Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.


Other links


I looked into something called Discord, which I guess is a kind of chat protocol. (I was told there was a group on this service who might help me with my studies.) The WP page for it has been rode roughshod over by the PR department of the company, by all appearances. It's a very Hailcorporate, putting-out-fires vibe. Looking at this page, I learned much about how they're trying to be very good now but I didn't learn much about what this service actually is, so I still don't know if I want to use it.

Being good computer people, the pro-Discord editors seem to know how to edit a page without breaking the letter of the law. To repeat: this article is not good, not encyclopedic, (but not vandalized per se) and if you read it you won't feel like you understand what Discord is. It functions better as a press release from Discord itself.

I know this is my first post. I don't have a dog in this fight: I only finally registered because the ref desk was just protected. Unnecessary IMO and will discourage interesting inquirers, tho I know that's neither here nor there.

Temerarius (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if I will be able to contribute much to the Discord article, especially not regarding the matters you described, but I will place it in my to-do list and contribute some edits there sometime soon. Feel free to boldly edit the article yourself, too, and discuss it on its talk page. Now that you have created an account, you can now access the benefits of an account through it, including a variety of features which assist with reading and editing articles. If nothing else, using this account can make reading Wikipedia a better experience once you tweak its appearance in your Preferences and perhaps even enable some gadgets (such as Navigation popups). Welcome to Wikipedia, Temerarius! ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 16:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


On the List of highest grossing superhero films I need help to peak the top 50 and expend the second section P+TFanoflionking 22:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanoflionking (talkcontribs)

Sugar industry funding and health information

May I ask for criticism of the draft at User:HLHJ/sandbox/Sugar industry funding and health information? HLHJ (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Which CS1 template should I use for this source?

I have been preparing an edit to clean up DeVry University § Investigations, lawsuits, and settlements, especially the citations, but encountered a rather unclear citation issue. Specifically, which CS1 template should I use for this PDF source found in the aforementioned section? It is currently cited with {{cite web}}, and I can continue to use that, but I would prefer to use a more semantically specific template per the documentation. I am not aware of any specific-source template that would be appropriate for this specific source, especially none CS1 format, and my best guess would be {{cite report}} even though that does not clearly fit either. Any suggestions? ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 17:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Nøkkenbuer. I suggest Template:Cite Hansard, as it is a legislative transcript. Thank you for cleaning up that article. The lede does not really sum up its contents anymore... some of the text has ambiguities which can only be resolved by referring to the citations (e.g. "In 2008, DeVry was accused of filing false claims and statements about recruitment pay and performance to the government" [emphasis added], when it could be the American, Brazilian, or Canadian government, or a regional government within one of these countries), so it's great to see someone looking after the citations. HLHJ (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps Jung was right after all because I literally just noticed the alert for this reply as I was searching WikiBlame for a specific (unrelated) string on the article and was here when I saw it. I noticed that, at least around July 2008, that very same source was using {{cite hansard}}. I saw that in the left diff box, was promptly confused because I never encountered that template before, and noticed the alert to this reply explaining just that as I was typing in "Template:Cite hansard". I wonder what other lost information could be found in these article histories? Anyway, thanks for the recommendation and advice, and I hope you use your magic for good. Have a great day / night, HLHJ! ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 23:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Help Request

