Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

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.


Adding information to a page[edit]

On the following page Marko Rog the player is recently be sold from Napoli to Cagliari I already added the paragraph about Cagliari that bought the player I am trying now to include the following source but I cannot refer it into the reference at the bottom page, when I click on edit in references paragraph I do not get the list as it showed in the web page. Any chance to explain to me how to do it so in the future I can edit it by myself? Thanks Falankuk

  • user:falankuk What you want to do is use a cite tag like this[1]. If there is already a reflist tag at the bottom of the article, it will update accordingly, otherwise you need to add the appropriate template. The default web interface also has a ">Cite" link which if clicked allows pulling up templates to automatically fill out the citation (which is what I did). Hope this helps. Rockphed (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ [www.placeholder.placeholder "World Awsomeness Title Won By Rockphed"] Check |url= value (help). Placeholder. Retrieved 13 September 2019.



I am writing in reference to Kosovo 'Famous Artists' section, and I would like to add that my late father Arif Vala was an actor and he played along Richard Burton in the movie called "Sutjeska". Would you be able to add this information?

Many thanks, G.Vala — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

You would need to show that there's reference material that indicates that this was significant. If you can do that, then there may be a possibility of adding it. Material on Wikipedia requires references, and since such lists would be quickly flooded if we allowed just anything to be put on them, it's generally restricted to the most significant and notable of examples. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


I have tried to log in to provide additional information on "goshawk." However, your computer does not recognize my existence.

Your information on goshawk indicates as sub-species..."A.g. langi" as existing on Vancouver Island and Queen Charolett islands of British Columbia. It ALSO EXISTS ON WASHINGTON STATE'S OLYMPIC PENINSULA.

 FYI... I am an experienced falconer and when I was with the WA wildlife depart in the 1970s, I wrote the first falconry regulations. The smaller, darker goshawk of that region is also localled called by ardent falconers as "the black gos". In the 1970s I took a tercel for falconry from a site within view of Pilar Point, on the Straits of Juan de Fuca, elevation of 3,800 feet.. 
 Your discussion of plumage of goshawks worldwide is blantly lacking in one respect: 

...The adult goshawk of NORTH AMERICA has VERTICAL BARRING on the breast... ...The adult goshawk of Europe, ASIA, AND FAR EAST..has HORIZONTAL BARRING on the breast.

 Trust me...I have seen them both, up close. 

Further, the NA goshawk occupies a dense wooded habitat and is a very excitable bird. The European, et al goshawk occupies a habitat similar to the NA red-tailed hawk, which Europe does not have, and is considerably more mellow in temperament.

Thank you. Feel free to enter my details as a future possible editor. Tom Knight in Tamarindo, Costa Rica (Retired WA State expat) 😎🏖🐕 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

This certainly could be something useful to add to the article. The first thing to do would be to find reliable sources which verify what you're saying. Unfortunately, we cannot accept someone's claim of personal expertise or knowledge as such a source, but such knowledge can be a great start to knowing where to look and what to look for. You also might talk to the project on birds, as editors there may have more specific advice or be aware of specialized sources to use. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Discrepany in Actor's birthdate[edit]

Hello, I have encountered a discrepancy regarding the birthdate of American actor William Devane within the different languages existed. Some show 1937, while others 1939. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benito2077 (talkcontribs) 19:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the source we use in the article was from a newspaper, and does indeed state his birthdate as 1939: [1]. If there are other sources which actually say his birth date was 1937 and they are also reliable, we may wish to note that discrepancy in the article, but otherwise it's possible that the other articles simply contain an error. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Convenience link William Devane. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@Benito2077: This confirms that he was class of 1957, which would make him 18, the right age for someone born in 1939. [[2]] (Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.) TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Extrapolating his birthdate from his high school graduation date is wp:or. He could have graduated early. I certainly know people who have graduated high school at 16. You need another source directly stating his birthday.---- Work permit (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Article merge? Bneid Al-Qar & Bnied Al-Gar[edit]

I've found two articles that I think should be merged due to being slightly different transliterations of the same thing, they are both stubs that haven't been touched in years.

