|Editor Assistance: Requests|
- 1 Weird timeline on Blink-182
- 2 What the Health page has been vandalized and Luk3 is allowing it.
- 3 St. Helens in Pennsylvania?
- 4 Abrahamic Religions: Mandaeans
- 5 minimum refernce to publish a new article
- 6 Professor Johann Cook
- 7 Uploading a photo: John Fleming.jpg
- 8 Finnic peoples
- 9 Dave Meltzer/ Peyton Royce Controversy
- 10 Film Soundtracks
- 11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Sanders_(gastroenterologist)
- 12 Editing conflicts with myself
- 13 Will my email address be visible?
Hi everyone, I hope I'm at the right place here to ask such things. The timeline on the bottom of page Blink-182 looks weird for me, with black lines converging from the upper line to the lower left corner. I see it on my PC (firefox/chrome/IE) and iPhone(safari).
- it I look at the history, it's only since the last edit. But if I look at the delta modification, it makes no sense why it happens.
- if I click on "Edit" then "Show preview" immediately without editing anything, it looks good again.
- @Vonvon: I saw it too. The timeline software sometimes does this. It's usually fixed by a purge or any edit to the timeline to force a new rendering. Purge worked for me. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
What the Health page has been vandalized and Luk3 is allowing it.
The "what the health" documentary Wikipedia page has been vandalized and the user "Luk3" is reversing any edits I make. He claims I have gone against Wikipedia's rules of neutrality when in reality I only added "the film has both been critiqued and praised" and I offered sources. Because as it stands, someone is stating the film promotes a vegan agenda, which is not true. The film is about a diet which is "plant-based". Veganism is also an ethical standpoint encompassing clothing, etc. The film isn't about that.
The edits also claim the film has been critiqued, and I added sources where the leader of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine responded to this criticism, and this edit was reversed.
Here is how the vandalized page looks now: "What the Health is a 2017 film promoting a vegan agenda.
The documentary has been criticized by a number of medical doctors, dietitians, and investigative journalists for what they describe as confusing causation with correlation, cherry picking science studies, using biased sources, distorting study findings, and using "weak-to-non-existent data"." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- Courtesy link: What the Health. Please note that Wikipedia defines Vandalism as "the act of editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive". I see no vandalism of that article. You write "in reality I only added ...", whereas in fact you deleted a whole paragraph with seven citations. You and Luk3 have a content dispute, and should discuss it on the article's talk page. Maproom (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Maproom: FYI: You pinged to wrong person, the user in question is LuK3 with an uppercase K. --Luk3 (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
St. Helens in Pennsylvania?
Im not sure where to post this… I’m afraid there is a problem with the page about St. Helens, Oregon, "Demographics": note number 19 reads Pennsylvania: Population and Housing Unit Counts. Huh? St. Helens is in Oregon, so this must be a mistake. Can someone help? Best, Jihaim (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Jihaim: The link was right but the title was wrong. An editor probably copied the reference code from another article and changed the url but forgot the title. I have fixed it. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Abrahamic Religions: Mandaeans
There has been consistent emphasized vitriolic polemics against Mandaeans in the article on Abrahamic religions. After undoing the polemics twice with no avail, I have been threatened with having a SPI case started against me. I have been accused of having a religious agenda. Mandaeans are a vulnerable minority religious group in the middle east. Strong language in the article such as considering Mohammed and Islam demonic along with other Abrahamic religions and the use of words like "hating Abraham" persist in the article. One of the sources clearly states they consider him a founder of their faith which been ignored. Other words like "false prophets" to describe Mohammed, Jesus, and Moses are used. Previously Mandaeans have been completely removed from the article. Considering they live in the middle east, this can only cause them considerable harm. There are other religions listed in the article, but polemics are not emphasized apart from the focus on Mandaeans. I don't think polemics should be emphasized for any religion, especially vulnerable minorities. I try to check for polemics against all religions, but this one seems obvious. I believe it is against Wikipedia policy to have an agenda against a religion or certain group of people.GF46238 (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC) I have edited the post to remove editors user names to comply with Wikipedia policy. (I am new and just learning the ropes)
- Hi, not quite sure if it is appropriate for me to comment here, but as my user name was mentioned, I thought I would comment (if it is inappropriate please delete) - everything I wrote about the Mandaeans is from cited sources, particularly "The Mandaeans: The Last Gnostics" by Edmundo Lupieri. The question is whether or not the Mandaeans are an Abrahamic religion. The article section Abrahamic religions#Common aspects states that "All Abrahamic religions accept the tradition that God revealed himself to the patriarch Abraham." The Mandaeans do not accept that God revealed himself to Abraham, so to include them as an Abrahamic religion requires some explanation.
editor Epinoia has consistently emphasized vitriolic polemics against Mandaeans- everything I included is from cited sources, and I have only used material relevant to the relationship between Mandaeanism and Abrahamic religions.
