Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Rhymesmith (talk | contribs) at 06:52, 24 July 2007 (→‎Help with proceeding with pseudo-troll: help). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

To make a general request for assistance, please place your name and a brief (a few sentences) description of the issue you need help with at the bottom. Resolved, stale and other old discussions are archived.

Assistants: Please tag each settled request as {{resolved}}; all other requests should be marked as {{stale}} after ten days of inactivity. A thread can be archived after being tagged for two days.

Need help verifying violation of WP:OR

On the page Man vs. Wild, there has been a continual debate between a few wikipedians who maintain that the show's content is "fake," although they have no external sources. Myself and a few others have attempted to remind them that this is editorializing and no content of that nature can be included without some sort of credible citation. I would appreciate it if we can somehow end the debate that has existed on the talk page for quite some by having a more experienced editor voicing their opinion. If I am proved wrong, I will step aside, hopefully the said can be said for others. --Tao of tyler 02:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those visiting the page, allow me to correct this distortion: the clear majority of the people on the talk page think that criticisms of the show should be allowed. The types of citations range from quotes from the host of the show himself, documented in interviews, to cast member interviews, to photographs from Bear's website, clips of the show, and other primary sources displaying things that require as much "technical knowledge" to interpret as posting a picture of a fire hydrant does, and so. Some claims were as unreliable as people with expert knowledge publishing in non-peer-reviewed sources such as forums, but others, like the interviews, are as clean-cut as it gets. Tao of tyler has been very aggressive in attempting to control the article, and won't have any of it. Thus, I second the request for editors. I would also request comments on whether we are allowed to label an indisputably well-referenced, dangerous activity as dangerous, or whether we must simply report it as "life saving" because the show does. -- Rei 05:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that multiple participants are involved, 3O is unavailable as an option. However, before the situtation degenerates into one requiring dispute resolution, how about submitting the article for peer review? As a disinterested observer, I think reliable sourcing is important. Just a thought. --Aarktica 13:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of Mind

Sorry, but my English is not good enough to edit context of article directly. Please, take a look on proposed editing and post it after grammar corrections. unsigned by 70.57.222.103 (Talk) at 05:20, 13 July 2007

Gosh I don't know where to start. i am purely arts and wouldn't have a clue at trying to judge if the ammendments are right or not The post should really be on the talk page of the article. I will add an {{anon}} to the editors talk page and ask him to consider editing Wikipedia under a username. I honestly don't have any other ideas. Mike33 23:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you managed to collapse that! I tried to use "toccolours collapsible collapsed" yesterday, but I think the formatting of the post prevented it from collapsing, so I had to leave it as is. I was reluctant to just delete it. If the anon editor returns, perhaps he can tell us what his first language is; he might be more confident and better placed to contribute to another WP. I'm sure they have translation service like we do here, but from English, so that he could work on a version of this article. Adrian M. H. 13:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the anon comes back - I would suggest (a) getting a user name (b) sending it to psychology or metapsychics or philosophy wikiproject. Otherwise Its on the page and its so difficult to compare the two versions (even if I understood any of it). Do you think we can repost it to anons user page User_talk:70.57.222.103/Pom? until we find project help? Mike33 14:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, best to leave it here. It may well be a dynamic IP. Adrian M. H. 14:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ping says he's in ohio US. I suspect that when he said his English wasn't good, he meant that he was an English speaker, but his grammer was poor? Gonna cross my fingers and hope a psychologist can make head from tail. Mike33 14:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make head from tail and deal with the coherency and philosophical issues relating to the proposed edits, if that is what is wanted, coming from the perspective of an academic specialty in philosophy of mind. I'd be happy to look through the comments, but this does seem rather long and it's difficult to identify the differences between the proposed version and the current version. The manner of phrasing,however ("(My point of view on the problems is provided after an original text as numbered comments."), does make me suspect original research. I defer this to the editors already assisting. Comments? Yanksta x 07:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It strongly suggests OR with potential for bias. No references were provided. Adrian M. H. 16:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Girardi

Resolved
 – Requester blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Pascack. --Aarktica 16:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern,

