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.


Vandalism and Undocumented additions to "Telechrome" article[edit]


Re: Telechrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Between 2016 and early 2018, I corrected errors in Wikipedia's "Telechrome" article. I also provided authoritative sources. Meanwhile, another author inserted a paragraph alleging that Telechrome could make lenticular, autostereographic images. In "proof" of his fringe hypothesis, the author cited articles in Wireless World and Popular Mechanics. These articles mention Telechrome, but *not* Telechrome autostereography, or lenticular means.

I added a paragraph that explained that Telechrome autostereography is speculation. I then explained why. I cited the patent, which contains *no claim* that Telechrome has an autostereographic capability.

At the end of September 2018, someone deleted my contribution. My references are also missing. (This author erased several of my other edits, too.) The reason that he gave for deleting the "lenticular Telechrome" critique is that his Popular Mechanics reference supports it. Yet his source *never* mentions "lenticular Telechrome." I used the "talk" feature to contact the other author. Within a few weeks, my "talk" comments vanished.

My goal is this: (1) To remove the fringe "lenticular Telechrome" hypothesis. Or (2) to restore my text about how alleged "lenticular Telechrome" would not work. (Example: There are no lenticules in the Telechrome tube. Authoritative sources fail to mention "lenticular Telechrome." ) I seek to avoid an edit war. How may I resolve this conflict? ColorWheel (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi ColorWheel! The first step in the dispute resolution process is usually to start a discussion on the talk page of the article (here). You can notify the parties of the disagreement using the ping template ({{ping|their username}}). If they fail to respond after some time you can make the changes you want. If the discussion stalls, generally your options are to list the disagreement at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard to start a moderated discussion or advertise via Wikipedia:Requests for comment to hopefully draw more editors to the discussion. The full policy is documented at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Since this is about "original research" (where content added to an article is not in the sources) another option is to list it at the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Good luck! Alpha3031 (tc) 04:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Finding many dead links[edit]


I used to be a prolific editor, but fell out after losing my helper, so am out of practice. Would like to contribute again, ie getting rid of dead links to pages no longer relevant or no longer active websites/references. I just need a quick tutorial on how to get back to doing this. Or should I just make a note on the pages “talk page”?

Endobiont 00:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Careiter (talkcontribs)

Careiter, is WP:LINKROT what you're after? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Auto-Confirmed Issue[edit]


Hello. I have performed way more than 10 edits and my account has been existing for longer than 4 days. Yet, I do not have auto-confirmed status. Can anyone assist with this? I understand that this can happen in rare cases and that it has to be done manually. Thank you in advance. Callofduty259 (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Callofduty259, Please see Special:UserRights/Callofduty259. You are a member of the Autoconfirmed users group. Vexations (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Vexations But I cannot edit any semi-protected articles. Practically, I do not have that even though it says I do. Please see if you can fix this. Callofduty259 (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Callofduty259, what is the article you're trying to edit? Vexations (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Not a specific one. Just I do not even have an option to perform an edit. It is for ALL semi-protected articles. VexationsCallofduty259 (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I have just reached 100 edits. I have no idea why I cannot edit semi-protected articles. Callofduty259 (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Callofduty259, I don't know why you can't edit semi-protected pages. I checked the bug database, phabricator, to see if there are any known bugs. There don't seem to be any that resemble your problem. I would try to log out and log back in. I would try a different browser. I would try to see if the protection level that I see is the same for me and another user (that's why I asked you to name an example). I would try to change my editing preferences for Editing mode to show me both editor tabs, and I would try to purge the page that I cannot edit. I'd also check what the page information link in the toolbar shows me about the page that's not working. Vexations (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Vexations, it is resolved. Callofduty259 (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Article Porygon[edit]

