FlightTime (talk | contribs) |
Monkeybear5000 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 131: | Line 131: | ||
::You are very welcome. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">[[User:Mlpearc|<span style="color:#800000">'''Mlpearc'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Mlpearc|<span style="color:#FFD700">'''open channel'''</span>]])</small></span> 04:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC) |
::You are very welcome. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">[[User:Mlpearc|<span style="color:#800000">'''Mlpearc'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Mlpearc|<span style="color:#FFD700">'''open channel'''</span>]])</small></span> 04:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC) |
||
== Please help remove damaging comments on a page (that I made) == |
|||
I wish to have a comment I made on a page removed completely from the page. I realise now that the comment I made is both untrue, and damaging and I wish for my comment to be totally removed (even from the view history). |
|||
The comment was made by my account monkeybear5000, with the user name now changed to HatofCleverness7, |
|||
14:58, 17 June 2014 |
|||
on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kelly_Grovier&action=history |
|||
The comment is: |
|||
(Challenging the fiction that Mr Grovier has a doctorate from Oxford. To do so, you have to submit a final copy of your thesis to the Bodleian, before the degree is conferred. There is no record anywhere of Mr Grovier having completed this degree.) |
|||
I now know that this is untrue, and I should not have written it. |
|||
I cannot undo the comment now as it has been corrected, and I cannot roll back the statement. I wish for this to be removed entirely as there is no truth to the matter and I should not have made this comment on the page. |
|||
Please can you remove this comment entirely? I would be very grateful. |
Revision as of 14:03, 20 June 2014
Archives
Need an admin to help move a page history
I screwed up and did a copy-paste move to try to purge an image cache from commons - I really should know better, but I wasn't thinking straight. Short story, the file that used to be hosted on en.wiki at File:Editorrib18.png is now hosted on commons at File:Editorrib20.png, but the move to commons left file info on en.wiki, which I moved to en.wiki's File:Editorrib20.png page by copy/paste instead of a proper move. What I need is the edit history at File:Editorrib18.png moved to File:Editorrib20.png, and I hope that deleting the File:Editorrib18.png page (and any redirect left behind) will allow the updated commons image to propogate through en.wiki, but at the very least, the edit history does need to be moved. Thanks for any help. VanIsaacWScont 05:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hm? The revision history at File:Editorrib18.png (both here and at commons) contains nothing requiring attribution apart from the original uploader's upload, and there's nothing special at File:Editorrib20.png (either here or at commons). Is there any particular reason for the file to be locally hosted? Just delete File:Editorrib20.png here and at commons as bit-for-bit duplicates of their respective copies of File:Editorrib18.png. I don't think there's anything special needed otherwise. If a list of the contribs from each respective page needs to be listed at Commons (which is often done when a file is transferred over), that's a matter for the people at Commons to sort out. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- You don't get it. File:Editorrib18.png and File:Editorrib20.png are not the same file at commons (they are similar, but the width of the gold ribbons is different), even though they are the same at en.wiki for some damnable reason. File:Editorrib20.png used to be called File:Editorrib18.png on en.wiki, but it needed to be moved (on commons) to make way for File:Editorrib18.png and File:Editorrib19.png, which were formerly File:Editorrib18a.png and File:Editorrib18b.png. I'm trying to get en.wiki to reflect the changes at commons, and part of that was preserving the file information from en.wiki, which is what I copied over without attribution. I believe that this also might be preventing propogation of the new File:Editorrib18.png image from commons. So, just trust me and do this: delete the file on en.wiki for File:Editorrib20.png. Move the last version (before I blanked it) of File:Editorrib18.png to File:Editorrib20.png, and all the attribution and file history will be preserved in the proper places. If you also delete (or suppress creation) of the redirect at File:Editorrib18.png, we can see if that solves the propogation/image caching issues that I'm running into, but either way, all of the history and file information at File:Editorrib18.png unambiguously needs to be located at File:Editorrib20.png. VanIsaacWScont 22:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
prandtls condition