The Joe Girardi page has been subject to consistent edit wars regarding the team colors in his info box. The colors previously had listed the colors of the Chicago Cubs (red and blue) since Girardi played the most years (6) for the Cubs than any other team covering two separate stints. He played 3 years for the Yankees, 2 years for the Rockies, and 1 year for the Cardinals. However, several users, mainly IP address 208.168.252.236 have repeatedly changed the box to Yankee colors. Can you please help as the constant re-editing is ruining the page. Thank you. Joeidaho 16:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems logical to me that, if you can have only one, you should choose the most significant. Which would normally have to be judged by longevity for sake of avoiding subjectivity. Perhaps you should suggest to the other editors that no colours should be included at all, and see what they say. Did he have greater success with any of the other teams, by the way? Adrian M. H. 22:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the players are listed with teams with the most longevity. However, user mghabmw continues to violate the 3RR rule either under his own name or IP 208.169.94.8 on both the Joe Girardi page and Reggie Jackson page. He appears to be a Yankee fan and constantly changes players' colors to Yankees colors. In Girardi's case, he played 6 years on the Cubs and 3 years on the Yankees. In Reggie's case, he played 9 years on the A's and 5 years on the Yankees. He is consistently reverting and I don't know what action can be taken at this point. Joeidaho 17:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone at 65.160.57.101 requested my password

Resolved
 – Nominator concurs with closure. --Aarktica 13:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I received an email from wiki@wikimedia.org with subject line New temporary password for Wikipedia. The text is

Someone from the IP address 65.160.57.101 requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia.

The new password for the user account "CliffC" is "(redacted)". You can now log in to Wikipedia using that password.

If it was you who requested this new password, then you should log in to Wikipedia and change it to your desired password by clicking "My Preferences" at the top right of any page, or by visiting the following URL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences

If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may safely ignore this message. Your old/existing password will continue to work despite this new password being created for you.


~Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org

I didn't ask for my password to be sent and I don't know who 65.160.57.101 is. When I go to his talk page here I see that he's a spammer with three sock accounts, but I don't see any intersection between the articles he's spammed and those where I've reverted spammers, or even visited.

So... "What's all this then?" I once saw this question asked elsewhere in Wikipedia, I don't recall where, but the answer was something to the effect of "nothing to be concerned about, move along". Can someone explain (or speculate on) what's going on? --CliffC 19:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bit disconcerting, I agree, but probably nothing to worry about. I have seen this mentioned at the VP before. I suspect that someone decided to try something nefarious and picked your account at random (perhaps from article history or a talk page). As they will no doubt be aware by now, they are out of luck! The important thing is to (a) have a very obscure password, (b) never sign in at a publicly available PC, and (c) avoid spyware. Adrian M. H. 22:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means you're famous Cliff - you must be doing something right, if people are trying to undo your good work. "my preferences" button at top of the page lets u change passwords as many times a day as you want. You can even forget and get a new code - remember only you know it unless somebody has access to your email. It could just be a mistake tho, if you're bored try Special:Listusers and search for a blue link Cliff! Mike33 - t@lk 22:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, gentlemen. I lean towards Mike's "famous" explanation since articles I edit are still trolled once in a while by the honey-roasted peanuts vandals. Aarktica has suggested that this item might be closed, and I agree. --CliffC 13:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article rejection

I have submitted several articles on an indiviual and It has been rejected each time. Attached is an article. Can you please review and either publish or explain to me why not? Please see below. Thanks! -Cedric


Brice Carrington, Sound Designer establishes Ultimate FX, a sound library that revolutionizes the industry by bringing Hollywood styled sound effects DIRECTLY to the consumer.


> Ultimate FX, the new sound library led by sound designer Brice Carrington produces some of the world’s most popular sounds for feature films, video games, software and ringtones. With over 20 years of experience, and amassing a vast sound collection, led Brice to create Ultimate FX, a surround sound library whose materials are in great demand by consumers. A key element of the signature Carrington sound is the use of a male African lion in virtually all of his sound effects. All of Carrington’s sounds are original works that are recorded in the field, using six microphones, creating the true 5.1 surround sound. >

According to Carrington, “Working in sound production over the years has afforded me the ability to create some of the most unique sounds you will ever hear, and we will soon have the ability to share our library of sound effects with the world. Now anyone can incorporate professional sound effects into their own home movies.” An example of an Ultimate FX exclusive is the recreation of the famous sound of the T-Rex eating, in the film Jurassic Park. This sound was created by recording a lion crunching bones; the splash of hogs in water; the flesh tearing sound of a lion tearing the fur off of a rabbit; an elephant’s roar; even the whirring of an old-school push lawn mower. Ultimate FX was the premier surround sound effects library of BMG/Killer tracks, one of the most state of the art sound libraries in the world. Ultimate FX has also been used at Universal Studios theme parks in Hollywood, and Sea World in Orlando, Florida. Ultimate FX is currently sold by Pinnacle Systems and Carrington is in development of a consumer based sound mixer which will allow its users to create their own sound effects in their home movies. “By including many ready made sound files from Ultimate FX in Pinnacle’s video editing product line, customers can easily create polished, Hollywood-style results that are fun to share with family and friends,” says Amy Whelan of Pinnacle Systems. “Beginning with Pinnacle Studio version 9, Carrington’s audio content is now also included in Pinnacle’s most recent iteration, Studio 11 Titanium Edition.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedrich (talkcontribs) 19:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • My hunch is that the article was rejected either because the notability of the subject or product was questioned. Please review WP:BLP, WP:EDIT, WP:GA and WP:RS (not necessarily in that order) for possible tips on avoiding future denials. --Aarktica 19:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Hi there. The problem with an article on Brice Carrington is that it would appear to be nearly impossible to write in any way that would meet our notability guidelines for biographies. Articles on Carrington have been speedy-deleted several times as either promotional (such as the copy above, which is essentially a press release - that makes up most of the sources that can be found with regards to the subject through Google searches) or as an attack page. (Note that I did tag one of the articles for speedy deletion, and at the time left a message on your user talk page with regards to the reason.) Articles must be verifiable through multiple, non-trivial reliable sources to meet guidelines for inclusion. If you feel you can create an article meeting those guidelines and policies, you may want to start it in a personal sandbox (perhaps at User:Cedrich/Sandbox), then check with established editors and ask them to look at the page you have created before moving it into the article space. This might save the trouble of having it speedy-deleted again. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) review? 19:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need advice on external links with potential COI issue

I own iFiction.org, and recently became aware that some articles here about specific games I host (such as Anchorhead) contain links directly to that game on my site. The problem is, the links typically use a URL that I expect to be changing soon. Rather than trying to maintain some number links throughout the wiki, it occurred to me I could create an external link template to make the link easy to add, and keep the URL in one place. Then I could replace the existing links with template references, add the template to other existing game articles where it was relevant, and possibly set up a similar arrangement for the links to game reviews at Baf's Guide. But first I wanted to research the COI policy, to get guidance on whether what I think would improve the articles is in line with the community's opinion on the matter. On reading WP:EL#What_should_be_linked, I figured that

  • Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

would apply, since actual game play is clearly not suitable for inclusion. But then I found the discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MobyGames.2F_Flipkin. That's a much more extreme situation (6000+ links to stub pages, possible bots, sock puppets, etc), but there's enough similarity to what is clearly a sensitive issue that I decided I should get some Editor feedback on whether (or how much of) my plans are appropriate. Comments, anyone? --Diggernet 02:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI, WP:FUI and WP:OR are issues that get practically all editors very animated. In real terms, conflict of interest is only of concern if an editor is pushing unverifiable material in an article or excluding controversial material. On some of the articles I regulary work on, we get imput from the relevent non-profit making organisations suggesting new leads or advising on POV problems. They are open about who they are, are happy to receive email and respond to user talk. It doesn't effect any other editor's neutrality and I think it help Wikipedia as a whole. There are exceptions of course and say for example Jesus Army the article seems to be policed entirely by members of the organisation.

