Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
1leftarrow.png Help:Contents
Editor Assistance: Requests
  • The description of the issue with which you need help should be concise and neutral.
  • If you are asking about an article that was deleted, please provide the exact title so that we can check the deletion log.
  • Please avoid copying large quantities of article text to this page.
  • Remember to sign your posts.
  • Please click here to post your request. As always, please do not include an e-mail address or other private details.
  • Discussions related to content disputes might better be addressed at the dispute resolution noticeboard.
  • If you would like quick access to some advice for the most common questions and issues, this can be found in the Editor Assistance FAQ.
  • 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.


I need assistance from a Senior Editor[edit]

Florine Stettheimer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am the acknowledged international scholar (PhD on the artist Florine Stettheimer from Yale Univeristy, co-curator of her first museum retrospective at the Whitney Museum since her death in 1946, author of the only extent, factual biography on the artist, author of numerous books and articles on her, quoted extensively by every subsequent major book/catalog/article on her and her work.)

When I read the Wikipedia article on Stettheimer about six months ago, I saw there were a number of false statements, inaccuracies, and exaggerations, that are among the many that have been promoted over the years in the text. I spent several hours re-writing a great deal of the text in order to make it factually accurate, and to provide a great deal more information. I also quoted extensively, and referenced my biography of the artist from 1995 (Yale Press.)

The "editor" "Dreamy Jazz" DELETED all of my remarks, saying I did not quote "acknowledged sources" although all my sources are listed on any search for Florine Stettheimer bibliography or library, and I had to register a "dispute" on Wikipedia to get SOME of the major information and inaccuracies I corrected put back in the Wikipedia Florine Stettheimer entry.

However, when I went to look at the entry the other day, a number of false facts and inaccuracies remain. I therefore spent another 3 hours! adding a great deal more information about her schooling, her early work, many of her most important paintings, and took out ridiculous information such as that she wanted her work "buried with her" when she died when, in fact, she wanted all her paintings and work donated to a museum as a single collection which is what she specifically informed her family to whom she left her work in her will. I know, as I spoke in person several times to her lawyer Joseph Solomon while he was still alive in the 1990s.

I saved all of my additions to the Florine Stettheimer entry which was now very extensive and helpful to anyone interested in learning about the artist. However the next day, "Dreamy Jazz" had deleted it ALL AGAIN.

I would greatly appreciate someone looking over all of my additions to the text, judging what I added, and please either adding them back, or letting me know WHY they were deleted. Thank you. Barbara Bloemink, PhD Barbarabloemink (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Well - it's not easy to lay this all out in a short paragraph, but the bottom line is that on Wikipedia, all material entered into the encyclopedia has to be tied to reliable, verifiable, third party published sources and presented from a neutral point of view. You should read the material that I've just linked for you to get a better sense of this. (I also added a "Welcome" to your personal Talk page.) What it means in this case is that, whatever you may personally know about a subject - which would in this case appear to be an awful lot - your Wikipedia edits still have to be based on reliable, third party sources, and not solely on your own personal knowledge. (Which as you can appreciate, can't really be verified.) It gets a little awkward when an editor is also an expert on a subject, as well as a recognized reliable source, because they're naturally going to be inclined to edit according to their own research and conclusions, which can result in the inadvertent introduction of a particular point of view. Or maybe they favor their own material over that of others. The best advice there is to tread lightly - see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Citing yourself for a one-sentence overview. In that regard, I would suggest that you return to the article Talk page, found at Talk:Florine Stettheimer, where a discussion is already underway, and talk with other editors about what you propose to do, what reliable (published!) sources you can bring to bear on the issues, and how to go forward from there. It may seem like a lot of extra work, but we do try to follow these policies - plus Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and so sometimes we just have to, you know, collaborate. And I think - hope anyhow - that if you approach it in that spirit, you'll find cooperation and help. Is this helpful at all? JohnInDC (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Expert editors may be helpful to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for adding that. It's useful to me too and I'm not expert in anything. JohnInDC (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
One small gilding of JohnInDC’s lily: You may wonder why Wikipedia information must be capable of being verified. Unlike a traditional paper encyclopedia we do not have a board of paid professional editors who decide what information should and should not appear in the encyclopedia. What we have in place of that is a series of policies, cited by John, which first decide which information can be here and, then, which information should be here. The “can be” part is the verifiability part. Since there are no paid editors guaranteeing the accuracy of the information here we insist on there being citations to published reliable sources as defined by our policy so that the users of the encyclopedia can go to that source and prove to themselves that the information is accurate. When sources are not cited, readers can’t do that. When information is based on unpublished personal knowledge, readers can’t do that. I hope that helps to explain why we do what we do. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