Epinoia used strong language such as..."hating Abraham"- Lupieri states, “they hate Abraham” (p. 66) and quotes another writer Ricoldo who said, “They detest Abraham” (p. 65). This is not vitriolic polemics, but a statement of what the Mandaeans believe.
one of Epinoia sources clearly states they consider him a founder of their faith which Epinoia chooses to ignore- none of the sources I cited say that Abraham was a founder of their faith. On the contrary, Lupieri says, "Shem, chosen by the Mandaeans as their own founding father" (p. 50) and E. S. Drower says, in "The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran", that Abraham was a priest who left the Mandaeans and started his own religion worshipping the powers of Darkness (p 266-268).
Epinoia also uses words like "false prophets" to describe Mohammed, Jesus, and Moses- again, this is directly from Lupieri who says that Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed are regarded as false prophets (p 116). I do not
have an agenda against a religion or certain group of people. My intention was to clarify the relationship between the Mandaeans and the Abrahamic religions. A reader seeing the Mandaeans listed in the Abrahamic religions article without knowing what their beliefs were would be misled for, as Dr. Dylan Burns says, that while they are biblically informed they are "not-exactly-Abrahamic". Sorry to go on at such length, but I feel my views and contributions have been mischaracterized. I have no prejudice against the Mandaeans whatsoever, but they do not have a clear claim as an Abrahamic religion. There is further discussion on User talk:Epinoia#Mandaeans User and on Talk:Abrahamic religions#Mandaeism is not an Abrahamic religion - as no other editors contributed to the Talk page discussion I would be welcome additional input - Epinoia (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
There are consistent references to Edmondo Lupieri who could very well be a biased writer. There is a reference to an article from The Telegraph that states "followers of a pre-Christian religion that considers the prophet Abraham as one of the founders of their faith." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/16/pictures-day-16-march-2019/iraqis-sabeans-followers-pre-christian-religion-considers-prophet/ but this appears to be ignored. There is also a documentary (in Arabic) on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6CJWOrnS_s where a Mandaean priest describes Abraham in their religion as a prophet in their faith and he is called "Bahram Rba" meaning Abraham the pure. Again, this is ignored. Wikipedia articles about them in French https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mand%C3%A9isme and Arabic https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D9%86%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%8A%D8%A9 clearly state they are Abrahamic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GF46238 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC) GF46238 (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Another article from Spanish Wikipedia on Abrahamic religions also counts Mandaeans as Abrahamic and Abraham as founder of their religion https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiones_abrah%C3%A1micas — Preceding unsigned comment added by GF46238 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Article from Latin Wikipedia listing Mandaeans as Abrahamic https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiones_Abrahameae GF46238 (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)GF46238 (talk)
- The issue is "what do followers of this religion believe?" Unless we have cited evidence that they lie about it, it must be better to go by what they say than by what their enemies say. Maproom (talk) 06:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
minimum refernce to publish a new article
i like to know how many reference do i need to publish an article?
- Siyanco, per WP:GNG, there is no set number, but editors fairly often suggest something like at least "3 good ones". "Good ones" here means that they are at the same time reliably published, independent of the topic and mentions the topic more (the more the better) than in passing. Your article will easier be accepted if you go beyond the bare minimum. Try to make it obvious via your refs that your topic is WP:NOTABLE.