I redid the article Porygon and I'd like to have it reviewed for it to be a actual article on Wikipedia. I don't know how to do it so can someone please help? Porygon-Z (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Porygon-Z474: Wow! That was quick. I'll take a look and leave notes on the article's talk page. Orville1974 (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if I did it right, but at least I tried, right? Porygon-Z (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Porygon-Z474: I left notes on the talk page and tagged the article itself. It's a good start, but in general, the article needs independent, third party sources and inline citations that demonstrate WP:GNG and/or WP:FICT. Right now, it's unclear where the information came from, and whether Porygons have met Wikipdeia notability standards. Orville1974 (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Can i look online for one? Does that count? Porygon-Z (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes it does, but you will need several (2-3) sources talking about Porygons. You'll then summarize the content in your own words in the article, citing where the information came from. Orville1974 (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Where do I summarize it at? Porygon-Z (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Your paraphrasing/summary of the sources is what you use to build the article itself. I recommend taking a close look at other Pokemon articles in the mainspace (including following each citation link), to see how other editors have built articles by summarizing/paraphrasing reliable sources. Orville1974 (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
So if I find a site that says the same stuff I wrote, can I just cite it and move on? Porygon-Z (talk) 04:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Writing articles should work the other way around. You write from the sources, rather than trying to find sources that match what you've written. I know in this case, you started with a pre-written and poorly-sourced article, which may have made your job harder. You should start by trying to find reliable sources for what the article currently says (and add the citations into the article). Everything else should be removed. Then anything you want to add after that scrub should come from your summaries/paraphrasing of reliable sources (WP:RS) with additional citations. Orville1974 (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Alright then, Can I use Bulbapedia? Porygon-Z (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
No. Bubapedia is another user-sourced cite, so it doesn't meet reliability standards. Orville1974 (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what I did there, but i think i cited a source, right? Porygon-Z (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Close. I just fixed it. I recommending using the cite button at the top of the page, and pasting the URL into the automatic tab to have Wikipedia help you generate the citation for now as the easier way to include your citations. I also added a reference list template to the page, so you'll see your references popup down there as you insert citations in the article. Orville1974 (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Alright got it! I'll cite some more! Porygon-Z (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
How does it look? Porygon-Z (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
It's looking better already. I removed some content that was too detailed (read more like a how-to WP:NOTGUIDE) and added citation needed tags for those statements that still don't have sources. Since everything going forward is going to be article content specific, rather than posting here, add comments to the article's talk page to engage other editors and get further help tweaking/reviewing the article. Good luck! Orville1974 (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
But since it's a draft, will anyone see it? How can I publish it? Porygon-Z (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Edit your draft in source editing mode and insert this at the top: {{subst:submit}}. Orville1974 (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Alright i'll try. Porygon-Z (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for not being clearer. You just needed to insert the submit part between the nowiki markup in the last message. I went in and adjusted the article to insert the template. It's now pending review! Keep an eye on it in your watchlist for feedback. Orville1974 (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

We have a dispute about a racist mascot at Salesian College Preparatory they used to have[edit]

The school used to have the chieftain mascot but it was considered racist by members of the community and declared offensive in this headline from the Contra Costa Times [1], however the link is now dead, does anyone have some better sources for this material that was content removed from the article? Anyone that is good at the wayback machine or lexus nexus for example? I think it is important for posterity to get it right when a school changes its mascot even if it is under pressure.Ndołkah (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

While Salesian is not the focus of this article, there is a mention that their mascot was changed: [2]. Orville1974 (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic talk-page-bloat collapse request[edit]


Hello - could a disinterested party to go to this discussion and collapse anything off-topic (WP:FRINGE discussion is about content, not behaviour). In spite of the 'off-topic' warnings, my two tries have been reverted (to cries of 'censorship!'), and the discussion is now a tl;dr bloated mess. Thanks. TP   13:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Factual updates[edit]

GreggDinino (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)GreggDinino Hello, I would appreciate editor help adding 3 factual updates to the Partners + Napier wiki page. 1- Can you please updated the page name changing "and" to "+" as this is the legal business name? [1] 2-Project Worldwide is now made up of 15 agencies not 12. Can this number please be updated within the profile? [2] [3] 3- Please update the citation needed for revenue from $17 million to $23 million [4] [5] 4- Please add Sharon Napier as current CEO and Courtney Cotrupe as President [6] GreggDinino (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)GreggDinino

Hi @GreggDinino: In the article's referenced third-party sources, it appears the common format of the name is Partners & Napier. Per our Manual of Style, "Note, however, that Wikipedia article titles are usually given the most common name in reliable sources, which might not be the official name", I've changed the name to Partners & Napier. There is already a redirect in place for Partners + Napier to the article. Orville1974 (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Page update[edit]

GreggDinino (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)GreggDinino Hello, I would appreciate editor help adding additional factual updates to the Partners + Napier wiki page.