Equipment of the Ukrainian Air Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm hoping for some help with an issue that's coming up editing a wiki page involving what I think is a content dispute. I am not very familiar with all the ins and outs of wikipedia and therefore I want to make sure I'm doing everything correctly. Essentially I have been making edits to the page Equipment of the Ukrainian Air Force, sourcing and citing my edits properly to update the article as best I can. Another user is the coming along and reverting all my edits without seemingly making any effort to verify the integrity of their edit (citation links are broken, information is inaccurate, etc). I have reached out to this editor on their Talk page (my comments were deleted) and posted extensively on the Article's Talk page requesting engagement (as, I don't have a permanent account and my IP floats) and offering to delete edits if they weren't verifiable, yet have received only one minimal reply. I have challenged the veracity of this editor's source, and pointed out inaccuracies, linking to other articles and sources, yet reverts continue to be made without discussion. Am I doing the right thing and what should I be doing to help settle and reach a consensus? (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for putting effort into civil discussion; that is definitely the right thing to do. Asking for advice about where you might be going wrong or missing information ditto. I can't really comment on anyone's behaviour but yours here, but I'll do my best to give useful advice.
I'd strongly suggest that you register a user account, it makes it much easier to talk to you and not any random person sharing your IP. For instance, at the start of this reply, I mentioned your name, which hopefully will have notified you that there was a message here for you (unless your IP has changed again). If you reply to me, and use the string "[[User:HLHJ|HLHJ]]", it will notify (or "ping") me (see Wikipedia:Notifications). You can copy-paste this string from my signature. See the section above for examples.
It seems that your edits to the other editor's talk page were reverted not because they wanted to ignore them, but because they wanted to keep discussion of the article on the article talk page (according to the edit summary, located here; I see that you have recently started using edit summaries consistently, and imagine you didn't know where to look for one in the page history). Generally, detailed discussion of article contents is placed on the article talk page; if you ping the editor, they will see it just as quickly as if it were on their user talk page. I am guessing from the fact that you haven't used pings on the talk page that you don't know about notifications, which would make putting topic discussion on the user talk page make much more sense, as they would be unlikely to see it otherwise. You are right that you haven't gotten much response on the talk page; naming (and thus automatically notifying) the editor you want a response from may help with that :).
These are minor technical issues. Wikipedia's interface has gotten a bit complex over the years. No-one actually expects a new editor to know all of it by magic, but sometimes people forget not to assume knowledge. If, in ignorance, you do something that other editors might misinterpret, something like "Sorry, I misunderstood this, I think I get it now, it's like this, right?" can get you help instead of unjustified acerbic misunderstandings. I'm sorry that new editors so often wind up receiving hostility rather than explanations, and I hope you've mostly heard the latter.
You question about doing the right things, stuff that helps reach consensus, is an excellent one. Wikipedia has a LOT of advice on that; WP:Civility is a good place to start. It's really easy to get into misunderstandings on a text-only communications channel, where all the non-verbal information just goes missing. But you wanted specific advice.
Partly because misunderstandings are easy, the Wikipedia policy of assuming good faith is very important. There are, for instance, lots of reasons for someone to revert their own edits, like realizing that their first edit actually made the article worse. If there is any doubt about motives, you can ask someone, neutrally, why they did something. They might answer "Because I was stupid. Sorry, I've fixed". If a dispute does escalate, it is especially important to have assumed good faith throughout. If you don't always assume good faith, even when it's difficult, you put yourself in the wrong in a dispute.
I've found it a useful guideline to focus on discussing edits, not editors; for instance, instead of writing "you are saying", "your edit claims", "my edits", and "defend [my edits]", you could refer to the statements directly, and which facts are disputed (this also helps third parties understand the facts under debate). Instead of stating that an editor is engaging in original research, you might say that you can't find the reference for a specific statement, and ask if they can help. I know I've sometimes just omitted citations I was sure I'd put in, and been glad to have the mistake pointed out to me.
I suspect that this answer may not be quite what you wanted; for instance, I haven't touched on the content itself, about which I know nothing. I hope it's helpful, tho, and that you will answer here and ping me if I messed up. HLHJ (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions for editing a page about myself: photo & book reviews

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

Hi! I added two pieces of information in the talk page of a page about myself a month ago. Is it OK with Wikipedia policy to place a request for editorial assistance to work those into the article? Or is it better to simply leave the info there & see if someone visits that page and wants to use these pieces of information at some point?

With many thanks, & with apologies if it's not the done thing, Best wishes --AlexisMichaud (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@AlexisMichaud:, you can get greater visibility for your suggested change by using an edit request. This is done by using a template which will automagically place the request on various lists. Edit the talk page and place the text "{{request edit}}" (including the braces but not the quote characters) between the subheading and the body text of your request. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
@Eggishorn: Yes this is exactly the info I was looking for! Done. Many thanks! --AlexisMichaud (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
@AlexisMichaud:, I'm glad I was able to help. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Wrong photograph

The picture of a cottage in the article on Mappleborough Green is not one in Mappleborough Green, but rather a cottage in Gloucestershire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the image and caption. It seems likely the editor who originally created the article copied from the Churchdown article to sort of use it as a template for their article, including the photo. In the future, requests for corrections such as this are best placed on the talk page of the article in question. In this case, you can edit the Talk:Mappleborough Green page for faster response. I hope this helps. @Courtesy ping to original page author:. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA