Help:Contents |
Editor Assistance: Requests |
|
|
|
Archives
Other links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Contents
- 1 Dispute about journalistic fairness in pro-wrestler article's intro
- 2 A Question About Company Listings
- 3 Need help classifying / deleting spam
- 4 Can I post an item that just made the news?
- 5 Am I seeing discussion or disruption?
- 6 List of people from Wolverhampton
- 7 Editing Biography Page
- 8 Andover Estate
- 9 Professor of Politics
- 10 Dispute about changing a title
Dispute about journalistic fairness in pro-wrestler article's intro
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Rollins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Seth_Rollins#The_Sting_quote_is_MISLEADING_as_hell
Hello, we've been discussing here about the Wiki's introduction of this particular wrestler. To sum it up: an old, veteran wrestler has said about another young wrestler that he is "the most talented he has ever seen or worked with" in an interview. This has been reported in the intro of aforementioned wrestler. My friend and I tried to point out what we feel to be some issues inherent to reporting that statement removing its supposed contextualization. Mostly, we are questioning the validity of the source (the veteran wrestler said it to an interview made by the wrestler's own employing company) and the true meaning behind the words "most talented". If you read the interview in its entirety, it becomes apparent that the "talent" the old wrestler is mentioning is just the young wrestler's ability to keep doing quality work with a higher working schedule than normal during the time they had worked together (in other words: being resourceful professionally and consistent); a wrestling fan would probably take a broader, decontextualized, "the most talented" as in "the most charismatic, the best in the ring" or a combination of both.
Both my friend and I think that reporting a stray interview to introduce a concept like "being the best ever" - when there would't even a general consensus about it - it's not really encyclopedic per se; and we find the act of removing the context debatable. We can't edit the page, we proposed (if they really wanted to convey the "guy X is well-received" to the reader) - to at least add another interview of another veteran to reinforce the claim and write it in what we feel to be a more sober manner: "Seth Rollins' work has been praised by industry veterans such as Sting [1] and Triple H [2]" instead of "Industry veteran Sting has said that Seth Rollins' is the most talented wrestler he's ever seen, or worked, with". In the end everything we've proposed has been turned down with the rationale that they're just reporting the quote word-per-word and that it's lede-worthy because it's a veteran talking. You can read the discussion above.
Thank you and thanks for the attention. 93.44.154.112 (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
A Question About Company Listings
I work for a retail store that is the largest of its kind in Canada. We've run into some trouble with competitors copying our marketing / using our slogans, etc. I saw that Canadian Tire's wikipedia page has a list of their slogans since the '70's Canadian_Tire. I wanted to create a page for my company, but when I signed up I saw that I should not create a Wikipedia listing for my company although there are obviously many companies listed in Wikipedia. I'm looking for advice on how to proceed as I don't want to do anything outside of Wikipedia's content guidelines, but clearly companies do get listed if they are influential to their category. Peterbenes (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Despite your conflict of interest, you may submit an article for consideration through Articles for Creation via the Article Wizard or you may simply request that someone look into writing an article through Requested Articles. Remember that for an article to survive it must be documented by multiple reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia and cannot be entirely documented to websites, blogs, or other material created by the company itself. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Need help classifying / deleting spam
Hello, I'm a new editor who came across an edit that appeared to be original research and spam. I reverted the edit but then discovered the user who submitted it had submitted the same edit to a number of pages. I reverted another but want to make sure I'm tagging my edit summary properly before moving on to the rest.
The user's edit history page is Special:Contributions/Pchelpcentre. He has inserted nearly identical wording into multiple technology pages asserting that those technologies are based on the same specific patent. The cited reference is a direct link to the patent itself.
Do I cite original research in my edit comment? Or spam? It doesn't fit neatly into the given definitions of spam (it has the appearance of a patent troll trying to bolster a claim against the companies who own the technology - so sort of "adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced" as per Wikipedia:Spam).
Would it be appropriate to post a warning to the user's talk page? If so, what would be appropriate?
I feel I'm being fairly bold for a new editor, so I don't want to become a source of problems myself. Thanks for any help!
Minstrel1977 (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Minstrel1977. Your summary was fine, but it might be a good idea to post a message on the talk page of each article. There you could mention that WP:NOTRS (A section of WP:RS) says: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." The question of whether the tech mentioned in a particular article is in fact derived from a particular patent is just such an "interpretive claim", and should be supported by a reliable, preferably independent, secondary source to be in an article, much less many articles. It may also be an issue of undue weight. Thanks for drawing attention to this. DES (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- DESiegel, thanks for make a new contributor feel welcome. I cleaned up the unreliably sourced material and commented on Talk as you suggested. Minstrel1977 (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Can I post an item that just made the news?
Can I post an item that just made the news and has multiple sources? I tried but the editor claims wikipedia "is not a news source and we don't know what if it's true". What I posted is true since it is taken from the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacezg (talk • contribs) 20:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNEWS but our sister project WIKINEWS is. You are welcome to post your news item there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Am I seeing discussion or disruption?