1- Please update the citation needed for revenue from $17 million to $23 million and year from 2009 to 2018 [1] [2] 2-Please update from 4 locations to 3 [3] [4] 3-Add recent Ranked as a "Most Effective Agency" in North America by Effie Worldwide's Effie Index [5] [6] Thank you, GreggDinino (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)GreggDinino


  1. ^ The agency exceeded $23 million in net revenue in 2018
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^ Our Locations Rochester HQ, New York City, San Francisco
  5. ^
  6. ^ Once on page must check "North America" to see ranking
Hi @GreggDinino: The changes you've requested are all derived from primary sources. In order to be considered a reliable source (WP:RS), the information you'd like to change should come from independent, third-party sources. Please also see WP:NOTPRESSRELEASE. As for the name change, in the answer above, you'll see I've changed the name to use an ampersand per our manual of style and the most commonly-used naming convention in the article's references. Orville1974 (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

New Article not appearing on Google Search[edit]


Hi, I have a question. I created my first article called the Devarakota Estate. However, it is not appearing on Google Search when I looked for it. How can this be resolved? Callofduty259 (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Callofduty259, new articles are not indexed for search engine pickup until they are patrolled. Once that occurs, the article will be set for search engines to pick up, but it will still take some period of time before they actually spider them, and that part is beyond our control. So be patient; as long as no issues are found, it'll show up eventually. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Seraphimblade Thank you. Is there a place where I have to place this request for patrol at? Like can I ask someone to patrol it that has the ability. Callofduty259 (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
No. A new page patroller will get to it eventually. Again, please be patient, and it will show up sooner or later. There are other articles waiting as well; yours is not more important than those. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Of course. I was wondering if there is anything more I had to do on my part. All articles must be given equal importance, and I have no issues at all with waiting. Thanks again for the help. Callofduty259 (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Callofduty259, there are currently around 8,000 articles in the queue, please be patient - this could take several weeks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, Thank you for letting me. As I have stated, I was curious in knowing the process since I am new to Wikipedia. I was not implying or suggesting that that articles I created should be given priority over the many thousands of equally well formualated ones. I am grateful for the information.Callofduty259 (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Manuka, Australian Capital Territory[edit]

A user has been editing the opening paragraph of the article Manuka, Australian Capital Territory to add a false claim about the "Mayor". The claim is false as Manuka doesn't have a Mayor (check out Local government functions if you're interested).

I've reverted the changes twice now, and the text has been re-added both times. The second time the text was re-added by a different user, but there's a similarity in the username, so I suspect it's the same user. After my second revision I added a section to the talk page here Talk:Manuka, Australian Capital Territory, but since then the text has been re-added to the article and without any response on the talk page. As a new editor of wikipedia, and before I revert again and get into an edit war, I wanted to reach out and see what you could do, or if you can give me any advice. Thanks so much for your help! Tsnoad (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Tsnoad: Thank you for not getting into an edit war. Taking this discussion to the talk page article is the best thing to do. I have reverted the addition, as the source being used was a personal website for an individual with apparent political aspirations who has obviously not been elected to the as of now non-existent government position, and added more details on the article talk page. Orville1974 (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Loop 526 was a blue link, however the link got deleted and then the link that used to have detailed information about Loop 526 turned red.[edit]

The detailed information link about Loop 526 was blue, and now red. Please add detailed information about Loop 526 so the link will turn blue. Any help is appreciated! Thanks, Jay Scott Jayscott996 (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Jayscott996: where are you seeing the red link? Orville1974 (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The red link for Loop 526 is under List of state highway loops in Texas. Jayscott996 (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi again @Jayscott996: I saw your response on your talk page. There are quite a few red links on the List of state highway loops in Texas as you've noticed. It looks like editors are working on filling in the missing details, but you are more than welcome to help. I know they'd appreciate it. You can join this team WP:WikiProject U.S. Roads, or just visit their page for guidance, and starting filling in the missing details, citing reliable sources WP:RS, about roads you're interested in yourself. Happy editing! Orville1974 (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Jay Scott


There's an edit war going on at the moment that's crying out for an experienced editor to split this into Okeus (company) and Okeus (demon) and a disambiguation page. Not something I'm confident enough to do myself. Whether the company passes WP:CORP may be an issue. Philip Trueman (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Philip Trueman: The company article editor completely overwrote the existing article with self-sourced promotional material back in February and hasn't been back since. The overwrite was just recently reverted back. The most recent edits appear to be well intended vandal patrols reverting themselves (at first glance, both articles look valid so I can see why). I'm reaching out to the company article editor to help them create an article appropriately (and help them find sources as everything they've provided so far are trademark registrations and the company's website). Orville1974 (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


You post in the “notable personalities” dead horses and sometimes cats and dogs Come on You mention in the beginning of the article: Personalities. Not animals Please stop posting dead animals. That makes no sense It is ridiculous Thank you MP — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I couldn't figure out which article you are talking about. You can post directly to the article's talk page by clicking on the talk tab at the top of that article or you can identify here the article you need assistance with. Thank you! Orville1974 (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

