Help:Contents

Archives

Previous requests & responses
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123

Other links
Frequent requests Talk Third Opinion Incident Noticeboard

Notability[edit]

Draft:Notability (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I have submitted an article a month ago and other users provided me feedback about article, what should I correct. I had to add references about the subject, which I did(several news articles) but got no answer. Could you please tell me what can I do to get some information about the status of my submitted article?

Thank you in advance. Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mici quattro (talk • contribs) 10:04, 15 April 2016‎ (UTC)

Draft Review[edit]

I was wondering if someone could please review a draft article I have written here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jeff_Cavins

I have edited several articles, but have never written a new one from scratch and was curious if there is anything I should add or subtract which would make it less likely to be deleted.

Thank you so much Matt Dunn

MJudeDunn (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

There's a built-in process for that in the Draft space, but it seems that you may have somehow broken it. I'm going to ping @Robert McClenon who works there to take a look at the situation and to note that in this edit MJudeDunn appears to have taken over a draft about an entirely different person with the same name — I think — and removed the review headers. I don't know whether the headers should just be restored or new ones added to get a review of the new material or whether the new material should be split off into a new draft or what. No one seems all that upset about the older draft having been taken over. What I do know is that this Editor assistance noticeboard is not for seeking such a review. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Here are a few comments for now. First, as User:TransporterMan notes, there are two people with the same name. MJudeDunn made a mistake in overwriting the existing draft with a draft on another person, but I will inquire into how an administrator can save both edit histories. With regard to the current Jeff Cavins, the Catholic writer, all that needs to be done to get the draft reviewed is to Submit it to review if you have the AFCH (Articles for Creation Helper) script enabled. Otherwise there is a template that needs to be added. If I am asked to submit it for review, I will submit it for review. Second, the usual place to discuss draft articles is the Teahouse. You can ask questions about it there. However, if you want it reviewed, you can ask me to submit it for review. It does appear that the draft on the technologist wasn't making much progress, but I would like to try to get both drafts into the review process with disambiguation qualifiers, rather than having one compete with the other. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, User:TransporterMan and Robert McClenon for your assistance here. As I mentioned, this was my first article. When searching for the name "Jeff Cavins" in wikipedia, and it said there were no existing articles, I didn't consider that there could be a draft in place for someone with the same name, so I assumed the text there when I tried to create a draft was like a lorem ipsum. This was my mistake. I had never heard of the technologist, so it didn't even occur to me that it was real, since I had seen no articles on the live site. I would like to ask you if you could submit my article for review, if, @Robert McClenon , you wouldn't mind doing so. Thank you. so much.

Matt MJudeDunn (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Contribution question[edit]

I may have not read all instructions so I apologize if my Q is defined somewhere.... I have made a contribution but think it is at the wrong place. I did make e-value as a contribution but it seams it is under p-value? Kindly guide me ViA-Lars (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking at your contribution history, I find no article contributions since 2007. I find one long comment on an article talk page which was reverted, probably because it was out of place (as you may have suggested, above) and/or violated our talk page rules. If you were trying to suggest or create a new article, you should do so though the Article Wizard, which you can find here, but be aware that all new articles must satisfy our requirements of notability and all assertions in them must be supported by references to reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia and need some questions answered[edit]

Hello!

I'm new to Wikipedia and wanted to know what type of steps I need to take to get a page that was falsely renamed reverted to it's original name without breaking the Wikipedia process or rules?

How do I interact on the article talk page to explain why this name change needs to be reverted and why a large amount of additional edits need to be made to this page?

If I think it was inappropriate for another editor to change the article name before the discussion proposed even occurs, how and where do I discuss this?

Finally, if I believe an editor's comments in the Talk section reveal immense bias and are not appropriate for the objective discussion that is proposed, can these comments be removed from the Talk section? If so, how?

Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.

--MistyScotch (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@MistyScotch: You can discuss the issue on the article talk page. You can also get help about moving a page here Wikipedia:Requested moves. As far as other editors comments, the guideline is here Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 21:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd be interested in the page you're asking about. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

What is the current name of the article you're talking about, Misty? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Sean Christopher[edit]

Sean_Christopher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello this is Sean Christopher. All the information in this article is correct except for the picture. I believe there are more than one Sean Christophers. Please change for I am the R&B singer. I attached the correct picture.