Bneid Al-Qar & Bnied Al-Gar (internet also suggests Bneid Al-Gar as majority-non-Wikipedia version, which reflects neither current article) appear to be pages about the same neighbourhood of Kuwait. Is there an authoritative source? Quuux (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The arabic version has one archived source, though it does not even contain population of the suburb, only the governorates. The more accurate title should be "Bneid Al-Qar" though Banayd Al-Qar/Al-Gar and Bneid Al-Gar can also be used. So my suggestion is to merge Bnied Al-Gar into Bneid Al-Qar. Because of transliteration you can't say there's one "correct version" only what is more prevalent in English sources. The substitution of "q" with "g" stems from the fact that, the sounds of the former (as it's pronounced in Arabic) does not exist in English. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Quuux: OK, I have added newer source (2018 pop. figure) to the Arabic version. The sources uses Bneid Al-Gar. I have merged the articles and moved it to the most used title.– Ammarpad (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

How to open an RfC for politics, government, and law[edit]


There's currently a dispute about the political position of Fidesz. I would like to open an RfC for politics, government, and law to let other editors weigh in, but am unsure about the process involved in this. Can I please have some help?


-MWKwiki (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Peach[edit]

There's reason to believe the person making edits to Andrew Peach is the subject himself. The article has been nominated for deletion twice but survived both nominations. Having reviewed the article once again, it still appears a lot of the information included seems too in-depth to be knowledge from a "fan". There was an edit that stated Peach is the longest serving network newsreader on BBC Radio 2. I have removed this as there was no supporting content and/or links to support this. If you look at the edit history, the user has ony edited items relating to Peach himself. A while ago, there was an edit war which argued that he was still a newsreader on BBC Radio 2. This was changed to say "he had been heard ...", and this appears to have been changed back to still being on the radio station. Again, no evidence or supporting links to assist with this claim. Could this be looked into as this could trigger another edit war. In addition, most of the links are just passing comments on Peach, and don't point to him directly. Advice would be great, cheers! - Funky Snack (Talk) 18:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Proper move without history at Foreign relations of China?[edit]

Is this a proper move of material from Foreign relations of China to History of foreign relations of China if the history is not included? That is, from here to here

I raised the question on the Talk Page here.

ch (talk) 05:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The edit summary is sufficient for attribution [3], though they should have linked the page with a wikilink. {{Copied}} template can also be used on the talk page, but I see there's already a note to that regard. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for detailed information. – Ammarpad (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Coronation of Queen Victoria#Queen Victoria's account[edit]

Apologies for not using the talk page for this article. The section linked above is mostly copied from an old source (written in 1907), and so can be used. Should such a large quantity of text form part of the article, and if not, what's the best thing to do with it? Your guidance would be appreciated, thanks, Amitchell125 (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

21 grams experiment[edit]

I have added technical information that the critical writer did not have. The writer removed them without contacting me first. I may be new here but in the interest of minimal accuracy this must be changed. The entire story is satire and missing the actual data. I offered and was flatly rejected and bullied, threatened more than once to face removal. My motives are sincere and background actual.


User talk:PriorQavah From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search 21 Grams experiment

PriorQavah (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)PriorQavah as much as possible the edit needs to be done to have factual content.

Extended content

Where did you find copyright issues?

My information is from the actual report. What I inserted was actual result and conditions.The version You put back cites a ghost story site that is copyrighted and does not include the actual report. The story you added does not include the actual test The story You submitted does not include the actual test conditions. the story you submitted includes criticism outside the criticism area.