7th Parachute Regiment Royal horse artillery[edit]

Please look into this one as it is out of order and detrimental to a fine Regiment Thank you. Nigel Beazley ex 7th — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Someone made an unhelpful edit yesterday, and it was only partially fixed up afterwards. I have restored an older version. Does that address your concerns? If not, please post details at Talk:7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

non-administrator abuse of rollback[edit]

Hi, if a non-administrator has abused rollback, what is an appropriate response? In this case, the article which was disputed is not currently being edited.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Epiphyllumlover, that's outlined at the page on permissions: If you believe someone's actions merit removal of a permission flag, you should raise your concern at the incidents noticeboard. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Since the noticeboard says it is for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" than I don't think I can post there, since it was just once.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
If someone only did it once, yeah, that's not really enough to merit removal, maybe just a reminder that it's only supposed to be used for vandalism and the like, and anyone can remind them of that. If someone keeps using it inappropriately after receiving such reminders, then it may indeed be time to discuss whether they should have it at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
"the article which was disputed is not currently being edited", does this mean that the last edit(s) -- the ones rolled back -- were old? If so, that is problematical... it depends on the content of the material rolled back (how clearly good is it?), but my personal opinion is that in that case you'd have a case for reverting the rollback one time only, with an edit summary explaining why and inviting discussion; a note on the editors talk page would also be good.
If the rollback is of recent edit, my advice would be to treat it mostly like a regular revert -- do not revert it, instead go to the talk page, open a discussion on the merits of the material. If you get a reply, engage on the merits. If not, you'd be well well within rights to revert the rollback after waiting a few days for a reply, considering that it was a misused rollback.
What was the article? I wish people would post the names of articles they're having a question about, so we can look at it directly. Herostratus (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Seraphimblade, for clarifying the policy. Thank you, Herostratus, I will remember that next time this problem comes around. Sorry I was unclear. The edits rolled back were good-faith article development by a small group of editors (but mostly me) over the course of about a month prior to the rollback. As for the name of the article, I don't mind sharing it, but I didn't post it because I thought I was only supposed to ask general questions here per the instructions (with the more specific stuff being material for the dispute resolution noticeboard), and because the problem is about an editor more than an article. As for attempting to undo the rollback, that is "water-under-the-bridge" at this point so I do not intend to bother. "Stale" is what I meant by "old"--I could have been more clear. If you are terribly curious about which article it was, check my talk page from 2019 onwards and I think you'll see what article the fuss was about.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh Jeez, I didn't know you're not supposed to post specific article names here, sorry if I gave you a bum steer on that.
Yeah, no, rollback is not for month-old edits, and not for edits which are OK or for which a reasonable argument could be made that they're OK. As to the editor, maybe it was just a slip or something. You could ask her on her talk page what the deal is. Herostratus (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not really sure if I can't post specific article names, but trying to be on the safe side. When I looked into it a few days ago, it seems that sometimes mis-clicks cause inappropriate rollbacks. But this case wasn't just a slip (evident when talking it over with the editor afterwards).Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

List of best selling artists in the U.S.[edit]


Riaa updated their certification on singles and albums

Cardi B i has been at 26m for months but should be at 28M per updates from Riaa earlier this month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Need cropping of infobox picture for E. Jean Carroll[edit]

Hello, can someone direct me to people or a wikiproject that are skilled in cropping / producing derivatives of pictures? The infobox picture for E. Jean Carroll can be greatly improved with a crop to show her face. Please ping when you reply. starship.paint (talk) 03:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The method I prefer is exemplified here. I don't have time to apply it now; I may do sometime in the next few days, if you don't do it first. Maproom (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Maproom: - thank you, but does that work for infobox images...? starship.paint (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Writer's main name (Carvalho Calero vs. Carballo Calero)[edit]

Hello there!

I'm requesting for help on the article currently known as Ricardo Carballo (writer). That Galician writer was indeed name Ricardo Carballo Calero at birth, but after that he changed his public name to Ricardo Carvalho Calero. Some time ago the article was right. The title, and the main name used in the text, was Carvalho. Recently, another editor changed it to Carballo, and he keeps changing it, and I keep changing it back. I posted about it at the Talk tab, but nobody is reading it.

So, I request for a mediator or an experient wikipedia editor in order to take a decision in what should be the name used and put an end to this "war".

Thank you!

AmilGZ (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)