Help desk | ||
---|---|---|
< January 25 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | January 27 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
Siege of Martyropolis (502) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Siege of Martyropolis (502) article needs to be deleted, in my opinion. I tried to add the template, but it says "The template requires Substitution." I cannot resolve this, or figure out how to properly add the template and get the article recommended. Can someone help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvertide goldwaves (talk • contribs) 04:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
~~~~
. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Was reading Just Enough Operating System and saw a See Also link about some software where the name was changed. Also development on that software was discontinued.
It should be fine how I wrote it, right? That line of the See Also list reads "Container Linux (discontinued)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by NomadicVoxel (talk • contribs) 02:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello. My name is ZX2006XZ. I have been editing an article about this film titled Blazing Samurai. Apparently, I have tried to keep the original poster in, while others decided not to. Since the file is close to deletion, is there a way for it to be exported to Wikimedia Commons? Thanks in advance.
File:BlazingSamuraiPromotionalPoster.png
ZX2006XZ (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
So, what can I do to make sure the file isn't deleted? ZX2006XZ (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I have added this request, but not yet completed. I am waiting since july 2020. The subsequent requests was completed. Why my request is ignored? I have added in the wrong page? --2001:B07:6442:8903:6455:65B4:A049:9D16 (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Good day,
I have made contributions to the Narrative Designer page, which to my frustration keeps being wiped clean and edited by an unknown user named Fracone. This user keeps inserting the promotion of a particular person to this page without adequate proof that support their claim. I therefore wrongly assumed that these two persons are the same people.
In my latest edit I frustratingly added this description to my edit: "Restored original article. [person] (Fracone) edited the article again to refer to himself." - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narrative_designer&action=history
(Name removed with [person] to protect the actual individual.)
Since I cannot prove my claim that said person is the same as the user I feel that I may violate privacy policies or that my edit is subject to slander. Though I stand by the content of my edit, I do not wish to wrongly accuse, insult or publicly blame any individual for the actions of another.
I again apologize for my rash behaviour and request that this description is removed from public view for the safety of all involved.
Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudolf Buirma (talk • contribs) 16:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
can you help publishing darft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fakhar-i-Abbas this draft is as it is since last one year and you can see there is alot of demand of this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrFiA (talk • contribs) 15:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
Where is the best place on Wikipedia to learn the basics for writing a contribution that falls within all the guidelines and rules for creation, submission, and know removal votes? I want to contribute correctly. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by LorenzoJ22 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
How do I create pages easily on mobile?— Preceding unsigned comment added by AssumeGoodWraith (talk • contribs)
How do you use references with webpages? TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@RudolfRed: and @Tenryuu: Alright thanks. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
How do I start a wikipedia page about a notable figure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiltonHilton76 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
~~~~
. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) GoingBatty (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)I seem to remember encountering a tool which compares two pages and lists all the editors in common (editors that edited both pages). Yet, I cannot for the life of me find it now. Am I just imagining there's such a tool or have my searching skills failed me? Melmann 21:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
comm <(editors.py article1 | sort | uniq) <(editors.py article2 | sort | uniq)
I made a few edits to the "List of Shakespeare authorship candidates" page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Shakespeare_authorship_candidates. On December 18, 2021, a previous Wikipedia editor, Wham2001, had added this citation: "Percy, William, poet and playwright; proposed by Anna Faktorovich.[57]" And this citation: "https://anaphoraliterary.com/attribution/ British Renaissance Re-Attribution and Modernization Series" by Anna Faktorovich. Anaphora Literary Press. The format of Wham2001's citation was incorrect, as Wham2001 failed to add a bibliographic entry, like the one I added in my edit earlier today: Faktorovich, Anna (2021). Re-Attribution of the British Renaissance Corpus. Anaphora Literary Press. ISBN 979-8-49958-765-2. Wham2001 also failed to include separate candidate listings for the other 3 authors I attributed with "Shakespeare's" texts in my study that have not been previously mentioned by any other researchers: Josuah Sylvester, Gabriel Harvey and William Byrd. In my edit, I corrected the bibliographic error firstly (I am a subject-expert in this as I was granted a Bibliographic Fellowship with the Modern Languages Association, where I helped to edit the MLA Bibliography, so bibliographic errors bother me). I also added the other candidate listings with precise and accurate citations of who they are and what they wrote. Wham2001 had already cited my study, so I was not adding any new self-promotions, but merely correcting Wham2001's misunderstanding of my findings. But later today, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, first undid all of the edits I had made claiming a researcher cannot edit mistakes connected with their own research. When I complained about this undoing, Sång deleted all mentions of not only my name, but the credits to all authors I listed as candidates, including Percy, who Wham2001 had previously included. My edits were essential bibliographic corrections to comply with Wikipedia citation style. It is erroneous to credit only Percy and not the other four authors I attribute with different "Shakespeare" texts in Volumes 1-2 of my Series, Re-Attribution of the British Renaissance Corpus. I am a "subject-expert" in this field, as I have previously published two scholarly books with McFarland (Rebellion as Genre and Formulas of Popular Fiction). I would very much like to understand the rules of editing on Wikipedia, so I can make other changes that my research has corrected in the errors with the current British Renaissance attributions; but it seems that Sång's intention is to censor my research, and not to make sure accurate information is communicated. The data regarding who I credit as authors of specific texts (including the corrections I am making to this "Shakespeare" authorship page) is available for free to the public here: https://github.com/faktorovich/Attribution. It cannot be impossible for a researcher and subject-expert to make edits on Wikipedia regarding the subjects one is an expert in; the rules you cite are vague as they do not forbid the mention of all self-published books, nor do they forbid all self-citation; I followed the rules as they are written. The goal is editing the relevant pages with truthful and accurate information, isn't it? So why would any Wikipedia editor choose to delete accurate bibliographic edits? The retaliatory deletion of all mentions of me and my research in return for my complaints of unfair failure to accept an accurate edit is also extremely malicious and clearly cannot be compliant with Wikipedia's intended rules. So far the first response I received in the talk-page on this subject is that my findings are not yet famous enough to be mentioned because I have not been discussed in the "Guardian"; this is an absurd reason for the exclusion, since Wham2001 found out about my research, perhaps from the 651 comments about it on LibraryThing: https://www.librarything.com/topic/337240 Faktorovich (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I have engaged in a discussion on the article's talk page, and have gotten the editors involved. I have added overwhelming citations/ proof of the content's accuracy and my credentials as a subject-expert. I don't know if any quantity of evidence is capable of convincing these editors to see reason. This is why I have also posted this problem here to open the discussion to Wikipedia's broader community. "Dialogue" does not improve if either side says shorter bits of text, but rather should only improve when anybody has a "wall of text" in support of their position. If there is no equivalently-sized "wall" of textual evidence for the opposing position; then, the bigger and more accurate wall wins; if the contest is fair and rational. My goal is to communicate truthful attributions for the British Renaissance; just because I am the researcher who has arrived at these truths cannot mean that I cannot edit citations that incorrectly interpret my assertions. There is no room for me to include a wall of citations to support my findings on this "Shakespeare candidates" page; I have included the precise number of citations as all of the other candidate entries, but mine are being censored. I would be delighted to invite Wham2001 and all others involved to the conversation, I assumed that mentioning Wham2001's name achieved this. Assuming the editors will not make any further replies to me on the "Candidates" page, I hope somebody on this page will actually look up this discussion and my points above and will actually respond to the concerns I am raising here to invite all editors across Wikipedia to comment on this question of accuracy and fairness that is important to all editors. Faktorovich (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)