith  What I've done  03:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the delays start from the timestamp in the tag. That's always been my assumption in archiving, anyway. I also added a Anchor to the start of the archive lag discussion: see . --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, although some times editors are too lazy to tag it as soon as it is resolved, and it can sit around for awhile before being tagged, so I figured in those cases we could do an archive on sight. Any thoughts? D rew S mith  What I've done  04:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure who you think is lazy :P - we suspect that OPs don't always come back to check the answers and if they do they might not feel capable/authorised to add tags. If you mean we assistants, then for my part I'm willing to believe that my suggestions aren't exhaustive and that others might have other suggestions to offer. I tend to think it's better to wait and see, at least for a couple of days, rather than tag 'em and archive 'em as fast as possible. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, sounds reasonable. D rew S mith  What I've done  21:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Party in the USA
(request moved to WP:EAR - this is the talk page for the project) Jezhotwells (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

External links and the Godess Cybele
It is entirely inappropriate to launch a debate about abortion and pro-choice in answer to a question about external links in the godess Cybele article as Nerseeksblonde has done. I have no comment about whether or not the pro-choice article has suitable links, but this is certainly a clear case of other stuff exists at work - ie entirely irrelevant to the question at hand and not in the least bit helpful to the enquirer. I also repeat that you are quite confused about the rules for external links. External links are not the same as sources for the article, they are quite separate, and considerations about whether or not they are reliable sources for the views being expressed is completely irrelevant. You have got the two utterly conflated, please read WP:EL which will make it clear to you what the difference is.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  18:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I really hadn't bothered to distinguish the two as I was simply trying to establish they could contribute to an article SOMEWHERE but, sure for they should be reliable sources for specific claims about themselves as well as suitable EL's as the NARAL link at the pro-choice page. NARAL represents a reliable source about mainstream pro-choice views, just as IEEE publications would be presumed reliable about many engineering topics as well as statements about themselves ("IEEE exsits for foo and bar"). NARAL may not be reliable about other topics but they can substantiate their own views as noted mainstream members of the pro-choice subject. Essentially this comes down to the usage of primary sources- NARAL and presumably this site would be primary sources about themselves and I guess then the author could pick and choose obervations thus making original research. But, as an EL they seem acceptable. On many topics, Wiki encourages the use of primary sources for notable topics where secondary sources don't get things right ( or words to that effect)- medical topics come to mind. If it is reasonable that secondary sourcs don't "get it right" but a topic is still notable, presumably primary sources need to be included somewhere. I'll go check the guidelines later and try to get some citations from there. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * On further examination, my strawman( note I'm not arguing "other stuff exists" just making an analogy that may be more familiar, if both are wrong fine and I have no personal a priori conclusion about the immediate topic) as well as this topic seem to meet inclusion criteria for EL based on being organizations primarily concerned with the topic ( no mention of POV on larger issues ). The LEAST FAVORABLE catagory seems to be this exclusion criterion,

"Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints which such sites are presenting" but even here the POV exception would be met as both the Goddess topic and abortion seem to be open to POV. So, as an EL my ANALOGY ( not meant to be other stuff exists) seems to favor inclusion of both. I'll get back to sources in a minute. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You are still banging on about "reliable sources", "primary sources", "secondary sources" as if this link is in some way verifying the content of the article. It is not, in any way whatsoever, any kind of source for the Cybele article, either primary, secondary, teritary, reliable, unreliable or unknown.  It was inserted as an external link, the issue should be addressed as an external link, the question asked by the poster was about inserting external links.  It does not meet the criteria by being amongst "organizations primarily concerned with the topic" because there is no such criteria.  I think that is probably a sloppy reading for "articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site".  If that is what you meant, the site fails since the article is about the Goddess and she does not have an official site.   cybele2.com is the website of a fringe religous cult, and in no way meets that criterion, modern worshippers of Cybele are not covered in the article with even a passing mention (probably with good, ie WP:N, reasons).  If the article was about Priestess Jean or her temple or her cult then, as I said in my reply, the link would be more than welcome, but that is not the situation at all.
 * When you answer questions that involve Wikipedia rules (which is most of them on this page) you need to strive to give accurate information. This is not the first question recently where you have been less than accurate on policy.  If you do not know with certainty what the rules are you need to go and find the relevant policies and/or guidelines and read them first before answering the question, or else leave it to someone else to answer.  I cannot imagine how difficult it must be for an inexperienced editor to be getting contradictory advice like this.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  21:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I made it clear I'm answering in the hypothetical and indeed I think everything I said is consistent with wikipedia policies or with an effort to make a better encyclopedia and hopefully both but more opinions are welcome- it is supposed to be a discussion not a decision. I also often suggest things that may be peripheral in hopes of hitting a sticking point- in this case the OP mentioned a site attribute that would tend to make it less useful. I fail to see how you can just lump some aspect of a topic, in this case modern followers, into the non-notable catagory and not assume it is just an oversight of whoever wrote the article. This would surely be a made up constraint either by you or a part of wiki with which I am unfamiliar. The fact that modern followers are not mentioned would suggest an opposite of "other stuff exists" argument if you want it to support the contention that it shouldn't exist ( "it doesn't exist therefore it shouldn't"). Even passing mention ("today followers are confined to a few isolated fringe groups") would probably make the subject site worthy of citation SOMEWHERE and it seems to be a reasonable thing for a reader to want to know. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have nowhere said that I think that modern day followers of Cybele should not be covered in the Cybele article. Of course this a valid topic for the article to cover.  However, I would not be happy with the article giving any space to a fringe cult for which reliable sources independant of the cult verifying their notability had not been provided.  As it says in WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia should not become the primary source of information about such topics.  This would have been my answer (or a variation of it) if the question had been how can we write about Priestess Jean's Temple of Cybele in the article.  However, you obstinately avoid admitting that this was not the question asked (and even if it was, your answer was not consistent with the policies and guidelines - all now linked for you).  The question was how can we insert a link to our website.  This is a question that comes up over and over on the helpdesks and the answer, in my view, should be that we are not a linkfarm and this is discouraged.  We do not want links to other people's articles, we want editors to improve our own articles.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  22:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Remember, her question was never, "How can I improve this article?" but rather, "How can I put in a link to my organization and not have it removed as a WP:EL and/or WP:SPAM violation?" -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  22:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess then the focus here should be how to improve the article without a lot of regard to what she asked other than providing a starting point- that naturally invites a more open response then a question which may be ill posed ( false dichotomy, or as you point out a leading or wife beating question etc). Since I'm not a mind reader, and more interested in the article, I can't care too much about motivation ( "assume good faith"). I've also admitted I'm talking hypothetically and I appreciate everyone gets exasperated when these same issues come up 100 times/day. So, in any case, I guess the answer given to her question has more to do with providing the most likely ultimate answer based on experience ( or prejudice depending on POV LOL) than dealing with particulars. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Nature of recent requests
Is it just me or has there been a change to the nature of requests made at WP:EAR? Recent request seem to contain a high proportion either expecting volunteers here to decide who is right in disputes or demands from the subjects of articles that teh artciles be changed? Jezhotwells (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that there does seem to be a slight increase in those kinds of request. Not sure what we can do about it though... – ukexpat (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

publish my article?
why can't i find my entry when I google for it? Lisa (email removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binlied2 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It takes some time for Google to pick up articles sometimes. The article is at Jackie Evancho - you'll note that other editors have identified that it needs some work to be up to our standards. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Help protect Wikipedia
From what? I use the site all the time for my own pleasure and edification, but I am unclear how the organisation is threatened. (I donated $35- how could I not, but... really what is the big deal?

Since there is no one to answer my question, I am posting here. Perhaps I have missed something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveinem (talk • contribs) 05:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, no one is actually threatening it. However it is a non-profit organization, so without the donations it can't continue. So I guess "protecting" here means "help to keep wikipedia going". ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 05:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If the servers all fall over, there'll be no Wikipedia. Fences  &amp;  Windows  03:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I lost an hour's work when they fell over earlier this evening! Jezhotwells (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

EA/R Changes
I think that EA/R does shift a pattern with new assistants. I'm not sure if I've ever been an assistant under this user name, but was an assistant 2007 - 2008. It is very telling that a lot of the older assistants have dropped out. We are very much policy monkeys again than Editor assistants. EA/R actually only works if you ditch trying to legalise every matter and sometimes get stuck in.  EhsanQ  (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not particularly sure what you mean? I was an assistant, well, very early on, and quite often all that's needed is to point editors to the right information&mdash;our mass of policies, guidelines, unwritten customs, etc., can be awfully daunting, and sometimes people just need a pointer to say "There's what applies to your situation." Would agree, though, there were certainly other times you'd have to get into things, especially if someone brought up a disruptive editor or something like that, and sometimes I'd see a situation where I'd want to throw in a third opinion regarding content. Not a thing wrong with that, but I think it really depends upon what in particular is being asked. If they're asking "Hey, is my personal website an acceptable source that John Doe is a child molester?", a "no" and a pointer to BLP is all that's needed. But ultimately, you can't make people wade right into a situation if they don't want to&mdash;it's not like someone's paying us to do this, much as I may wish. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, response depends on query. Sometimes intervention is required, sometimes just a pointer. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to wade in, EhsanQ. For my own part, I think it's often helpful when more than one assistant responds to a request. I know I don't have a monopoly on good answers, and I imagine most of the others feel the same way. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions about procedure
Hi, I was looking around and considering helping, but I found some inconsistencies in the listed procedures that I would like to get clarified before actually working on any disputes.
 * The assistant's guide recommends using the requesting editor's talk page for any discussion, to keep it uncluttered. This does not seem to reflect current practice.  Which is preferred at this time?  If user talk pages are the way to go, then:
 * The requests page recommends marking items as stale after five to seven days. If we are supposed to work with the editor on his or her talk page, how is that tracked?