Correcting a dead link, albeit your own, should never be looked on as contradictory to WP:COI. However, the template seems a little extreme. External links should obviously be visable, but not eyecatching enough to disturb the flow of the article. If you do have concerns, suggest to the regular editors of anchorhead, zork 1, interactive fiction etc. that they change the links for you.

Please remember that this is my opinion and I am sure other editors will have other opinions converse to mine. Mike33 - t@lk 04:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. Your statement about dead links is clearly correct, but I guess I should clarify that the template I had in mind would be based on and similar to Template:Imdb title. That is, it would just be a shorthand for adding one line to the External Links section (as it should be), not something intrusive like an Infobox or link box. Whether done with a template for maintainability, or manually, I am also interested in any opinions on whether adding such links to other articles would be viewed by others as a helpful addition (as intended), or self-serving link spam. --Diggernet 06:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPAM should only refer to sites that are only vaguely concerned with the article, paysites, or particular lines of opinion which promote illegal activity. Despite Wikipedia being the "free encyclopedia" it has never discouraged outside profit making organisations making use of its content. The same goes for external links. No outside website can use Wikipedia to gain google points because it is completely "no follow" now. Your template idea still spells trouble though, editors may well view a template not as quick shorthand but as bigging-up your site. When ctrl-f can find a bad link, what is the need? Mike33 - t@lk 07:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. "Profit making". I put ads on the site a few weeks ago as an experiment to see if it would pay for its own hosting. So far, it doesn't look promising.  :)
By "bigging-up", I assume you mean trying to make the site seem important because it's got a template? I guess I can understand that logic. Though to be honest, that idea was inspired more by laziness than any false sense of importance. Ctrl-F is fine for finding the link in a particular page. I was thinking more about the task of finding all the links throughout the wiki. Easier to have the URL in one place.
Anyway, so far I gather that adding links from specific game articles to that specific game is acceptable, but using a template is pushing it. Fair 'nuff. Anyone have any other input on this? --Diggernet 23:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't appear to be that many external links to the ifiction.org site - see [External links]. Laziness shouldn't be an issue on Wikipedia, if an article is notable enough there are bound to be diligent editors willing to repair bad links, not just remove them. The beauty of Wikipedia is that its content is never static. I have no problem with any site trying to make money. If the minimum wage applied to the maintenence and updating of sites, there probably wouldn't be the web. Wikipedia is mirrored on lots of "for profit" sites, including to my horror the mailing lists and we actually exclude CC 2.5 (NC) licenses for medium on the project to take this into account. I'm suprised I seem to be a lone voice here. If you need anymore imput I would certainly suggest getting a straw poll from the WPs that actually edit the articles. kind regards Mike33 - t@lk 10:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Chidiac

Resolved
 – Adrian M. H.

Hi there Editor.

I just thought I'd let you know that an article about me was initiated by people who wanted to highlight what I did with Bill Gates/DVD Video, Internet Cafes and Digital Audio. I felt rather uncomfortable about it, and understandably, with the treatment that some loons on here have given these people, as well was thinking they know best without really helping, suggesting or trying to help edit such article, makes absolutely no sense to me and the supposed "spirit" of wikipedia.

Right now, being the subject of such article, I'm feeling quite peeved and want any such material erased, which would hurt the original authors, but understandably I've been quite hurt by Media in the past and would require that such article be either protected or governed in its formation or writing due to my sensitivity to such exposure.

I would appreciate your thoughts about such behaviour as I was nearly ready to let someone I didnt know have the source listing to such verifiable articles and content re-published to support the article further, but if the article is going to be further scrutinised without expert opinion as to why and how to improve, then I'm not willing to divulge information pertaining to such.

I realise these two or three editors are novices to wikipedia and one is also a person that, being a member of a minority group in Australia, would further cause controversy and bad media about this service. Who am I to judge? They want a chance to be a part of this! So why not give them a chance? I have certainly given thousands of people such a chance through my mentoring as part of the same scheme that I began my career with, before retiring last year.