.....John/TransporterMan/Grabergs Graa Sang/ First of all, I don't know if I HAVE a "talk page" but I just tried to add something to the "stettheimer talk" page explaining why there is a different birth date for her in Britannica entry and what I have in my biography. 2nd) despite what DreamyJazz wrote when she first deleted my attempt at fixing the Stettheimer entry, I DID HAVE PUBLISHED VERIFIED FACTUAL SOURCE INFO I WAS CITING FOR WHAT I WROTE IN MY YALE PRESS 1995 STETTHEIMER BIOGRAPHY!!! (which was my Yale PhD dissertation on Stettheimer.) I was also citing an essay I wrote on Stettheimer in a published book, Women in Dada, and another essay I wrote in a book on Women in the Decorative Arts. I happened to 1x want to cite my upcoming revised biography which apparently was not acceptable however all of you are jumping on only that 1 fact. THE CURRENT ISSUE IS DIFFERENT!!! 20 yrs after Stettheimer died, a book was written about her by someone who didn't know her, and admitted he exaggerated and MADE THINGS UP about her! Among these things is that she was never exhibited publicly except to special friends, and wanted her paintings buried with her when she died. (just to name 2 outright lies.) for 40 years many writers INCLUDING ART CRITICS AND CURATORS have been repeating these incorrect statements which have continued to marginalize her and the true significance of her work, ignoring the actual facts: Stettheimer exhibited 46+ times at major museums like the Whitney and MOMA in her life - yet the Whitney current catalog still says she "never exhibited publicly." SO WHICH IS THE SOURCE WIKIPEDIA CITES? the current Whitney catalog which is a lie, or all the many museum and exhibition catalogs from 1917-1945 that show Florine Stettheimer paintings included? One is untrue, the other is a hard fact? OR like the statement still in your entry on Stettheimer with the source from the recent Jewish Museum exhibition that she wanted her paintings buried with her....that is a complete fabrication by the man who wrote about her in 1960 and admitted at the time that he "made things up about her." In fact, as her lawyer, Joseph Solomon, showed me in 1995, Stettheimer explicitly told her sisters prior to her death that she wanted ALL of her work given to a single museum as a "collection," and if not possible, at least donated to museums because she knew it was well thought of enough for them to accept it. Which, by the way, it was - every major museum in the US accepted a Stettheimer painting into its permanent collection after her death. No where in her will does it say ANYTHING about her wanting her paintings buried with her. Yet I am not able to change that in your Wikipedia entry even though I have published several articles and a biography clearly describing her final will, written a few days before her death.'Italic text

the problem is I don't KNOW HOW to format Wikipedia-style. It is very very difficult as are all your pages of "instructions" - I barely figured out how to "sign" my entries and find this page! in order to add/answer your comments.

PLEASE ALLOW ME TO ADD A MAJOR, COMPREHENSIVE ENTRY THAT IS FACTUALLY CORRECT ON THIS SIGNIFICANT WOMAN ARTIST WHO PLAYED A MAJOR ROLE IN 20th CENTURY ART AND WAS the FIRST WOMAN ARTIST TO EVER PAINT A NUDE SELF_PORTRAIT FROM A WOMAN"S POINT OF VIEW!!! HELP ME TO EDIT OUT THE SOURCES THAT INCLUDE FALSE STATEMENTS IN THE ENTRY AND PUT IN PUBLISHED SOURCES THAT STATE FACTUAL ACCURATE INFORMATION!! Just show me/allow me to add the content and the sources, and then please have someone who knows how, edit it according to the "right" Wikipedia format for me, so that the entry will be there for future students, interested readers, scholars, the public, to have comprehensive biography, story of the development, innovations, and significance of the life and art of Florine Stettheimer. I have no ego in this other than wanting to ensure that Stettheimer's story is factually told and her work and significance are acknowledged accurately. --Barbarabloemink (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)Barbara Bloemink January 5 2019