PriorQavah (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC) Damien Linnane

 You're lucky I found this. When you want to contact someone else on Wikipedia you leave a message on THEIR talk page, not your own. Leaving an initial message on your own page is like writing a letter in the mail to yourself. The person you are writing to is not going to get it if you send it to yourself and don't notify them in any way. I only noticed this because I was coming here to leave you a message asking you to stop what you're doing at the article. 
 No offense but as evidenced by the fact you left a message for me on your talk page, you clearly don't know what you're doing on Wikipedia. Firstly, you can't copy and paste large texts from the actual report. That's a copyright violation, regardless of whether you put it in inverted commas and attribute it to the report itself. Please do your homework and read Wikipedia:Copyright violations. A Wikipedia article is supposed to be a summary of the subject. You, however, have gone into gross and absurd levels of over-detail. Even if it wasn't a copyright violation, the reader doesn't need to know MacDougall's drawn out quote about why he thought souls have weight, all we need to know is that he did. We don't need the exact measurements for every subject, we just need the overall findings. In order to use a source on Wikipedia, that source needs to satisfy the criteria at WP:RS. There is no requirement that the source needs to contain the entire report itself, so your argument that the "ghost story site" (what does 'ghost story site' even mean???) doesn't have the original report is irrelevant. There is no requirement that it needs it. If every scientific article could only cite sources that contain the entire report rather than a summary of it, Wikipedia would pretty much have to delete 99% of its coverage of experiments. Even scientific papers only refer to other paper's findings, rather than reproducing the papers entirely. Your argument is not justifiable. You have also deleted criticism of the experiment without adequate justification. This appears to be a violation of WP:POV. More disturbingly, you deleted the criticism from the lead. As per MOS:LEAD, the lead of an article needs to summarise the article's contents; if there is a substantial amount of criticism in the article, it is a requirement that this criticism is summarised in the lead. As evidenced by your comment above, and your edits to the article, you have an extremely poor understanding of grammar, capitals and spaces. This is an encyclopedia with high standards; your terrible writing is not improving the article. Lastly, the article you are writing has already been peer reviewed and has been promoted as a good article, meaning it has been accepted as one of Wikipedia's best pieces of content. If you want to make drastic changes to something that has already been peer-reviewed and accepted as Wikipedia's best pieces of content, you need to obtain consensus on the article's talk page first. Trying to make the edits again after it has been explained to you why they are not appropriate is as violation of WP:BRD, and could be considered starting an edit war. Logging out of your account and making the changes again from an IP address is a violation of WP:SOCK. Repeating any of this behaviour will likely result in your account being blocked from editing. I trust these explanations will bring an end to your disruptive and un-constructive edits. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC) 

PriorQavah (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)PriorQavah I have done my own reports, but mostly engineering type where facts are all important. After all it is called an encyclopedia, and the rules do call for accuracy. If we let one thing leak in that is not true in engineering on a car, it will be millions of faulty cars. As a rule we strive for accuracy. I did not get that feeling when I read your article and looked at your references on the 21 grams experiment. Disrespect is what I feel when You do not use Doctor MacDougall's title. What I feel when data is buried with hype that there is some underlying anger or impossible wall that will not look fairly at the information.

I have studied the experiment also. Seems to me the 21 grams (actually 3/4 oz) is the weight of the first person tested. When I read the account of the tests, I felt astonishment in his words the first time. It makes me feel he was not predisposed to an outcome.

The other seem to vary and where they were being attacked Doctor MacDougall discounted the result,,from looking at his writing and knowing these kind of people, possibly out of frustration or anger. then there is the one test again where they got a measurement but death at just the moment they slid the weight on the balance beam. Now you know what that slide is for ,on a scale, the fine adjustment. so even though the two were discounted as not within spec. , there were measurements. There are 52 cites in the real report.

Is there any special reason you chose to use the version at the Ghost site to link? (The site has a recent copyright at the bottom.)

PriorQavah (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC) Damien Linnane

 In answer to your question, I didn't add that document there. Someone else did, but the link was fine. The fact it has the word 'copyright' down the bottom means nothing. It's not necessarily a copyright violation to add an external link to something that is copyrighted, but it's definitely a copyright violation to copy and paste from the source and add it to the article. I've been writing Wikipedia for 11 years. I know what the rules are. I'm not violating any. You on the other hand, seem to be on a mission to violate as many as possible. By repeatedly using 'Doctor' MacDougall's title, you have violated yet another guideline. Please read MOS:SURNAME. It is a violation to repeatedly refer to someone as 'Doctor' or any other professional title. I've refereed to him as a physician at his initial mention, then only by his last name, as per the accepted standard. Disrespect is what I feel when you make multiple errors writing a Wikipedia article because you didn't have the common decency to do any research whatsoever into the accepted standards, then have the audacity to criticise me for adhering to the rules. I believe the article is objective and neutral. The article has been peer reviewed and accepted as one of Wikipedia's best pieces of content. If you disagree with how it is written, please start a discussion on the article's talk page regarding your concerns (and please start signing your comments - see here for instructions: Wikipedia:Signatures) and wait to see what other editors say so that a consensus can be reached about the issue. And just so it's clear, if you make any attempts to find people to support your proposal on the talk page this would be considered a violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing and would likely result in an immediate ban. I feel like I have spent enough time explaining why your edits went completely against Wikipedia's standards, and have no desire to discuss this with you any further here. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC) 

PriorQavah (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)PriorQavah

Thank you for your candid comments. IO can see your editing is near and dear to your heart by the threatening and exclusionary manner of commentary. I assure you I am only adding what is necessary for the experiment to have meaning. As for the copyright you claim I have violated of a 100 year old report, I think you are off base, rather it seems to be an attack on fellow editors. I know this because at the same time you bring in a page with a recent copyright, the guy is claiming he wrote it himself and it is not the real thing. I can tell real information by the content. Fake has no data, is just that personal commentary. an only imagine you cited it because it is not real. I fear you copy and make it your own. everything is a threat and attack to you to keep the information hidden. This is not acceptable on an encyclopedia. Perhaps to a casual observer your criticism of the experiment rates good, (as a sort of joke story) but to a educated person this is not acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PriorQavah (talkcontribs) 15:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This discussion should be moved to the talk page. Providing a courtesy link for other editors. Talk:21 grams experiment TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I already told him to move his grievance to the talk page of the article, but he refuses to listen to sound advice. I'd advise anyone who is interested to actually look at the absurd overdetail this person was trying to add to the article, and the fact he was trying to remove valid criticism at the same time (and his subsequent sock-puppet attempt to restore his changes without explanation), and then read the full conversation about it on his talk page. By his own admission, this editor wishes to downplay the criticism of the report from leading experts because it conflicts with his personal feelings that the experiment has validity. He has repeatedly criticised me for the crime of adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines. I will not add further comments here, I just wanted to point out the absurdity of this request. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

K Callan Name listed incorrectly -- there is no "period".[edit]

Examarie (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)The name is K Callan -- not K period Callan I would like to take the period out of the headline as well as other places on the page where a period exists, but can't figure out how.

Exa Marie

I have moved the article to K Callan. Maproom (talk) 06:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The minister general of Franciscan secular and youfra[edit]

I am concerned about the decreased óf the youfra and Franciscan secular order

Let us develop the our region

The following group must take action The minister general of Franciscan OFM The minister general of Franciscan secular The minister general of OFM cap The minister general of OFM conv

The last two groups are The sacred líturgy commission for the Franciscan The commission for the Franciscan order Our Holy see is the only one who granted ànd Approved the issue

Of Franciscans — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

This page is for requests for help in using or editing Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Help copying over markup for approved edit requests.[edit]

3M (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello, I'm Kelsie, and I've submitted a couple edit requests at Talk:3M on behalf of my employer, 3M. Both of my requests to update text in the introduction and replace unsourced and inaccurate lists with sourced prose have been approved by another editor, but they are not sure how to update the article's markup on my behalf. Might someone here be able to help? I've tried to make the markup as easy to copy and paste as possible. Thank you! KM at 3M (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

the biographical page on me - Todd Gray History[edit]

Good morning,

I have tried to correct some mistakes on the biographical page on me which someone very kindly set up but each time I have done this these changes are later deleted. I cannot understand why. I have also tried to update the content and have soured it properly but this too has been later taken off. Is this an editorial issue? I am concerned as I just do not know what to do about this.

Can someone help? I am grateful to whoever it was who thought of writing a page about me - and surprised - but it is not easy having inaccurate information posted on the site and it would help if it was factually correct,

Yours Sincerely, Todd Gray — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnolia444 (talkcontribs) 09:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)