I would humbly ask for your thoughts on such. I dont want to hurt the novice authors feelings but I feel quite upset this article is being mocked by amateurs. Understandably, its been written by the same!

Thankyou --Achidiac 17:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored. The article is quite likely to be deleted anyway. And by editing it yourself, you are in violation of WP:AUTO, WP:COI and, judging by the article's current state, WP:NPOV. Adrian M. H. 20:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears

Hi,

I would like to contribute on some things. The Resident Evil pages in one good example. Here is another for Britney spears. I wrote a fanmail but it lasts 10 pages. English is not my native language but practise makes perfect. How can I best sent the letter to wikipedia?

Britney is asking her most die-hard fans for some assistance in order to name her upcoming album.

1 Omg is Like Lindsay Lohan Like Okay Like - mono comercio 2 What if the Joke is on You - real bromista 3 Down Boy - chao chico (hacia abajo) 4 Integrity - Integridad 5 Dignity - Dignidad

So here are some more:

Olé Corsé Pene Anillo Fértil Vinilo hush funkateers

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martijn Fransen (talkcontribs) 22:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Studerby for wrapping that!!
Martijn, I don't know if you are yet up to speed with what Wikipedia is about, but in case you are not, I will post a "welcome template" on your talk page and you can have a look at the pages to which it links. I will assume that you are just a bit misguided about Wikipedia and are not trying to wind us up here, but what you have posted here has absolutely no place anywhere on WP, except perhaps WP:BJAODN. Adrian M. H. 21:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request reality check on claim of personal attack

I am in a discussion with User:Edgarde at his talk page regarding my perception that he has engaged in personal attacks towards me and at least one other editor. He has stated, "don't see this as a personal attack." I am asking for your assistance on clearing this up. I am concerned that my ability to see things straight is blinded by my emotions. Thanks for your assistance, —WikiLen 21:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment isn't even close to being a personal attack - the advice given in the No Personal Attacks policy about commenting on content instead of conduct does not equate to saying that all comments on user conduct are by definition personal attacks. Addhoc 21:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By way of a second opinion, in case it is needed, I concur with Addhoc's assessment. Neither the comments nor the edit summary could in any way be deemed to be a form of personal attack. It is probably, as you have acknowledged, a case of being too close and subject to the influence of prior dispute. Adrian M. H. 22:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with proceeding with pseudo-troll

I am a member of the Radio Stations WikiProject. Unfortunately, the project isn't overly active at the moment, so the few of us who do make many edits across the spectrum tend to run into each other.

I have recently been butting heads with User:Neutralhomer. At first, his repeated posts to my talk page were merely a minor nuisance. This escalated when he would repeatedly ask me to help him do work on his "niche" area of the project. I, in turn, asked him repeatedly to learn our naming conventions so that I wouldn't have to move multiple articles he created to their proper locations.

This continued to degrade when I would fix minor Manual of Style issues, which he would immediately revert (as if the pages were his own). We then disagreed on a discussion involving translators where I recommended merging, and he argued (both there and my talk page) to integrate instead. Much to my frustration, he wasn't able to grasp that these are, in fact, the same thing.

Despite asking me multiple times (as archived on my talk page) to watch his contribs to fix these things, he's now harassing me to stop doing so, despite the fact that half the time it's merely our two paths crossing.

The final straw tonight was while checking my "What links here" page trying to find any forgotten pages in my namespace, and finding this [dif personal attack, which I then reverted. He has since notice this, reverted it back to the attack version, and proceeded to accuse me of stalking him again.

While I agree that I have not acted as best as I can in this situation, I am completely frustrated and would like some advice on how to proceed. I have put too much hard work into WP:WPRS, and do not want to abandon it, but at this point, to avoid this guy, it may be worth it.

Thanks for your help. JPG-GR 06:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I do believe this user is trying to act in the best interest of the project, as he has created many articles for radio stations that have helped the project. I'm not quite sure if he just doesn't understand what's going on, doesn't care, or what. JPG-GR 06:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered Mediation at the Cabal?

The Rhymesmith 06:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]