The Wikipedia policies about reliable sourcing are designed to result, and when correctly applied, do result I think in an encyclopedia that is generally factual and free of gross errors. But you've certainly hit upon a problem, which is what do we do when reliable sources disagree? It's pretty hard as a general matter to say that the Whitney doesn't know what it's talking about! So generally what happens is, the article reports that the sources disagree, and then cites them both. Possibly too if the matter is sufficiently collateral, it can just be taken out, rather than devote 3-4 sentences to disputes about some silly side issue. What I suggest would be for you to write out on the Stettheimer Talk page, in prose, without any of the Wikipedia formatting, how you would revise the article - including the references (right in line with the text) that you would use. Other editors could then review it, make suggestions or comments, and when everyone's in agreement, install it (properly formatted) into the article text. If you were to try this with comparatively small steps at first - a paragraph or two here or there - to get an idea of how this works, then perhaps the process would gain momentum over time; and, you might in the course of it learn a bit about Wikipedia markup and making the text do what you want it to do. How does that sound for a start? (PS - you don't need to put stuff in all caps or in boldface. It's kind of distracting in the end. Thanks!) JohnInDC (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

........THANK YOU JOHN! you are being very understanding, considerate and helpful and it is greatly appreciated. I will do exactly what you suggest, write out my suggested changes/edits on the Talk Stettheimer page, but how do I ensure that someone will make those changes to the Stettheimer entry??? Also, I can factually list the first and every Whitney Biennial, MOMA early exhibition, Paris Salon, and virtually every one of the 46+ exhibitions Stettheimer showed her work in during her lifetime as sources to demonstrate as facts that the Whitney Museum Collection catalog falsely states that she "rarely exhibited during her lifetime except to special friends" and is a non-reliable/FALSE source. If I were to list all or even 20 of the catalogs that Stettheimer exhibited in as factual PROOF that the Whitney curator did not do her research (I know her obviously and the Director is aware of this) would Wikipedia then, finally, decide to not use the Whitney catalog and statement as a valid source??? Anyway, thanks to your kind and helpful suggestions, I will try and do what you suggest on the Stettheimer Talk page. I also want to add a great deal of additional information to the entry - and that means adding (and taking out/changing the numbering for) new sources/footnotes which I will do directly next to the content in the same lines, and hope someone will then format and put that into the entry text properly. Again, None of This is for Me!!!! Everything I am doing is for the benefit of future readers, scholars, researchers, persons interested in the life and art work of Florine Stettheimer, a highly important, early feminist, innovative modernist 20th century American artist. I only want her entry to be as factual, truthful, comprehensive, and informative based on actual primary research of her writings, her artwork, and the writing of people who actually knew and/or worked with her during her life. --Barbarabloemink (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)Barbara BloeminkBarbarabloemink (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)January 6, 2018

The WP-philosphy is that Florine Stettheimer should be a summary of what's written about her in reliably published secondary sources. If you can get onboard with that, you may have a great time and success on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