My watchlist includes some very active pages like T:DYK, so if the first editor to reply would be kind enough to hit me up with tb it would be appreciated.--otherlleft 16:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The way I read it is that straightforward responses or pointers to relevant forums should be on WP:EAR, but if the assistant feels that further lengthy discussion is needed then the editor's or sometimes the article's talk page would be the best place. If that course is pursued then a note under the original query would be appropriate. The assistant's guide could probably do with updating. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * . . . thank you for the clarification! (Recently renamed, but still me.)--~TPW stands for (trade passing words?) or Transparent Proof of Writing 22:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:NA
FYI, NA has been nominated for deletion again. This is the substitution template to create a barebones framework dummy article page. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Something's Wrong
Hey, whenever I try to make something in formatting, it comes out regular; and whenever I remove the  formatting it comes out with code, while editing my User space. Can someone help? — ZeRo 10101  22:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I responded at the user's talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Project page header
Would other assistants agree with me that the sections of the project page header: should be updated to read something like:
 * Resolved, stale and other old discussions are archived, but if you need to return to an archived discussion, you can start a new section and note the old discussion.
 * Assistants: Please tag each settled request as resolved; all other requests should be marked as stale after approximately five to seven days of inactivity. A thread can be archived after being tagged for two days.
 * Resolved, stale and other old discussions are archived, but if you need to return to an archived discussion, you can start a new section and note the old discussion. You may search old discussions using the search box in the Previous requests & responses section adjacent to this pages contents index.
 * Assistants: Please tag old requests using the appropriate templates, e.g. resolved, answered, unclear, unresolved, stale, moved or stuck, after approximately five to seven days of inactivity.. These templates and notes on their usage may be found at Template:Ear/doc. A thread can be archived after being tagged for two days.

What do you think? Jezhotwells (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Any comments folk? Jezhotwells (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I boldly made the proposed changes, please feel free to revert if you disagree. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Older threads on this page
I have archived threads on this talk page up to the end on May 2009 and added a search box. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Wikipedians!
I'm not a new editor by any means; I was an extremely active editor for 2 or 3 years way back and have now mostly retired (although still an admin). I've just been reading through the requests for help on this page and I just wanted to say how delighted I am that there are dedicated, civil, intelligent, knowledgeable people helping others navigate the great complexities of Wikipeida. So--just--thanks! Elf | Talk 16:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I second this. Great job people. -- &oelig; &trade; 15:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification
I've been away for a while (it was a fit-up, guv, honest) and I've forgotten what I used to know - is there a template for notifying OPs of there being a response here? --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Ello, 'ello, 'ello, what's all this then? talkback would work. – ukexpat (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Archives
I started WP:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 81 a short while ago. However I cannot get this archive to display in the archive list on the project page. Anyone have any ideas? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ha! Join the club ;) --Kudpung (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the "Previous requests & responses" on EAR? It shows up for me.  Maybe you just had to wait for the template to be reprocessed.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