- The number of refs is only part of it, their quality and what they say is very important. If you are trying to write a WP:BLP the demands will be higher, but you can probably get away with 3 good refs even then. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2019 (
thanks ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siyanco (talk • contribs) 08:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Professor Johann Cook
In the following wikipedia article ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Organisation_for_the_Study_of_the_Old_Testament_(IOSOT) ) Professor Johann Cook is briefly mentioned. I request that an article about Professor Johann Cook be created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Follow these instructions and you can do it yourself. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Uploading a photo: John Fleming.jpg
I have attempted to upload a personal photo (of me) to Wikimedia Commons but it was not approved. I went through the appropriate steps to have it licensed. Can an editor with more experience assist? --Book Reader 205 (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello, is someone able to jump in to help with regards to the Finnic peoples article, which was renamed into Baltic Finns by an editor without discussion or consensus on the article's talk page. The article had previously been moved into Finnic peoples about a year ago with an overwhelming majority on the talk page. The editor that reverted this has not provided any reasoning or sources for their action, and has not been responding on the talk page anymore. I am unable to move the page myself, because they created a new disambiguation page for Finnic peoples, hence the page move is not working for me. "Finnic peoples" is the most common synonym for "Baltic Finns". It is more commonly used than the "Baltic Finns" term. The editor moved the page, because they thought "Volga Finns" are also Finnic peoples, hence a disambiguation page is needed. But as is evident on the Uralic languages article, "Volga Finns" belongs into the "Volga-Finnic" group, not Finnic group. Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Note that language groups may be named after ethnicities (which is why the Finno-Permic languages were originally called 'Finnic'), or spuriously ethnicities after language groups, but language does not necessarily define ethnicity. — kwami (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Dave Meltzer/ Peyton Royce Controversy
A editor keeps deleting my my edit about Dave Meltzer body shaming a WWE wrestler. It was covered by the BBC in the UK and numerous famous wrestlers commented on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Meltzer
The editor has deleted this section before according to the Talk page and seems biased.
- I have never been to this page, so I'm a bit unsure if I'm allowed to comment here, since I am the editor Freddydavis69 is refering to but I will state that I removed the section because I and another editor (LM2000) who has been on the wrestling project for a long time both agreed that Wikipedia:NOTNEWS (as well as Wikipedia:UNDUE) applied, celebrities say dumb things every day, this is likely only one of thousands of dumb things this man has said in his life, there have been no actual fallout from this event and it has had no impact on his life/career or anyone elses in the long run. I have urged Freddy several times to take the discussion to the talkpage, which he has refused to do, instead I started a conversation on the Wrestling Project, which he has not replied to either.★Trekker (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
So 2 editors don't think this isn't relevant and that is fine? This editor has removed this before by another editor, so at least one person agrees with me. Please do a Google search on this subject, and you will see many videos and articles on this subject. I was important news and should be covered. I feel Trekker is biased towards Dave Meltzer. - Freddy Davis 69 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddydavis69 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not biased, and I won't magically become so because you keep claiming it, I simply know Wikipedia guidelines.★Trekker (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Here is my take on the matter. Meltzer said something foolish about a female wrestler but not actually vile. He then withdrew his comment and apologized repeatedly. Meltzer has been a professional wrestling journalist for 36 years and it is fair to assume that he has said other things in bad taste. Wrestling revels in bad taste. This seems like a pretty trivial incident in the context of such a lengthy career, so I am oppose to adding it. The proper place to try to resolve the matter is Talk:Dave Meltzer, where no one is discussing it currently. As for bias, I am not a wrestling fan and have never read Meltzer's work. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I was editing The Rebel Set and I saw an area set aside for the soundtrack. Should the movie soundtrack songs be listed for films or is that an area that has been stopped by film editors? Eschoryii (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I disclosed a conflict of interest on the article's talk page when creating the page but it's copied my COI disclosure several times within the template and it looks really bad. How do I fix this?Essayist1 (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Editing conflicts with myself
- I have a very aggravating issue that over a not so long of a period of time I started receiving edit conflicts that proved to be with myself. The problem is that it is not actually a "conflict" as the edit will post. I will edit a page, preview it, and when publishing any changes I made I may hit an edit conflict. This has happened several times but in nearly 10 years of editing it had never occurred before. I brought it up "somewhere" (technical I think) but did not receive any constructive comments.
- It causes me to have to open a second tab to verify that the shown edit conflict is actually with myself and that the edit actually posted. Surely I can't be the only one that has had this issue so I thought I would check here. Otr500 (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- I started to experience this two or three months ago (I only use the source editor). Maproom (talk) 07:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Will my email address be visible?
Hello! Please refer me to whom/where I should ask if it's not you here.
I'm brand-new to contributing to Wikipedia. Please tell me:
If I choose the option that readers may email me, will my email address be visible to readers or to those who email me?