Sir, I was just accidentally uploaded the that article.The proper things and equations are ready with me .Can i proceed with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anu.gp (talk • contribs) 17:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
mediation (statistics)
131.179.232.36 (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)My assistant tried to add a section to this entry. It was deleted three times with no adequate explanation. The editor mentioned "copyright" and "formatting" issues, but all our sources have copyright release, and our format complies (to the best or our understanding) with all other entries in wikipedia. We tried but failed to ask the editor (Evergreen) to be more specific. Can you help? Respectfully, Professor Judea Pearl UCLA <redacted> 00:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC) 131.179.232.36 (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Appears to do with this exchange:
- Kvihill (added sections "Causal Mediation Analysis" and "The Mediation Formula")
- EvergreenFir (Undid revision 611442340 by Kvihill (talk) at least a partial copyvio of http://www.mii.ucla.edu/causality/?cat=4 Also poorly formatted)
- Kvihill (reformatted and clarified /*Causal Mediation Analysis*/ and →The Mediation Formula: -- Undid revision 611463112 by EvergreenFir (talk))
- EvergreenFir (Reverted 1 edit by Kvihill (talk) to last revision by EvergreenFir. (TW)) (improperly marked as minor)
- Kvihill four edits.
- EvergreenFir (Reverted 4 edits by Kvihill (talk) to last revision by EvergreenFir. (TW)) (again improperly marked as minor)
- There is no discussion at Talk:Mediation (statistics), though some brief talk at User talk:Kvihill. It is legitimate to donate copyrighted materials to Wikipedia, though this is not a guarantee that such materials may be used. In short, you/Kvihill and EvergreenFir would do well to sit down and talk about what specific objections there are to the material. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
request an article on Long Table Distillery
We would like to add our company to Wikipedia but as owners we can not do this. Not sure how to go about having this done but if you require a list of articles and information on the company we would be happy to provide anything. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.25.224 (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- You're looking for Articles for creation. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Recellular edit/posting dispute
ReCellular (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dear sirs,
It has come to my attention that a disgruntled employee has posted malicious content to the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReCellular
The information posted is not factual nor correct in many aspects. It should be obvious to the editor that the post is clearly intended to discredit myself (John Petzold) and the company.
I would ask that the recent edits made be reviewed in further detail and the author intents be reconsidered for context and purpose. I would be glad to provide factual details relative to public information, but I am restricted in sharing specific company information which is confidential.
eRC (eRecyclingCorps) is a great company and has an excellent standing in the industry and community. They purchased the assets of Recellular out of receivership, not the company Recellular. In doing so, they saved the jobs of many. The few select individuals who were affected by the restructuring of the new business do not represent the majority of those who are still employed and the edits as posted affect and discredit all. It is unfair and unjust to allow such malicious content on your site.
I hope you understand and make an effort to truly provide an appropriate post.
Thank you in advance for your consideration. Please feel free to reach me directly.
Sincerely,
John Petzold General Manager, Mobile Karma — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.32.34.74 (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Seems a new user by the name of EcomMK (talk · contribs) has handled the most egregious content there... and rightly so. The offending content was indeed an unsourced rant against the subject and a particular manager there. Thank you for reporting the issues here. As you may know, Wikipedia is a volunteer project, so it can take time to take note of and correct issues like these when they aren't promptly brought to the attention of editors. I've also tweaked the article a bit more by cutting out some promotional content. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Am I crossing the line?
Please refer to the recent discussion that has occurred on my talk page. I've been asked to stop creating redlinks in articles, and been told I'm doing nefarious, prohibited things. I'm not really interested in defending every one word change I make with two or twenty paragraphs of rhetoric, or becoming a Wikipedia lawyer.
Please review the state of affairs on my talk page, and let me know if I should go elsewhere with my time. Thanks. 70.247.162.65 (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi! After looking at the discussion, I'm not sure you're seeing their point. Since October 2013, editors have been trying to help you understand Wikipedia's policies, especially about redlinking. You assume that they're trying to attack your editing style, when in reality, they're just trying to help you see the way that Wikipedia works. If you're looking for a place to do whatever you'd like, then maybe Wikipedia isn't the place for you. If you're willing to follow Wikipedia's policies (most of the time), then I gladly welcome you. If you need anything, let me know! Thanks!
- P.S: if you reply to this, please let me know by placing the following on my talk page: {{tb|Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests}}~~~~ Thanks in advance!—Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I have a long history with Wikipedia, and it's never been my understanding that Wikipedia works by virtue of the vast array of policies that nobody can truly understand, so much as the be bold spirit. That's the way I've always done it, and I've never had this kind of a problem before. Times change, to be sure, but I'm not prepared to make this kind of a change.
To me, this signifies that I can be bold so long as I'm doing it in a box. I can't accept that.
If that's not the way it works anymore, then so be it. Was fun while it lasted. 70.247.162.65 (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- You can feel free to be bold however you'd like, as long as it's not directly disobeying both Wikipedia's policies and suggestions by multiple other editors. If you decide to leave Wikipedia, I'm sorry to see you go.
- P.S: if you reply to this, please let me know by placing the following on my talk page: {{tb|Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests}}~~~~ Thanks in advance!—Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, for one, you shouldn't put redlinks in a see also section. But as to other redlinks... I frankly don't know enough about the subject area to say whether, for instance "ray interpretation" should be redlinked. The rest of it... meh. I think Cuzkatzimhut et al. might be being overly picky about these things, but again, I don't know enough about the subject area. You shouldn't let this drive you out of editing, but do try to maintain a cool head, and understand that virtually everything that happens here is open for discussion at any time. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- If you went through the list of the unwarranted redlining rampage adduced you might change your mind. Many of the redlinks involve terms just explained; possibly unsatisfactorily, if only one discussed why on the Talk page, but clearly belonging there. If anything, they should be improved there. My own take is that the redlinker indulged in a form of rejectionist protest, of the "I don't understand this, I don't understand that, fixit, dammit, pronto!" form. The redlines were only part of the problem--I did not bother to go into the template excesses. (I am reminded of the Harris cartoon where Kepler explains that planets undergo elliptic orbits to a stunned audience, and the thought bubbles above everyone's head read: "what's elliptic?", "whats an orbit?", "what's a planet?".) Some of these stubs are on necessarily highly technical issues that require a painful formal training, and then they quickly clarify something to somebody who almost speaks the language. But you can't possibly explain absolutely everything in a garland of stubs and footnote wikilinks. An overall impression would send the motivated reader to a good book or review article. My own sense is that these articles are pitched to the motivated advanced undergraduate, as anyone above that would have enough training and aptitude to hit the books or the review literature to get the point. Raising flags in the mind of the random reader who just landed on this page by diffusing the point meant to be imparted by such may not be salutary. There is lots of that protest and confusion stuff in the talk pages, often abused as newsgroups, but there is no compelling reason the articles themselves should suffer. Serious editors often decouple from problematic articles, which then devolve to C class in no time, if you monitor their unstoppable decline. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Another Wikipedia User is Deleting my replies on a talk page
This might not be the place to report this but I've had difficulty finding where to report it. I made two replies to comments at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Media_Matters_for_America and the User:Scjessey deleted them using Twinkle. I restored them and User:Scjessey deleted them again. If someone wants to archive a subject on a talk page that's fine with me but to selectively delete my replies is a different matter. Isn't this also an abuse of Twinkle? I haven't done anything else about the matter except for sending an email at Special:EmailUser/Oversight. However, I wondered if that link was working because I checked the box requesting that a copy of my request be sent to my email account and a number of hours later, that copy still hasn't been sent.TL36 (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- The matter has been resolved, at least as far as I'm concerned. Thank you for your time.TL36 (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Possible COI and approach to editor to declare.
Hi Guys, I noticed during my wikiing today a lot of edits on Indian National Congress by one editor and also, upon looking at their contributions, further edit of very similar nature centred around the same subject. Some of the edit seem very constructive and neutral, some seem determined to remove any information on controversies surrounding the Indian National Congress party and its officers, even though some of these issues seem to be well sourced and referenced. So, the question, how do I approach this editor to seek confirmation of neutrality i.e. no Conflict of Interest, or does this get escalated and approached from an administration wikipedian? Kind regards. The Original Filfi (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's a delicate matter to start asking someone about their real life. Really though, it shouldn't be necessary: CoIs are not the problem, but the disruption that CoI-afflicted editors can wreak. If this editor is being disruptive, it doesn't particularly matter if he or she has a CoI. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Admin needs help from a steward for a delete and undelete
- Fraternities and sororities in North America was cut and pasted from Fraternities and sororities at 13:30, 19 January 2012. Their edit history needs to be merged. But I can't do this histmerge because as stated in Talk:Fraternities and sororities in North America#HISTORY INFORMATION. (I have history-merged their talk pages.) The complications are:-
- Fraternities and sororities was edited many times after the cut-and-paste point, causing a parallel history which must be left behind when the page is moved for the history-merge; but the only way to delete some edits of a page's history is to delete all edits and then undelete the needed edits.
- Fraternities and sororities is sitting over a deleted parallel history.
- Fraternities and sororities's edit history is so long that only a steward can delete it.
- Please, some steward do this:-
- Move Fraternities and sororities to Fraternities and sororities/zxcvbnm (not leaving redirect), to get it away from the old deleted edits.
- Delete Fraternities and sororities/zxcvbnm :: this is the stage that needs a steward.
- In Fraternities and sororities/zxcvbnm, please undelete edit "00:37, 17 January 2012 User:75.60.102.238" and all older edits.
- In Fraternities and sororities leave a redirect to Fraternities and sororities in North America, so that readers are still sent to the right place until I can get to the job.
- Please tell me when this has been done. I can do the rest of this history-merge.
- Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
This isn't exactly the right place to request the intervention of a Steward. To contact a Steward, you should use one of these methods (a post here isn't likely to be seen by one):
- Post at the Stewards' noticeboard on meta.
- Write the Stewards OTRS contact: stewardswikimedia.org.
- For emergencies: join #wikimedia-stewards connect and write !steward to get the attention of one.
Hope this helps. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Change of article name
William M. Packard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)The article "William M. Packard" should be "William Packard" -- according to Wikipedia naming conventions. Packard never has been referred to with a middle initial, and he is widely known only as William Packard among poets, playwrights, students and those who buy and read his books. He wouldn't be recognized as William M. Packard. The initial appears to have been added in order to "make disambiguation easier", according to an editor's note in the article's history. Thanks for any consideration of this.Barklestork (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please see: Requesting a single page move. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you!Barklestork (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- You are very welcome. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Please help remove damaging comments on a page (that I made)
I wish to have a comment I made on a page removed completely from the page. I realise now that the comment I made is both untrue, and damaging and I wish for my comment to be totally removed (even from the view history). The comment was made by my account monkeybear5000, with the user name now changed to HatofCleverness7, 14:58, 17 June 2014 on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kelly_Grovier&action=history The comment is: (Challenging the fiction that Mr Grovier has a doctorate from Oxford. To do so, you have to submit a final copy of your thesis to the Bodleian, before the degree is conferred. There is no record anywhere of Mr Grovier having completed this degree.) I now know that this is untrue, and I should not have written it. I cannot undo the comment now as it has been corrected, and I cannot roll back the statement. I wish for this to be removed entirely as there is no truth to the matter and I should not have made this comment on the page. Please can you remove this comment entirely? I would be very grateful.