Thanks for your note. There doesn't seem to be a photo already associated with this article, so it doesn't need to be changed. More importantly though I don't think that the article meets the Wikipedia notability requirement so I have proposed that it be deleted. After you've worked up a more extensive discography and have gained some media coverage, maybe then - good luck! JohnInDC (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

First Norfolk & Suffolk[edit]

Hello,

I have recently spent several hours updating and improving the wikipedia page about First Norfolk & Suffolk as the info currently displayed was very limited, out of date, and incorrect. I used correct sources, uploaded new images onto wikimedia before embedding them in to create a very up-to-date, factual page about the company only to have it undone days later by someone saying there was nothing wrong with the old page.

This is the second attempt I've had at improving this page this year, and the first time I was unsuccessful too thanks to a seperate editor who decided that there was nothing wrong with the original page either. I live in Norwich, and am a bus enthusiast who knows a lot more about the company than these other people who don't even live in East Anglia. I have asked for an explanation as to why they have undone all my hard work as I don't edit often so I may have done something incorrectly but all I get is rude replies.

Any help would be gratefully appreciated.

Zak — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZakNelson1995 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Where have I made rude replies ? ....., I reverted you because the page is filled with YOUR images ..... We should have images by different photographers, The rest I've self reverted on as I didn't realize it was indeed sourced. –Davey2010^Talk 09:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I've readded the text back and about 3 images ..... Would've been nice if it was discussed with me tho. –Davey2010^Talk 09:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Interculturalness[edit]

I am kindly asking for help regarding the behavior of an Admin Ohnoitsjamie) that decided to completely delete any intervention done in one year of work on wikipedia, providing for earch intervention different reasons, but, as a matter of fact, deleting one year of serious work. I am an Italian Fulbright Scholar in Intercultural Communication, researcher and trainer, and I am trying to improve the interculturalness of some voices, and I read that Wikipedia appreciates contributions from different cultures (I acted only on topics on which I can have something to add, and where I wrote books or articles, otherwise I would not feel to be competent), so my work has been trying to add contents to the English version of Wikipedia that would otherwise not appear, only published works and with citation of proper sources. I wish to know if I violated any rule or it is normal to have all the work done deleted in one day - this is an example of a deletion of an approach that I think is really detrimental to wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intercultural_communication&diff=718145622&oldid=714929947 Thanks in advance for your kind attention — Preceding unsigned comment added by Culturalresearch (talk • contribs) 11:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at explaining what might be happening but am sure too that I'm going to overlook something, and would solicit further comment from others. I looked over some of your contributions and noticed what to my eyes, appear to be a couple of essential issues with them. I looked at these:

Human Resources

Emotion

Value (ethics)

Skill

Marketing

Personal development

Each of these (except for perhaps "personal development") presents a broad overview of an ordinary concept. Your additions, often to the lead, presented highly specific and (again to my eyes) academically-focused commentary or observations about the subject that were presented without much in the way of context or lead-in. Several seemed to be written more like abstracts, summarizing research without really explaining how the concepts fit into the larger article. More to the point however, is that each of your contributions cited papers by the same author (presumably you but it doesn't matter) - this practice is sufficiently common among editors who are seeking to promote themselves, or their works - rather than objectively improve the encyclopedia, that the term "link spam" has been coined to describe it. See the page WP:LINKSPAM. I don't want to speak for @Ohnoitsjamie: but I would say that between the somewhat tone-deaf nature of your edits, combined with the single-source nature of the references, it was not an unreasonable conclusion that the additions were indeed a variety of link spam and subject to removal. I don't know really anything about your work, or how successfully or appropriately it might be integrated into the encyclopedia, but perhaps what I've said will be useful in some fashion as you go forward it in editing. I hope so. JohnInDC (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me that Culturalresearch is a single purpose self-promotion account, which is why I reverted (and did a bunch of other housecleaning from their last few months of contributions). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I wish to thank JohnInDC for the polite answer. I personally do not agree but I respect it, and also the Wikipedia article about SPA, that highlights "Communal standards such as don't bite the newcomers apply to all users. Be courteous. Focus on the subject matter, not the person. If they are given fair treatment, they may also become more involved over time." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Culturalresearch (talk • contribs) 19:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC) Also, I wish to highlight that the issue of interculturalness is still valid, since the material I provided comes mainly from Italian authors and in the future other Latin authors that are really misrepresented in the English version of the topics on which they have written published books. The next author I am about to consider is Francesco Muzzarelli who is absolutely unknown to non-italian sources despite his huge amount of publications in Italian, and Ciro Imparato, one of the world's leading scientists and trainers on paralinguistic research, who unfortunately died recently. I remember clearly of having read about wikipedia values of promoting interculturalness and different points of view within a voice and I hope this attempt to bring in Latin and non-english literature (and the effort to translate it) will be understood and appreciated.

page move question[edit]

