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

Omitted information regarding electoral fraud in Democratic Part presidential primaries, 2016 webpage


I'm very curious as to why there is absolutely no mention of the Electoral fraud committed by the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign in the aforementioned article. There is another article titled "2016 Democratic National Committee email leak" but that too does not mention the information revealed by the leaks. According to the US State Department, any disparity greater than 2% between exit polls and actual polls is considered electoral fraud. However, during the 2016 Democratic Primary, there was routinely an 11% difference between actual results and exit polls. EVERY TIME in favor of Hillary Clinton. Another thing I'm curious about is that even though this information is widely available, it has been completely ignored by editors at Wikipedia. I hope this is something that will be looked into. Source:https:[email protected]/hillary-clinton-and-electoral-fraud-992ad9e080f6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Because we require reliable sources for articles here. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Anthony Coffey


I need help editing this page. Anthony Coffey It has 18 references. Thank you. --Tanton2008 (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

This forum is for giving assistance in how to edit, not for requesting that people help you edit an article. What issues on how to edit can we help you with? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Template to preserve edit history

I'm pretty sure I've seen a template that says something like "this page should not be deleted to preserve the edit history" but now I need it, I don't seem to be able to find it. It is used on pages that are now defunct but the contents have been copy-pasted into another page. SpinningSpark 00:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

{{Copied}}? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I can use that. I was hoping for something I can place on the actual page not to be deleted (the one you suggest goes on the article talk page). I may have been thinking of Template:R from merge, but the page I am dealing with is not a redirect. It was originally a draft, but I moved it to a talk sub-page where it is free from the risk of a G13 deletion. SpinningSpark 00:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the best solution is probably to turn it into a redirect so {{R from merge}} can be used. SpinningSpark 01:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Robots noindex nofollow on mainspace patrolled article

The article Internet of People (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has a robots noindex nofollow meta tag despite the fact it is a patrolled article and has no NOINDEX template. I do not know how to remove the meta tag. Can someone point me in the right direction?

Arcojuana (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Arcojuana: I see no sign of the software feature called patrolling. It's 19 days old. noindex is automatically removed after 30 days if it hasn't been patrolled by then. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Shakya Origins and Ethnicity


Several editors are involved in what is degrading into a multi-way edit war in Shakya regarding the origins and ethnicity of the Shakya, with several different positions involved. It seems to me that multiple editors are involved in editorializing. One editor has become verbally abusive, calling me "blind" and a "retard". Another editor involved was last month given a warning and a 1-week suspension about different matters on the same page. The participation of a neutral editor focused on editing standards would be useful. Talk:Shakya#Ethnicity Teishin (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

This forum is for assistance on how to edit. For administrative help with edit wars, see WP:EWN. For content disputes, in general, consult the Dispute Resolution policy. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)



The illustration of Beryllium Glass (BeFl2) does not appear to be correct. Please review it. The color code would imply tri-valent Beryllium. Respectfully, Mark Moran — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and anyone includes you. That image is hosted at Wikimedia Commons and may be modified there. Whether or not it is modified there is not within English Wikipedia's jurisdiction, but if there is an image at Commons which you consider to be correct, you may substitute it for the image currently being used in the article. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments have been removed from a talk page

Cunobeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An editor has removed some comments from this article's talk page. I have tried to engage with the editor in the talk page, but this attempt at resolving the issue has been deleted too. I have not edited the main article. I don't want to get involved in an edit war. What can be done about this situation? WallHeath (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Restored the deleted Talk Page discussion and sent a friendly reminder to the editor in question. I'll continue to watch the page. Thanks! Maineartists (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I am very much obliged to you. WallHeath (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, the editor just removed it all again. I think we need an admin to step in. Maineartists (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
WallHeath is spamming two articles (Cunobeline and Talk:Historicity of King Arthur) with uninformed personal opinions on the subject, which is not allowed, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I have already explained to WallHeath why his/her etymological speculations are totally off base and incorrect, but he/she continues to spam the articles with OR. Cagwinn (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I have not spammed any articles. I have simply contributed to the articles' talk pages. I have done that in good faith and I have not disrupted anything. WallHeath (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. You are not allowed to remove entire contents or other editor's comments / threads in a discussion on a Talk Page. You are in violation of WP policy. You have done this before to another editor: [1]. Regardless of what you feel, the Talk Page is not yours to edit. Maineartists (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Read the talk page guidelines linked above; it is absolutely permitted. Cagwinn (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't have the time for your directives. Specifically link and quote where it permits such behavior by an editor on an article's Talk Page. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
"The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject...Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed"Cagwinn (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh, my friend. You have been given an inch and you've taken a mile on this one. You have no idea what this means at all and you have cherry-picked the guidelines to support your own agenda. Your deletion has already been rv'd once again by another editor. If you rv again, you will be blocked for 3RR. Plain and simple. Maineartists (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Hahaha, you WP bureaucrat keyboard warriors kill me! So ridiculous. Cagwinn (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I was uninvolved in this prior to my revert, and became aware of it via having EA/R on my watchlist. WP:TPG makes no mention of WP:OR. WP:OR clearly states that it applies to articles (and therefore not to pages in other namespaces). The comments in question are fairly clearly of an editorial nature, discussing the content of the article. They are quite clearly not "off-topic". Even if they are grossly incorrect (and I'm not saying that they are), blanket removal and dismissal of other editors comments is quite wrong unless they are indisputably and obviously off-topic. I regularly remove completely and obviously off-topic things from talk pages per the exception in WP:TPG, but this is not clearly one of those cases where the exception applies. Removing comments is very much an exceptional action that should not be done when there's reasonable doubt. I strongly suggest that you do not remove any of that talk section again, unless you want to escalate this to AN/I (feel free, if you want to, but beware of WP:BOOMERANGs). Murph9000 (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    Cagwinn, as an act of good faith, I am going to ask you once to undo your revert. In my opinion, you are grossly misinterpreting WP:TPG, your actions are anything but "cautious" (especially now that you have been repeatedly challenged), and entirely outside policies and guidelines. Please think carefully about this, and expedite a self-revert to restore the on-topic discussion which dates back many years. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    User WallHeath is spamming two articles with this nonsense, but if you insist that totally uninformed original research remain on the talk page, so be it; it is BS such as this that makes the general public distrust the reliability of Wikipedia. I am only trying to keep the article - and its talk page - on the side of fact and reason. Cagwinn (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    So, just calmly state that you believe it is wrong, preferably with some explanation as to why you believe it's wrong. Optionally, point to the article's sources, if they help address the issue. I'm all for keeping the articles free of OR and inline with facts and reason. It's extremely important to allow editorial discussion about the content, especially if someone has a good faith belief that there's scope for change/improvement of the content. Viewed through a WP:AGF lens, I don't see any clear misconduct in the added comment, and the editor looks to be in good standing and with a clean record. If it's incorrect or misguided, so be it, we just need to politely say that in response. A newbie posting two similar (and relatively brief) things on two different talk pages is quite a bit short of actionable spam, IMO (absent obvious vandalism / history of vandalism). Murph9000 (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Judging from the delete/rv history of this editor, I honestly do not think they know what a Talk Page is used for or how it operates on WP. Although, I sincerely believe they think they do. Maineartists (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I was surprised to see that this disagreement had persisted through several reversions. I've given a 3RR warning to Cagwinn, who should have quit after his second revert, not sixth. With luck this particular dispute is sorted now. JohnInDC (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks JohnInDC. Cagwinn, you've been given a lot of good advice above. Please also read WP:BITE. New editors make good faith suggestions for article improvements based on their personal knowledge/views all the time. The proper response is not to summarily delete the posts but to consider if the suggestion has merit and point to WP:NOR and WP:V if appropriate. --NeilN talk to me 00:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I removed the comments because WallHeath is persistently posting the same misinformed, O.R. argument on Talk: Cunobeline (the first, unsigned comment from 2011 under the "Interpretation of the name" header is clearly WallHeth) and Talk: Historicity of King Arthur; I regard this as spam, as I already explained why he/she was wrong on the latter article, but the editor refused to listen and went on to post the same argument again in Cunobeline. Cagwinn (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Cagwinn: Your interpretation of "spam" is obviously different from other editors. Please do not use it as justification for removing posts in the future. --NeilN talk to me 01:02, 24 April 2017 (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