Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 132

Archive 125

←

Archive 130

Archive 131

Archive 132

I can't find sources for this text?

I tried my best to find sources for this but I don't find much. Can someone give me sources about the things that have no sources? SVcode(Talk) 00:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

That was, more or less, pure garbage. What of it was comprehensible at all seemed to be a combination of assertions of some kind of magical properties and a very disjointed "history". If no sources beyond blogs and the like can be found to verify it (I'll check when I have time), it may need to go to AfD. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

And as it turns out, a bunch of it was a copyvio from said blogs as well. So, I've revision deleted all of the stuff that contained the copyright violations. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me this violated copy-right. SVcode(Talk) 00:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Approval status update for https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CrystabelG/sandbox

Hi,

Please, I want to ask if this page I created has been reviewed for approval. I will like to know the status of the page.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CrystabelG/sandbox

Thanks and looking forward to hearing from you. Regards, Segunoloye (talk) 07:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Segunoloye: You have not submitted the draft so nobody will be reviewing it. I have just fixed that here. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks to you Aseleste. Regards with thanks, Segunoloye (talk) 08:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Editorial assistance request

Hi. Could anyone (experienced wikieditor) help me establish a sitting politician's wiki page? I'm a fast learner. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Jackson Friedman (talk) 05:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Jackson Friedman

Jackson, start here: Help:Your first article. You should use an existing "sitting politician" article as a template. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, yep i figured that out in the last few minutes: use an existing pol's article as a template. Thanks! Jackson Friedman (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Determining whether a source is MEDRS

I made an edit which was rolled back on the basis of (the editor said) WP:MEDRS. I provided background on the talk page, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Finasteride#Suicidality_and_psychological_adverse_events

As I explained there, it is not clear why the source is not acceptable under WP:MEDRS. Is there a process for specific determinations of what qualifies as MEDRS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariedegournay (talk • contribs) 21:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Mariedegournay, hello friend. Your source appears to be a single study ("original investigation"). WP:MEDRS requires a secondary source, such as a review article, systematic review, meta-analysis, guideline, or practice guideline. The way I like to search for MEDRS compliant sources is I go to PubMed, I do my search, and then I turn the following 4 filters on: review, systematic review, meta-analysis, MEDLINE. MEDRS is one of the more complicated areas of the encyclopedia, and it took me months to get a good feel for it. I would be inclined to trust Alexbrn's judgment in this area, as he has a lot of experience editing medical articles. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae Thanks for the quick and clear reply. Mariedegournay (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging noticeboard about RfC after discussion has started

Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi all, I recently opened my first RfC after a prolonged article talk page (then my user talk page) discussion with an editor after I reverted their blanking of Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence's "Controversies" section. Several editors have replied in support of my decision but have said little else. A similar number of editors have said the section needs significant work and have challenged that the article should count as WP:FRINGE.

Would I be considered WP:FORUMSHOPping if I were to link to the RfC at WP:FTN? I only tagged the talk page of a related article and the general science RfC category when I posted it several days ago. Thank you! —Wingedserif (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Wingedserif If you follow the spirit of WP:APPNOTE it should be ok. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Bare URLs reFill

Bare URLs reFill has stopped working for me, others?. Is there another tool? I have used in the past, based on reFill:

• http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/view/Reflinks

And

• http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py
• But, they are not working also. Anyone know of a working automatically or semi-automatically adder of information to references using data present in the web page?,

Thank you, Telecine Guy (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Telecineguy: For me right now, the replacement for reFill is to use the automatic cite function of the VisualEditor. However, it is not as convenient as reFill since you need to copy-and-paste each URL yourself. At least better than nothing though. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Changing content on a page about a public person

Hey, my girlfriend is a recording artist and she has tried several times to edit false information and misquotations on her page. Even after she edits the content, it soon reverts back to what's currently posted. The most glaring issue on her page is a sourceless quotation that she never stated anywhere. Why does her page keep revering back, and what will it take to make her edits permanent?

Thanks in advance for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.193.234 (talk • contribs)

Hello! Many people find it difficult to edit WP-stuff about themselves per WP:Conflict of interest, basically they want to do what they want to do instead of editing according to WP:Biographies of living persons, WP:PROMO etc. See also WP:OWN on "permanent". This doesn't mean that you/she can't have some influence. You can make suggestions on the article's talkpage (always the place to start). If you mention what article (hard to have an opinion otherwise), a few changes you'd like to see and WP:RS that backs them up someone here may be willing to take a look, we can be quite energetic about WP:Biographies of living persons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding the unsourced quote, instead of removing it (and violating the conflict of interest rules), consider placing the "{{cn}}" template immediately after it. That doesn't change the content but does warn readers that the "quote" may not be genuine. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Obvious change is reverted without comments

I had made an obvious short change in that article. My fix was reverted with no comments at the article's talk page. So what to do next? 5.18.238.114 (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

You provided no source to support the change. The text around the edit and the images strongly suggest your change is inaccurate. You can open a discussion on the talk page if you feel the text is incorrect as written, the editor reverting is under no obligation to do so. If you do so, please provide a source as more than just one word would need to be changed to support the edit. Slywriter (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

As I said I had already opened the discussion at the talk page with the direct link to confirming photo. It seems it is ignored. BTW, this photo of Wat Phra Kaew is taken from the page describing types of the "chofa"s and it is used to illustrate "Garuda's type". So there are only two options here: it is Garuda type chofa or the discussed text is not a description of chofa but other decorative element - "hang hong". Anyway, what to do next? 5.18.238.114 (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

You can just wait for other editors to respond on the talk page. Hopefully you get two others to weigh in. Then you see if theres a majority to make the change or not. This is part of the WP:BRD process. Hope this helps.–Novem Linguae (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Messed that up in two ways, missed the talk page and then mistook IPs Diff for current. Anyway, looks like Talk Page has activity and IPs one word correction will get in the article eventually, as the text supports Garuda. Sorry IP. Slywriter (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)