Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

International Music Score Library Project

Stale

 – This no longer seems to be an active issue. If that changes, feel free to remove this status and comment on ongoing issues. Murph9000 (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

There has been some repeated undos for this article. Can someone take a look? There are some discussions on the talk page too. 2601:182:C904:998:D86F:1D86:41D8:102 (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

This style of link International Music Score Library Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) will make it a little easier to allow others to check on things. MarnetteD|Talk 01:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarized figure for PID controller

Answered

 – Murph9000 (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe that my work has been plagiarized by User:Zerodamage. On 27 January 2013, I uploaded the below figure and on 22 June 2016, Zerodamage has substantially copied without alteration my work and has not given attribution in the description statement. Zerodamage then modified the PID controller page to use their image instead of mine. I believe that this usage falls under the Wikipedia:Plagiarism policy as the first case: copying from an unacknowledged source. Since this is considered the most egregious form of plagiarism, I have decided to request editor assistance. My work has been attributed correctly elsewhere (see [1] under the video information). Given that Zerodamage copied the figure without referencing my work, then modified the PID controller page to substitute for my work, I cannot make a case for good faith on the part of Zerodamage.

Zerodamage's archived image (dated 10 December 2011) which has a significant error in the diagram	[2]
My image (dated 27 January 2013), modified from the archived image and does give attribution to the original work in the description
Zerodamage's current image (dated 22 June 2016) which does not give attribution to my work in the description

TravTigerEE (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@TravTigerEE: I offer this as an opinion from a non-lawyer who has significant experience and knowledge of intellectual property law.

1. This is not plagiarism. It is not wholesale copying without attribution because User:Zerodamage was already responsible for the majority of the work copied, and a quick application of WP:AGF says that it was an innocent action which at most requires clarification of the edit history. The portion of the earler work which Zerodamage did not hold the copyright for, was owned by the preceding author which was already acknowledged in Zerodamage's earlier upload.
2. Your action in uploading a minor change under a new name contributed to the issue. The better course of action would have been for you to upload your changed version under the original name, which automatically preserves the edit history for all to see. To me, it is roughly equivalent to the strongly discouraged WP:CUTPASTE.
3. In your image, the majority of the copyright, possibly all of the copyright is actually owned by the previous authors. The change in your derivative work was so small that it may not actually qualify for copyright protection, if it was simply to correct the "u(t)" label without any other changes (I didn't spot any other changes on a quick glance, but this analysis could be wrong if there are more extensive changes involved). A relatively trivial change to create a new derivative work, even where it is to correct an important mistake, does not necessarily create a new copyright interest, especially when the majority of the work is copied verbatim. Regardless of this, as a matter of basic courtesy and good practice, your correction of the "u(t)" label should normally be acknowledged and recorded in the edit history.
4. While I actually believe that you do not truly own any copyright due to the change being too small for protection, it is reasonable to acknowledge/record your contribution by simply editing the description on the original image name.

Others may have alternate opinions, but I believe that User:Zerodamage did not do anything significantly wrong here, that the action (on both sides) was most likely in good faith and innocent, and that it is all a quite minor issue which at most just needs a small tweak to the summary info under the original image name (and possibly deletion of the redundant "updated" image created by User:TravTigerEE).

Murph9000 (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

all

Answered

 – Referred to WP:PG. Murph9000 (talk) 11:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Please, make it policy to have valid proven trusted bibliography. I've seen 10,000 citations needed and bullcrap is everywhere. If it's a free for all then everybody knows nothing but what gethro without a ged had to say about life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.158.180.73 (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Not an issue for Editor assistance. Referred elsewhere

 – Your request is far too vague to be actionable here. It does not highlight specific problem instances. This is not an appropriate place for general (not specific to a particular article/edit) discussion of policies and guidelines, which largely already cover everything you said. Murph9000 (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Edwin Brown Firmage

Answered

 – Referred to WP:RA. Murph9000 (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Please create a biography of Edwin Brown Firmage - politician, Mormon, professor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.183.153 (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This forum is for help on how to edit, not to request articles. Place your request at requested articles after reading the instructions there carefully. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

