Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests: Difference between revisions

Archives

Jorja on my mind

Could somebody unlock the talk page of Jorja, so I can add a project? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Jorja is a disambiguation page. Its talk page has been indefinitely protected – which must be a mistake, which it will need an admin to correct. But the page itself is not protected, if you want to add another link to it. Maproom (talk) 12:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I just created that dab page. I just want to add the anthroponymy project. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Smooth Island (Tasmania)

Can anyone find any further information (historic or modern, important or trivial) to improve these two articles:

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Smooth_Island_(Tasmania)

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_Island_(Tasmania)

I have spent nearly 4 years working on these articles and have exhausted all resources I have access to. I would be very grateful for any help you could provide, especially if you have access to private data repositories, which the public cannot access through libraries, etc. Thank you Jkokavec (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

In case you have not previously tried, you may also considered these.
(a) "smooth island" on google books search option gave me this.
(b) "smooth island" on google news search option gave me this.
Good luck. Keep searching. Do not give up. Suddenly one day you will have a big breakthrough. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit to Funding Circle page

Funding Circle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi

My name is Jack and I work for Funding Circle as their Customer Communications Manager. Following advice listed on Wikipedia help pages, I raised a request on the Talk Page on the 31 January which can be viewed here.

I was wondering if you could advise on how we can work with the Wikipedia editors, to help clear up inaccuracies on the Funding Circle Wikipedia page in a clear and transparent way.

We understand a user made some changes to our Wikipedia page on 5 September 2017 which contains a few inaccuracies that could mislead potential and current investors and borrowers. We’ve suggested amends (see here.) that cover the topic the original amends referred to, and have also offered clarification, with context and sources.

The detail of the message we sent through to the Talk Pages can be seen there.

Very happy to discuss this further and look forward to your advice.

Jack

Bdraggoo (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jack,

I do not consider myself very experienced to guide you. Wait for others to guide you who have prior experience in handling such scenarios. In case no one helps you here, you may also try Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention.

There is no central authority at wikipedia. Wikipedia is purely volunteer run editor community. If not one has responded to your request on the talk page, that means no one is watching that page. I learnt from the Wikipedia:Editorial oversight and control that editors can subscribe to that article, and if anyone comments on the talk page then editors who have added that talkpage to their interest list would get a notification. If no one has replied, that means either no one has subscribed to watch that page by adding it to their interest list or those people might be away from wikipedia. Wait for a week, may be a month max.

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines state that you can not directly or ghost-write or pay someone to edit it for you in a favorable manner. You are doing the right thing by keeping it transparent. I am sure there might be some mechanism to help you. I am keen to learn also was to what that mechanism is. You are doing the right thing by being transparent.

Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth and Wikipedia:No original research guidelines state that your source must be independent, reputed, third party source e.g. a newspaper, magazine, journal, etc with reputation for the checks-and-balances and fact-check. Referring to your organisation's own website is unfortunately not considered an acceptable source.

Wikipedia has clear guidelines about removing the defamatory content. You can check the Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines.

Short and sweet: Reading through all of the above hyperlinks might be daunting, intimidating and time consuming. I suggest you replace your source (from own website) on talk page with a third-party independent reliable and verifiable sources that say what you want to be corrected to. Once you have done that, you can leave a short message on my talk page with link to this discussion here and I might try to edit that page based on the acceptable 3rd party sources that you might supply. Wait if I take few days, I am not always on wikipedia. But if you post on my talkpage, I surely will attend to it. Good luck. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe I should be able to edit the article, with the one external link provided by Jack - if there are any additional sources saying the same thing, that would be better. However, as a newbie, want to ensure there won't be any Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. @ - 202.156.182.84 (talk) Do you think it would be okay if I made these edits? TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Requesting help on 'high priority episode' draft

Answered

Hi. I'm new to Wikipedia, trying to get my hang of things. Since I'm an avid TV show watcher, thought this task force could be the one I could help in. I had a look at the to-do and noticed a request for a Big Bang theory episode that is listed in the high priority episode requests for new articles.

I created the draft, link Draft:The Bath Item Gift Hypothesis, however the submission has been declined. Can you guide me on what to do next? TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 06:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's first start with the reviewer's comments. Is there something about them that you disagree with or don't understand? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Not really, to be honest. I just worked on it since it was on the Wikiproject page. Which is why I was hoping someone from the task force could look into it, since it was tagged in a high priority episode creation list, it would probably have some reasoning that I could be missing. TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand. I'm still making some presumptions here, so if I miss the mark please forgive me. I presume you got that page from Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episodes for creation, since Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/to do refers to that list as a list of "high priority episodes". If that's correct, I think that you may not be aware of the place subject-matter Wikiprojects have here at Wikipedia. The following analogy is not perfect and some may disagree with it, but it may serve for this purpose: If you can equate Wikipedia to Hollywood, with the producers, directors, and actors being equivalent to Wikipedia articles, then Wikiprojects are something like fan clubs. They do important things and wield some influence, but in most cases they have no authority and don't control anything. For example, if they set standards for articles, those standards are, except in a few exceptional cases, just advice and are not binding on anyone at all (see this policy and this guideline which establish those principles). Thus, just because WikiProject Television considers that list of episodes to be high priority, they're only high priority for that project — which itself has no authority and doesn't control anything — not for the encyclopedia as a whole. Thus the fact that it's on that list doesn't merit it any special consideration outside of that project, and that project does not have the authority to decide what articles will and will not be included in Wikipedia. Instead, articles have to stand or fall on our general principles of verifiability and notability (and other policies and guidelines), not on what some Wikiproject may or may not think of them. Having said that, you might consider asking for help in finding better sources for the article or contesting the reviewer's opinion at the WikiProject Television talk page and get some help there. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you for the very detailed explanation, this makes it so much clearer. Kept wondering why it would be tagged 'high priority' if it truly wasn't notable. I have gone over to the Project page and requested help there, maybe they can take it over and make some sense of it. Thank you once again! TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Deleted subject(person)

I would like to know why Steve Zimmer: Board President of LAUSD was deleted from Wikipedia? I was told that Nick Melvoin got the entire page deleted by saying he was irrelevant, because he was a losing candidate. Nick Melvoin ran against him an unseated Zimmer last year. Without getting into the politics and the history behind the Billionaires backing candidates like Melvoin and Marshall Tuck and outspending, not to mention slandering their opponents, I believe it is important to keep a history of people like Steve Zimmer on Wikipedia or where ever as these people are relevant and their story should not be erased because one person says so. Please repost the content that was on Steve Zimmer's page. CTellini — Preceding unsigned comment added by CTellini (talk • contribs) 04:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@CTellini: Which page do you refer to? Steve Zimmer is mentioned in Nick Melvoin. The deleted article Steve Zimmer was about an NFL official. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Page issue - "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (September 2016)"

Primavera Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Dear sir/madam

We currently have an issue with our page title "Primavera Gallery" that is described in the title. Please, can you advise us on how we can find and contact individuals, who are members of Wikipedia, that can objectively edit the page? We would like to have a page that is not deemed to be biased.

All the best Primavera staff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10kingsparade (talk • contribs) 11:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, this may not be the right way but it's not a bad way to find someone who'd be willing to try to improve the article. I may take a crack at it myself! JohnInDC (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

John Surtees

John Surtees was married three times. He was married to his second wife, Janis Sheara Surtees from 1978-1982. Please correct.