Resolved

an editor moved the article "area of a circle" to "area of a disk" which is against consensus if you look at the talk page section "move history"...I went to revert it and it said the action wasn't allowed in red lettering...is this something to post to administrator's noticeboard or is that too drastic at this point...should do a request for comment to settle the issue better?68.48.241.158 (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I don't think that IP editors can move articles. Those in favor of the article being named something other than what it currently is named should avail themselves of the procedure set out at Controversial requested moves. At this point, I see nothing to take to ANI except perhaps a slow-motion edit war that ANI would simply tell you to take to Requested moves. In any event, this noticeboard is not for the purpose of seeking dispute resolution, RW is for that in this case. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Zulu kings[edit]

Resolved

Please review dates you have listed for Zulu Kings reign - see Jama - I think the birth date is listed wrong - At Zululand hotel where we were they history and picture of each king and information about them with dates - it showed him born 1727 which makes more sense considering the date he became king - end date is correct 1781. 184.1.225.231 (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This request should be posted on the List of Zulu Kings talkpage. This page is for obtaining advice on how to edit, not requests that someone do it for you. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Tierra (Band)[edit]

Resolved

The name of Henry Kenny Roman is misspelled as Romain and also is not on the list of band members past present. He was on the 1973 album TIERRA 20th. Century Label.He played in various groups The Iperials, Loose Caboose, Xochipili, Dave Matthews Band and many others. He was a child prodigy playing drums at the age of 5, preforming with teens 5-6 years his elder. Would be nice to have this corrected as he is no longer with us. Norman Aguilar, Road Dog and Friend in growing up in the Barrio.

If you have a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia for this information, please go ahead and fix it yourself and cite your source or list the request and the source on the article talk page. This forum is not for requesting such requests to be made for you, since Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Regard, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Notwithstanding what I've said, above, I've corrected it from Romain to Román (not Roman), per the cited source in the Tierra (band) article. If there are other locations where it needs to be corrected, please feel free to do so, citing that source. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Changing comment of a version of a file[edit]

Dear editor assistance,
To prevent harassment, please delete the comment of the second version of the file below in its file history section, because it includes my real name.

Thank you.
--Mahdad (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mahdad: You uploaded the file to Wikimedia Commons. This means the information can only be deleted by Commons administrators or oversighters and not Wikipedia administrators. See commons:Commons:Oversight for a way to make a request. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Please transfer my request to the Commons administrators or oversighters, because I sent request via email to them, but didn't receive any response. Thank you. --Mahdad (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mahdad: I have mailed your request to Commons oversight. If nothing happens within two days then you can ping me again. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thank you very much. But there are logs and summaries in my commons contributions page (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mahdad) that includes my real name! so please request them to delete my contributions page. thank you. --Mahdad (talk) 10:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: dear editor assistance, also my revision history includes my real name! (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mahdad&action=history). Can I request to delete all the history that includes my real name (my previous username) in Wikipedia and Commons? --Mahdad (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mahdad: I have mailed the oversigther who did the last oversight. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Dear Admin, my revision history includes my real name! please delete them to prevent harassment. Thank you. --Mahdad (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

also please delete them on my arabic-language page:

requested moves[edit]

I began a RfC in the article "area of a disk" about changing the title to "area of a circle"...many people have weighed in...I see there's a requested moves noticeboard, should this be there too somehow now?68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Need help correcting and removing bias from TWA_Flight_800 page[edit]

TWA Flight 800 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear Editor(s):

I respectfully request help editing and removing bias from Wikipedia's TWA Flight 800 page. This is a controversial story with misinformation from the public and media, but also from the NTSB, CIA, and FBI. For example, Wikipedia's second paragraph cites an FBI claim that "no evidence had been found of a criminal act", while further along Wikipedia reports that "RDX and pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN)" (explosives common to missiles and bombs) were detected on wreckage items. Both cannot be true, and therefore great care must be taken on how to frame official pronouncements vs. conflicting evidence.

The official investigation was plagued with abnormalities, including the undocumented removal of wreckage that tested positive for explosives by the FBI and the CIA supplanting the NTSB's official Eyewitness Group Factual Report with a highly publicized CIA animation televised nationally weeks before the NTSB's fact-finding hearing. However, the Wikipedia page puts a positive spin on these instances, while employing the derogatory term "conspiracy" when mentioning those (including six high-level whistle-blowers from the original NTSB investigation) who question those and other abnormal events.