"Did You Know" content

Answered

 – Murph9000 (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

While I am pleased to see Mexico featured in the "Did You Know" section of the homepage, I wonder if the selection of articles is biased: All of said articles refer to living Mexican politicians. Might there be some bias or an agenda involved? Thanks. Cuatito (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• The selection is based on personal choice when it comes to article creation. DYK articles have to be new (nominated within 7 days of creation) or expanded 5 times or promoted to GA. It seems to be one or two editors who are prolific article creators. Since I don't know Mexican politics I could not tell you if they only represent one political view (I don't believe so myself). Not sure how to address this since all article work is on a voluntary basis and we cannot dictate what subjects are covered?  MPJ-DK  21:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

K. Kumar Ref Error

Resolved

 – --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

K. Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've been working through Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting and this is the only page I have left. I cannot seem to find where or what the ref error is on this specific page. Can anyone help? Silverseren^C 01:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed -- John of Reading (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Our company Wikipedia article vanished...

Answered

 – --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Software MacKiev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article on our company "Software MacKiev" seems to have been deleted sometime in the past few months. Any chance to restore it or we have to start from scratch? Any way to find out why it was deleted (to keep that from happening again in the future)? Thanks, Jack Minsky, President, Software MacKievJack Minsky (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems to have been deleted twice over the past 10 years, most recently as non-notable, under the terms of WP:PROD. If you wish to recreate the article, you'd best contact the deleting editor. See here for a link to that editor's talk-page. I'm just passing by here, btw, and can be of no more help than this. Haploidavey (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Minsky: It looks like the article was deleted via proposed deletion, which is a process for deletions where it's believed they will be uncontroversial. If anyone challenges a proposed deletion, the deletion gets stopped, or reversed if the article was already deleted. You're clearly objecting, so I'll go ahead and undelete the article. Since the deletion is now contested, I'll put it in for a full discussion at articles for deletion, where the community will discuss whether or not the article should be deleted. You're welcome to participate in the discussion there if you wish. Please also do have a look at our advice on editors with a conflict of interest—it is very, very difficult to stay neutral when writing about yourself, your own company, etc. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

2Leaf Press

• 2Leaf Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Draft:2Leaf Press (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

2Leaf Press was deleted and I would like it put back up.

The purpose of the 2Leaf Press entry is to inform the public about its existence and how it is structured, not to promote, which is already achieved by its website and social media. With respect to the notability issue, since 2Leaf Press is not a scholarly press, there would be no reason for it to be listed under JSTOR and should not be held against the 2Leaf Press entry in Wikipedia. 2Leaf Press is well-regarded in the literary and small press world. It isone of the few minority-owned publishers in the country. It has published world renowned writers (note internal Wikipedia links of writers); all books have ISBN and LCCN assignments and are listed in WorldCat; and the press sells books online and in bookstores around the world. This is factual and not promotional. With the revised references, and the fact that the 2Leaf Press entry closely follows the format of entries by Coffee House Press and Milkweed Editions, I look forward to the 2Leaf Press entry being put back up.

Gdavid01 (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gdavid01: The article was deleted by Tokyogirl79 (talk · contribs) for failing to meet Wikipedia's strict WP:NOTABILITY standard (see also WP:NCORP for the specific standard for companies). It was also flagged for being too promotional, which can sometimes be down to the general tone of the article. Both of those issues would need to be addressed before the article could remain; and it would be under constant threat of deletion if restored and the issues remained. Failing to meet the notability standard does not necessarily mean that the company can never have an article, it can mean that the article simply failed to properly establish the notability (including citations to reliable sources), or failed to clearly demonstrate it. Most of us can't see the deleted article to offer any specific advice or opinion on its contents. In the first instance, contacting the deleting administrator can be a useful step, to get some detail on their thoughts about it. Beyond that, there are the WP:REFUND and WP:DELREV processes. Informally talking to the administrator is usually the best first step, and can avoid the need for more formal process. See also WP:YFA for some good general advice on what it takes to successfully avoid deletion of a new article. I strongly recommend not creating the article directly in the future, but first creating it as Draft:2Leaf Press, where it can be worked on in a less pressured environment and there is a review process to ensure that it meets required standards before being moved into the main article space. Murph9000 (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a response to my initial inquiry.

