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.


Imagine on Comarnic Town[edit]

Ondin Hi. I noticed with my friends that in Google search results as first shown image comes from your website. The picture does NOT show Comarnic City but a street old sign from a ceramic factory ruin and the blue sky ONLY, without any nice streets, buildings, people, life in few words. Could you please be more accurate in showing a good looking town picture of Comarnic CITY, my lovely town? By showing default odd images under our city name on Google search, you do not make us a favor but breach on a huge scale the reputation of our people and places. Please promote my town this time. Thank you. Regards, Ondin Dinescu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ondin Dinescu (talkcontribs) 15:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

We have no control over what Google displays. They pull info from wherever they want to to build that box that they display. We can only guess where in Wikipedia they pulled the info and why. You can ask Google to fix this. Click on the tiny little gray "feedback" link below the right-hand lower corner of their box. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Ondin Dinescu, If you have any nice pictures that you took and are willing to donate them under a free license, I'm sure Commons will be happy to host a couple if you upload them using the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. There are no guarantees that this will make it show up in google images but it can only help. It seems our article on Comarnic doesn't have any images right now, so if you add a image to it I think the chances it'll show up in google are good. You can also upload your photos to google maps, which may help as well. Alpha3031 (tc) 05:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

[1]--Ondin Dinescu (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


Advice please - Refusal to publish[edit]

Hi I have been trying to publish a page on an Australian Band active in the 1990s. The page was deemed to be not significant enough to publish however I believe that this judgement is not only incorrect, but substantively so. The band in question is The Daisygrinders and the page is located here: Draft:The Daisygrinders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) The band in question was active for 6 years and became a highly regarded act across Australia. They have published works and are currently available on Spotify <a href="" rel="nofollow">Link text</a> as well as back order catalogues through their record label Half A Cow (Sydney). They have been listed in the publication "The Who's Who of Australian Rock", as well as having mentions in other texts. They have released 1 Long Player, 1 mini album, 4 EPs and numerous singles. They played festivals (Big Day Out 1993 and Radio FBI benefit Hordern pavilion). They have supported international acts, The Smashing Pumpkins, Pavement, Buffalo Tom, Teenage Fanclub, Paw; as well as local acts You Am I, Powderfinger, The Clouds (national tour), Tumbleweed, RatCat, Spiderbait, etc... Can someone please clarify to me, how a still currently signed and published act with this kind of history doesnt qualify to be in Wikipedia? I have personally seen bands of lesser notoriety published on Wikipedia with way less references to back up their claims. Any detailed response would be greatly appreciated.Drewza7 (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Drewza7, it looks like the draft has been deleted because nobody significantly edited it in the last six months. It does seem like the band may meet some of the criteria set out at WP:NBAND, but perhaps they want to see specific claims of which criteria the band meets? Alpha3031 (tc) 06:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Cochin Jews - Christian Groups as "Related Ethnic Groups"[edit]

Two users are constantly adding things about Christian groups to the Cochin Jewish page. Neither of them are going to the talk page prior to editing. I oppose their additions because it is irrelevant, unverifiable, and unreliable. Thank you. YaLindaHadad (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

YaLindaHadad The infobox contents should reflect what is in the text of the article. If reliable published sources support the existence of a significant relationship with Group A, then that can be included in the article (with references) and Group A can be identified in the infobox. If no such sources are found then Group A doesn't belong there.
As you state, these matters should be thrashed out on the article's talk page. Disputes should not be pursued by edit-warring names of groups in and out of the infobox. Neither should extended discussions be carried on via edit summaries: Bhunacat10 (talk), 13:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that the other users are not going into the talk page which I started to resolve this and will make edits with discussion in the edit summary. YaLindaHadad (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Have you asked them to do that, YaLindaHadad? Notifying the other editors involved: Theohms, Thomast48, LightHouse349. It appears to be a debate over the validity of different sources. Ideal if you can resolve this among yourselves by reasoned discussion on the talk page. Failing that, a post on the talk pages of WikiProject India or WikiProject Judaism may attract other editors with knowledge of the subject matter. Please don't edit-war, any of you: Bhunacat10 (talk), 21:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible subtle lack of NPOV[edit]

Omarosa Manigault Newman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does this line in the article not seem a bit libelous and containing adjectives relating to personality which are inappropriate for an encyclopedia: "Stemming from her controversial, blindsiding, alienating, dog-eat-dog, in-your-face and acrimonious tactics teamed with her eloquence and craftiness of game play on The Apprentice".

Came for an opinion before bold removal as I have never come across a subtle lack of WP:NPOV like this before. Thanks in advance, {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 16:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Waddie96: Please report issues about BLP contents at dedicated BLP Noticeboard. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
ammarpad thank you will do {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 20:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, in over 15 years as an admin, my only use of a help line was user:Angela! So I'm helpless on my iPad 2[edit]

Hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerzyA (talkcontribs) 08:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

JerzyA, what do you need help with? Alpha3031 (tc) 14:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

deletion query[edit]


I would like to know why my page has been deleted and is now a redirect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabber21 (talkcontribs) 14:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It was because of this. And, be aware that claims of page ownership can be conduct violations here, see WP:OWN. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Consensus Disagreement Between Editors[edit]

Rigel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There has been a long debate on Talk:Rigel regarding the content of the 3rd paragraph in the Introduction of main Rigel article. Arianewiki1 has tried many times to gain consensus for several versions, but have had all the text repeatedly reverted. Arianewiki1 has recently made an new section "Third Attempt With Introduction"[1] Both Attic Salt and Cas Liber have seemingly attempted to stonewall the discussion, claiming I am not seeking consensus[2][3] or that I falsely "... want “consensus” immediately after making wholesale changes."[4] The Section "Third Attempt With Introduction" has three versions of the disputed text.

This has been made more difficult because a third editor, Lithopsian, has refused to interact with Arianewiki1 on talkpages.[5] Regardless of this, they have made a further reasonable compromised edit here[6] that doesn't change the context. (The last edit before writing this.)

There needs to be some kind of advice is get past this current impasse without any further escalation. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I suspect that is becuase Lithopsian (and many other people) are tired of your ad hominem comments and general combative editing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Arianewiki1: To break a contentious consensus impasse, you can draft an RFC on the talk page. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

National Museum of Brazil[edit]

Last year someone merged the article "National Museum of Brazil fire" with National Museum of Brazil and there's an discussion about of the merge was needed. Some more experience editor could check in National Museum of Brazil#Merge with fire article to solve this question? The tread didn't receive any new messages since last October. Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Erick Soares3: Rather than requesting help here, the proper way to encourage neutral comments on editing discussions is to put an RFC on the talk page. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Erick Soares3 (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Picture of Gopalakrishna bharathi is wrong[edit]

The existing image in Wikipedia page of Gopalakrishna bharathi is wrong. Picture of living legend Sri Raj kumar bharathi is wrongly updated in place of Gopalakrishna bharathi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savitha Savitri (talkcontribs) 09:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Savitha Savitri: If you refer to the Wikipedia page Gopalakrishna Bharati then it has no image.
Symbol move vote.svg Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)