Here is how Wikipedia currently brings up the FBI's improper removal of evidence:

--- With lines of authority unclear, differences in agendas and culture between the FBI and NTSB resulted in discord.[32]:1 The FBI, from the start assuming that a criminal act had occurred,[32]:3 saw the NTSB as indecisive. Expressing frustration at the NTSB's unwillingness to speculate on a cause, one FBI agent described the NTSB as "No opinions. No nothing".[32]:4 Meanwhile, the NTSB was required to refute or play down speculation about conclusions and evidence, frequently supplied to reporters by law enforcement officials and politicians.[22]:3[32]:4 The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW), an invited party to the NTSB investigation, criticized the undocumented removal by FBI agents of wreckage from the hangar where it was stored.[34] ---

This paragraph makes it seem as though the FBI's removal of evidence was an act by a "Do Something" agency, in response to a "No opinions. No Nothing" NTSB. However the truth of the matter is that Jim Speer, who is now a whistle-blower, and was then an investigator working within the NTSB's investigation, discovered a piece of wreckage early on and recognized high-velocity damage on it. He then had it tested for explosives, and explosives were in fact detected on it. This was not a do-"nothing" effort. And the FBI's removal of that piece was questionable, especially since it remains unaccounted for today. I believe the current spin of this apparently illegal activity goes against Wikipedia's policy of maintaining a neutral tone.

Here is how the article summarizes the CIA's work:

--- [Based upon] how long it took for the sound of the initial explosion to reach the witnesses[,]...the witnesses could not be describing a missile approaching an intact aircraft, as the plane had already exploded before their observations began. ---

This is inaccurate. And it is based on misinformation appearing in a CIA animation, which was broadcast nationally only three weeks before the NTSB fact-finding hearing. The CIA analysis relied on a "sound analysis" applied to one or two witnesses who reported hearing a sound before apparently seeing a missile, while there were 670 eyewitnesses in total. And significantly, the vast majority of witnesses who saw a rising streak of light head up to the area where TWA 800 ultimately broke apart heard *no* sounds until after the aircraft hit the water, after falling from 2.5 miles up. Also, the CIA sound analysis only considered short range missiles fired relatively close to and below the jetliner, which is at odds with a significant number of witness statements describing a longer-range missile originally traveling closer to shore (such a launch could have been heard prior to, or about the same time as seeing a rising object approach the jetliner).

Beyond the CIA animation being misleading (and Wikipedia's summary of it inaccurate) that animation has since been critiqued by a former member of the NTSB's Eyewitness Group and two eyewitnesses whose observations were depicted by the CIA in their animation. This former investigator, together with these two eyewitnesses and myself, explain how that CIA video is inaccurate. Significantly, the CIA alleged that the eyewitnesses had changed their original testimony--that testimony conflicting with the CIA scenario. As you will hear if you watch the following point-by-point critique, the witnesses say that they never changed their testimony. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyluFVxqBlo (this link is just for reference in this request for Editor Assistance).

The current Wikipedia page on TWA Flight 800 contains inaccuracies and it is biased, but before making any corrections, I felt that contacting an experienced WikiPedia editor may be in order due to the controversial nature of this incident.

I look forward to hearing from someone willing to look into these issues.

Thank you,

Stalcup (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any evidence of a dispute in progress, so I don't think there's a particular need for the sort of dispute resolution being requested here. Stalcup, your first step should be to go to Talk:TWA Flight 800 with your concerns. You haven't done that, at least not recently (I see you did try to engage people there back almost 9 years ago, then stopped editing until just now). I haven't looked in depth other than to note the personal website you link on your userpage seems to be focused at "getting the truth out" about TWA Flight 800... so while I would normally suggest you be bold and try to improve the article, I will add a caveat that you should be very careful about inserting fringe material into that article, because it'll get removed, and rightly so. Some of what you're pointing out here seems to be fringe. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Tigrayans[edit]

Tigrayans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The long-standing title of the page was changed from "Tigray-Tigrinya" to "Tigrayans". Based on an n-gram analysis it was determined this was more used term. Tigrayans is however a reference to the people of a region (people of the Tigray region), not a culture group. According to analysis of a sample of sources focused on ethnic groups "Tigrinyas" is the more common label (>10 references on Google Books), while Tigre is second most common (Tigre is not used as it refers to a ethnic group). Tigrayan is third most common with limited use by some encyclopedias (approx. 3 on Google Books using it as the primary reference). Multiple rename requests have neared consensus but not achieved consensus. Need assistance to move forward. Merhawie (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Clementine von Radics[edit]

Hi. Could you please provide some clarity on BLPPROD. Myself and another editor both prodded this as it doesn't have sources - Twitter, FB et al are not reliable sources. @Donottroll: However another editor disagrees and keeps removing the prod. Can you give some guidance on which approach is correct? Thanks Gbawden (talk) 06:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)