As per Criticism of Wikipedia, this deletion is based on the question of “notability standards” which appear to be “arbitrary and essentially unsolvable” and biased. If a reviewer has never heard of an entity or an individual, that should not be the basis of deleting an entry. I note that the corporate publishers have no problems acquiring a listing on Wikipedia, however, small presses such as Milkweed Editions, New Rivers Press, AK Press, have all been queried for notability when in fact, they have been around for years, have published notable people, and are known in literary circles. 2Leaf Press was established in 2012 and has published notable authors. If the reviewer does not believe 2Leaf Press to be notable, how can that be when many of 2Leaf Press’ authors have Wikipedia pages? How can the authors be good enough to acquire an entry in Wikipedia and therefore considered “notable,” but the press that has published them not notable”? If we can agree that corporate presses and publishing houses have the ability to have greater access to publicity and listings, how can a Wikipedia reviewer expect a smaller press to have access to those same resources so that it can be considered “notable" in the eyes of the reviewer? If Wikipedia’s sole purpose is to provide encyclopedic information, it should be based on the merits of the entity, not whether one believes it is “notable” enough for a listing. If this is the case, dictionaries and encyclopedias would be a few sheets of paper instead of the volumes of material of people, places and things both notable and not notable.

Secondly, how is this entry specifically “promoting” as opposed to “informing”? It is easy to tell me to refer to an article, but unless you are specific in your critique, it makes no sense. I look at this entry and see it no different than the Coffee House Press entry or other small press entries that exist on Wikipedia.

Based on the above, I ask that this entry be put back up and ask the reviewer to please provide a specific critique so that it can be properly corrected as per Wikipedia standards. Thanks. Gdavid01 (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Gdavid01, did you talk to the deleting administrator as I advised above? You need to do that. Posting critical messages here will achieve very little, and does not help your case. Murph9000 (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• The page was fairly promotional in tone, which was part of the reason that the page was nominated and part of the reason I deleted it. There were multiple things that came up as promotional. For example, in several places you referred to the founder as "David", which is too casual at best and at worst is a common promotional tactic used by marketing departments in order to make a topic more relatable to the reader. Other elements that came across as promotional were statements like the one below:

People wrote on leaves in ancient times (so we have the theme of past revived), and the imagery of green leaves, falling leaves, and dead leaves have been tropes in fiction and poetry practically since that time.

This is problematic for several reasons. The first is that it's a bit WP:OR and is written in a flowery language unsuitable for Wikipedia, partially because language like that can so easily be seen as promotional. Then there were outright promotional phrases like this one:

Since its founding, 2Leaf Press has injected new blood into the contemporary literary scene with emerging and established authors by producing strikingly unconventional books like novellas, off-beat memoirs, cool books of photography and illustrations, travelogues, song lyrics and epic poetry.

That's outright promotional and uses various WP:BUZZWORDS and WP:PUFFERY phrases like "injected new blood" and "strikingly unconventional". That is at best a personal opinion and at worst marketing type. Then there are things like the one below:

The press also creates high-quality industry standard (IDPF) eBooks, which are available on Kindle, Nook, Kobo, Google Play and iTunes.

Not only does this contain promotional buzzwords, but it's considered to be extremely promotional to tell people where they can buy a company's stuff. It's also unnecessary because it's generally assumed that a publisher's work will be available on at least one of the major retailer sites. The only time that this is worth mentioning is when the sale location is something that has gained a large amount of coverage for that alone. For example, a notable self-published author who only releases his work on CreateSpace is likely to get quite a bit of attention for that fact, so it'd be worth mentioning in their article that they published there - although saying something like "it's available on..." is unacceptable because it's promotional.

That's just the promotional content. There was also some issues with notability as well, as the sourcing was almost entirely WP:PRIMARY. You used sourcing like this, which is a routine database listing. The notability was borderline as far as A7 goes and if it had just been that, I'd have opted towards declining and recommending that Reddogsix take it to AfD. However because it was so unambiguously promotional, I deleted it.