EAR userbox
A EAR Usebox is being developed for regular active EAR team members. Its use will of course be optional, but it will add your name to a category of EAR users. If you endorse the idea, leave your sig in the bulleted list below. The userbox is not yet 'live' - don't use it yet!
 * --Kudpung (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I quite like this, but it needs to be made to be the same height as other user-boxes, so a smaller image and less text, e.g. "This user is a member of the Editor Assistance Requests team" or even "This user is a member of the EAR team". Jezhotwells (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Closing and archiving
I'm terribly sorry if I'm closing discussions prematurely right; I have a tough time reading calendars. I keep looking for February 29 and February 30! So, my math is probably very off. --Danger (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hah! If you use MS Office it has a useful calendar :-) Anyway, no problem that I see. It is fine to tag a thread five days after the last post, unless it has obviously been resolved, then to archive 2 days after the tag timestamp. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm... that could make  me guilty  too. My  time zone is already 12 hours ahead of eastern  US time, so  that  puts  most  of my  edits on  America's 'tomorrow' date. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability Tag- Editor is MIA
Hi, I was just wondering how I should go about requesting the removal of the notability tag for the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SmithStreetSolutions The editor who added the tag has not been active on Wikipedia for a few years it seems, and is not responding to my inquiries. I understand if the article in question still needs work- I am happy to continue to improve it; however, I would like to know who I can work with to eventually have the tag removed. Thanks very much in advance. 218.106.62.98 (talk) 07:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Read WP:RS. It's the guidelines for worthwhile references that establish notability. All you have to do is add a couple of worthwhile references and you can remove the tag yourself (explaining that you have added references that meet WP:RS).  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 08:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your advice! Will definitely look over the article. 218.106.62.98 (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Help required rtination (to be read as RTI nation)
I do not know why the article is subject to speedy deletion! Please help! Dropnote (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It was deleted by because it did not explain how the subject was significant (I can't see the text of the article, so can't comment in detail). You could try reading Why was my page deleted? or ask for a fuller explanation at User talk:Orangemike. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It was deleted by because it did not explain how the subject was significant (I can't see the text of the article, so can't comment in detail). You could try reading Why was my page deleted? or ask for a fuller explanation at User talk:Orangemike. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Reference to admins deleting content
Moved to Editor assistance/Requests.  Я ehevkor ✉  21:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Quetta
I want to say that today I have seen my photo Quetta_At_Night.jpg‎ (750 × 498 pixels, file size: 107 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg) and I shocked because it is uploaded by some one else. This is my request from editor of the Wikipedia to remove his name. He takes the photo from (http://www.treklens.com/members/Aazragi/photos/page4.htm ) What a shame. Aazragi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aazragi (talk • contribs) 11:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reporting this. I have tagged the image for deletion as a copyright violation. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Error notice
Pinotepa de Don Luis is located in the northwestern part of the state of Oaxaca Mexico, not in the south-western as stated in the stub article. While this is a small matter, unfortunately it is repeated in many places on the Internet. I am not computer savvy enough to correct it. Can someone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.221.215.212 (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Editing Page Name
A company I work for recently made a slight change to the company name and I am trying to reflect that in the "page" name we are listed under. Can that be done? And where do I begin? Thanks!

Matthewkern (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:MOVE. – ukexpat (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Archival procedure
I don't know if it's changed in the last couple years, but as I recall we were working our archival manually, based on the tagging, rather than automatically archiving threads. At the very least, I feel that 7d is far too soon to be auto-archiving many threads, and am turning it up to 14d for now, and suggest that we move it all the way up to 28d or 30d if we're going to keep auto-archival, or start mandating a talkback-like posting to the OP's user talk once the thread is tagged. EAR isn't such a high-traffic board that we need to keep it down to a handful of threads at any given time. Most threads here elicit few responses, and most people posting here aren't going to rapidly check back. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 15:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They generally  do check back  if we leave a tb on their talk page that their query has been addressed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians in the Editor Assistance Project
It appears that Category:Wikipedians in the Editor Assistance Project goes with Editor assistance/Requests. If so, please consider resolving the difference between the project name and the category name. There was some discussion about this at W b W renaming. A new WikiProject Editor assistance whose members work to maintain the page Editor assistance and respond at Editor assistance/Requests might being everything together so that Category:Wikipedians in the Editor Assistance Project could be renamed Category:WikiProject Editor assistance members. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion referred to was closed as no consensus. I don't see any problem here. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Archive
I have archived all threads up until December 2011. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

On the editnotice
In WP:EAR, the OP raises a good point about EAR's editnotice. Specifically, the end text, which was added in 2011 by Kudpung, a long-time responder here. While I agree with the sentiment, that we aren't asking for much, and that enhancing compliance with the editnotice is really helpful to us, I think the statement may come off as BITEy, and we may have a few too many instructions.

Thus, I'd like to propose we revise the editnotice to resemble the following: PLEASE read this before posting: Welcome to EAR, a place to ask for help with Wikipedia editing issues! Some notes: Thank you in advance for following these instructions! Note that this isn't the fully formatted ready-to-go edition; it needs to be put in the template format, but that's easy enough. I'm not proposing we ditch the exclamation point. Let me know what you all think! —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * EAR is not the help desk, a complaint board, or a place to propose changes to articles or to Wikipedia policies.
 * On the first line of your request, please put  to help our volunteers respond to your request quickly.
 * Please provide a neutral and concise summary of the problem. Short posts generally receive priority from our volunteers.
 * Avoid posting about a problem here if you have already posted elsewhere, as it may be considered disruptive.
 * No objections. Since the Tea House was invented EAR is nowhere as active as it used to  be be. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)