Daniel Cassidy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Gibberish ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and others
Please give me an outside opinion of a discussion: Am I talking with an editor (Saineolai) who is not here to build an encyclopedia? WP:NOTHERE
- For example, I asked, "Can we agree to remove general insults ("nincompoop") and general compliments ("eureka moments")?"
- Saineolai answered, "I can't see any reason why one should one be given precedence over the other."
As a reality check on our discussion, read our contributions. For example, I contributed a book review from an academic journal (diff). Saineolai contributed an insult from an unsigned blog (diff).
Saineolai was cautioned before but has returned to defend the same unencyclopedic language and sources, insulting a specific writer and his theories about slang words. Scenography (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry - we provide tips and help on editing here. Dispute resolution forums are thataway... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'd suggest getting a third opinion instead. R. A. Simmons Talk 13:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Where can I ask advice without beginning a dispute? First I want to ask a more experienced editor for a general impression, such as "looks resolvable, have patience" or "looks irresoluble, seek help."
- Also, in what forum would I report disruption, instead of a dispute about specific points? Scenography (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- See WP:DR for guidelines on handling disputes. As noted above this really is not the right forum for this discussion. Good luck. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- One more word: When you look at WP:DR you need to consult the conduct section, not the content section. You're talking about conduct issues and Third Opinion, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and Formal Mediation do not handle conduct issues, only content issues. There's no real forum to get an opinion about conduct issues: it's pretty much a report-it-or-live-with-it situation, but there's no need to fear in reporting it at ANI unless your own conduct has been poor as well (in which case it can BOOMERANG on you) or unless you fail to read and carefully follow the instructions there. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Everyone, thanks for the advice, especially the distinction between content issues and conduct issues. I added the NOTHERE tag to this section. Scenography (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-
List of people from Wolverhampton
List of people from Wolverhampton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An unregistered user is vandalizing this page today. As they do not have a talk page and have not responded to my reference to WP guidelines in the revert summary what is the next step? I do not want to be accused of edit warring if I revert it again. Keomike (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- You should warn the IP editor against engaging in promotion. See WP:WARN. Part of the problem is that those sorts of edits are hard to classify as vandalism, though they're obviously not correct. Could you argue it's hoax content? Maybe. The real question—whether you could have gotten tagged for 3RR over the additions—I think it's possible, though unlikely. Even if you couldn't legitimately call the addition a hoax, you could potentially argue that since it concerned a living person and was unsourced. But a better idea would be not to breach 3RR, and ask for help elsewhere (such as this board) if you have an editor who insists on adding something to a list article and refuses to discuss it. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Editing Biography Page
Bilal M. Ayyub ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello Sir or Madam:
I am trying to update the following page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilal_M._Ayyub
The information is reliable and referenced to prominent sources. However, as I was editing it, a user kept deleting the content which is sourced through reliable sources.
Should I edit it through talk or edit it directly? Since it has been flagged.
Grateful if you can advise how I can go update appropriately updating the page.
Warm Regards,
Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robmishra (talk • contribs) 00:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I would advise you to proceed at Talk:Bilal M. Ayyub given there are concerns regarding promotional content. As an added note, you may not add Amazon links (affiliate or otherwise) to Ayyub's publications, as you did in this edit. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Also at User talk:BAyyub, where these issues, including the poster's COI, have been discussed extensively. JohnInDC (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Andover Estate
Andover Estate ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Perhaps a skilled wiki editor could have a look at this article. It is written in a very judgmental tone & liberally peppered with scare quotes. There are no sources to speak of and one section appears to be reproduced in total from a local newspaper (no attribution), apologies if this is the wrong place to post concerns feel free to move this request if needed tks 78.145.23.228 (talk)
- I removed several paragraphs of unsourced & POV material. It's still not up to snuff (a lot of it seems to be Synthesis) but at least it's shorter. JohnInDC (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Professor of Politics
I dont know if this is the right place. My question: Is it correct, that the general term Professor of Politics redirects to the individual person Daniel arap Moi? -- Jesi (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe it's not the right place, but in any case, no, that's not correct and I've asked for speedy deletion of the redirect. I can't think of anything that it should direct to. JohnInDC (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Dispute about changing a title
I have created this proposal to change the title of the article Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings. Although it is very obvious that the title of the article is wrong, I have met very strong opposition from several users. These users started by presenting very weak arguments, and when I pointed out those weaknesses, they refused to respond and adopted an uncivil behaviour that violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I have told them about these violations but they have ignored me. Some of these users are very experienced editors, including one who is in the top 3000 list.
I have searched the help for ways of resolving this problem, but I have found so many options that I am overwhelmed. I'd like to get some advice about the best way of solving this problem.
Thank you in advance.
Elendaíl (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- The best and most proper way is to file via Requested moves. Other content dispute resolution processes (such as Third Opinion, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and Formal Mediation) will generally not take cases involving article names since RM has a built-in process for resolving disputes involving those issues. Issues involving conduct should be resolved by either talking with an administrator or, after carefully reading and following the instructions, filing at ANI. This noticeboard, however, is not for the purpose of resolving disputes. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)