Now as far as the notability standards being biased and my not having heard of the publisher, I actually have heard of this publisher before. I'm also aware that notability standards are difficult for smaller and independent publishers to pass, but they must still pass overall notability guidelines and the article must still be neutral.

I also have to ask - do you have a WP:COI in this situation? If so you must disclose this. Rubyperl, who created the article, must disclose this as well - which I noticed they did not do. As far as I can tell (granted I didn't look very hard) you have not disclosed any COI either and I see that your userpage contains an article about someone who has published with this publisher. The article was so promotional that it's extremely unlikely that the article wasn't written by a marketing person, freelancer, or someone who was otherwise paid or asked to create the article. Promotional content like the type written above is extremely common with COI editors. I'm aware that you did not create the article, however there's enough in your edit history to suggest that you have an extremely strong tie to the company. There's also the question of a related article up for deletion that looks like it's written about you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• I've opened up a COI/N report here, since I'm just very concerned that it looks like there has been a concentrated effort by at least one editor to promote the magazine since 2012. It's been far more concentrated lately, but it's still an attempt to promote the magazine and without any sort of disclosure. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

2Leaf Press

Thanks for your response.

In as so far as disclosure, here it is: A number of students at University of Connecticut asked why 2Leaf Press and its entities were not on Wikipedia. I explained that I could not do it because of the conflict of interest, so they offered to do it (they took information from the website, and I answered a few questions), and I have since stayed out of it. It was only when Rubyperl, who was responsible for the actual submission, got hit with the notices that she came to me for help and I stepped in to help figure out these notices, including the issue about citations and references, and helped with formatting the info box. This is it. This is the disclosure.

In the past, when I have posted Wikipedia entries, the reviewer helped guide through the process by indicating specifically what the problems were up front so that corrections could be made to make the entries Wikipedia correct. In this case, you did not do this. Instead, you merely said it was up for deletion, was promotional and not notable. The fact that it took several weeks to get a response since the initial submission, and then be given less than 24 hours to respond with the threat of deletion is very disconcerting. At least now, you have provided a guideline that is doable, and for that I am appreciative.

I have been writing for many years, and the idea that the entry is “literary” and “promotional” is subjective at best. For example, the line:

The press also creates high-quality industry standard (IDPF) eBooks, which are available on Kindle, Nook, Kobo, Google Play and iTunes.

was written this way to let people know about the different venues and formats the eBooks are available in, but can be simply changed to:

The press also creates industry standard (IDPF) eBooks, which are available in Kindle and ePub formats. [with a citation to explain that ePub means the other venues, because most people don’t know this]

Also, “Industry standard” is an important distinction because many small presses publish eBooks using Word documents, which is not industry standard.

The statement:

Since its founding, 2Leaf Press has injected new blood into the contemporary literary scene with emerging and established authors by producing strikingly unconventional books like novellas, off-beat memoirs, cool books of photography and illustrations, travelogues, song lyrics and epic poetry.

was taken directly from the website and could be rewritten to read:

2Leaf Press publishes emerging and established authors and produces unconventional books like novellas, off-beat memoirs, books of photography and illustrations, travelogues, song lyrics and epic poetry.

You said that the statement:

People wrote on leaves in ancient times (so we have the theme of past revived), and the imagery of green leaves, falling leaves, and dead leaves have been tropes in fiction and poetry practically since that time.

is flowery and promotional? How so? It is a fact. See Palm-leaf manuscript. Also, stating that the imagery of leaves “have been tropes in fiction and poetry” [3] are both facts that are tied into the naming of the press. Obviously, you do not see it this way, and rather than argue, we can just cut the line out.

Finally, you stated:

For example, in several places you referred to the founder as "David", which is too casual at best and at worst is a common promotional tactic used by marketing departments in order to make a topic more relatable to the reader.

The last name of the person is David. How is that casual? We can refer to the individual as the “founder” if you like.

I apologize that I came on strong, but at this juncture, is there any way we can work together to finalize this? These students have worked very hard to put this material together and I have spent a day and a half trying to find a clear path to help them complete this task. Thanks for your efforts. Gdavid01 (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)