.........Grabergs Graa Sang - if you will please read what I keep reiterating in all my statements and more particularly what I have written on the "Talk: Florine Stettheimer" page, All of my sources are reliable, PRIMARY, factual sources: either the writings of the artist herself, writing during her lifetime by media about her or by her friends/people she worked with who knew her!!!! I am attempting to Correct the lies and exaggerations that have continued to be copied from a book written by a man written 20 years after her death who admitted IN THE BOOK that he "exaggerated" what he wrote and made up or fantasized ideas about her. However because they are funny or make her seem eccentric, such as that she "wanted her paintings buried with her when she died" - which is a complete falsehood but remains written in published articles and is in the Wikipedia entry - continues to prevent Stettheimer from being taken seriously as a professional, ambitious, serious artist! Instead, as I spoke to her lawyer who wrote her revised will with her in the hospital a few days before she died, she wanted all her paintings donated to major museums - which they were. And I use my Yale University published biography, where I footnote my meeting with the lawyer, as a "reliably published, source." I do not think Wikipedia wants to keep false statements in its entries for bald inaccuracies to be passed on into the future? Similarly read my statement above re: the Whitney's catalog, written by a curator who is not an expert and obviously did not do a great deal of in-depth research on Stettheimer, vs the REALITY of how many times Stettheimer actually exhibited her work during her lifetime. I can cite the titles of All 46 actual exhibition catalogs in which she exhibited as proof in order to demonstrate why the so-called sources that are in your entry implying she was reluctant to exhibit are incorrect, but I don't that that is a good use of space. Barbarabloemink (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Barbarabloemink January 7 2019

Okay - Barbara, we understand your concerns, your credentials and your motivations. Now it's time to move this whole conversation to the Talk page of the Stettheimer article and continue there, where I think our time will be best spent if you simply identify, one at a time, the specific factual failings and shortcomings you've identified; then, state what you believe the facts to be, and identify the published, reliable source that supports what you're saying. So. If the 1960s author said he made stuff up then tell us where we can find that. If her will is published somewhere, then tell us where. And so forth. Primary sources are - well, possible to use, but disfavored if they can be avoided - please read WP:PRIMARY to gain a bit better understanding of the issues there. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Changing headshot image[edit]

Hi there

Given I am new to Wikipedia and don't have the required status can someone assist me in changing the headshot on this profile please?

I have a copyright free image I can provide.

Many thanks

MacstereeMacsteree (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @Macsteree: You need to first upload the image on Wikimedia Commons. If you're sure of the licensing status of the image, use Special:UploadWizard to upload it. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Kristalina Georgieva

Many thanks @Ammarpad The image can be found here: File:Kristalina Georgieva, CEO of the World Bank.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macsteree (talkcontribs) 10:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

OK. It's now in the article. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help @Ammarpad. I really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macsteree (talkcontribs) 14:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry @Ammarpad - there has been some queries over copyright of the last image. I have copyright of this image if you could change it again. Sorry and many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macsteree (talkcontribs) 22:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ammarpad - did you see this message please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macsteree (talkcontribs) 08:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

No I didn't, until now. If you want mention someone use {{ping|Username}} not @Username. It appears you're not sure of the licensing status of both images, so since you claim, the new image is yours, please send the evidence of so and declaration of permission to –Ammarpad (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Requesting format help.[edit]

Quite some time ago, someone messed with the bottom of the page, leading to some errors. Sadly, I am new to using Wikipedia, and don't know how to fix it. If someone could help that would be awesome. Landryoliver (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Landryoliver: The page is in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. It either has to remove some template calls or the templates have to be recoded to cause less expansion. {{yy}} is the big sinner. The parser profiling data at the bottom of "Show preview" for example shows that {{yy|User expat Americans in Australia}} uses 18 kB post-expand include size while {{User expat Americans in Australia}} only uses 3 kB. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Handling editing dispute with banned/possibly sockpuppeting IP user[edit]

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?[edit]

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 ([1]; 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[edit]

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#Operational Deployment 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)

@Noclador: class="wikitable" 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#Vertical alignment in cells. Start the row with |- style="vertical-align: top;". PrimeHunter (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: 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[edit]

Tourette syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


In last november, I've make some changes to the article citen above. Since that time, User:SandyGeorgia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 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)

Anas1712 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 timtempleton,
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[edit]

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)

Help in making the article more acceptable[edit]

Dear Editor,

The article link is . Can you help me format and make this article acceptable as this subject qualifies as per point 12 of 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 (talkcontribs) 10:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Concerns about another contributor editing Canadian National Hockey League team pages[edit]

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 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's player statistics - 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)

Electronic Harassment and seeming NPOV/cherrypicking violations[edit]

Electronic harassment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Microwave auditory effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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)

Yes. We are biased.[edit]

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.[2][3]"

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)