Help desk | ||
---|---|---|
< December 31 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | January 2 > |
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. |
The article Perley Bridge is in the hidden maintenance category Category:Location maps with possible errors. If I look at the category page, it says "This category contains location maps that appear to contain some type of error, but are still able to render successfully. The sort key will contain the type of error that was detected." Where do I find the sort key containing the error message.
It also seems that the TOC for the category is messed-up. MB 02:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
i myself look forward to the year in edit you do why did you side not do one for 2016? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.0.47 ( talk) 04:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't really know where to put this, but the article that states: 1959 – Cuban President Fulgencio Batista fled to the Dominican Republic as forces under Fidel Castro took control of Havana, marking the end of the Cuban Revolution. there's a mistake, Fidel Castro ended fulgencio Batista's dictatorship on the island, not the "end of the Cuban revolucion". It was the "Cuban revolution" that ousted Batista. Thanks.
Alex.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cohibabros27 ( talk • contribs) 08:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Revert of my edit
Please see the article's
talk page. I think my deletion was correct and appropriate; what do I do now other than just delete it again? Thanks in advance. --
Dyspeptic skeptic (
talk) 12:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
You forgot to add his death on the list of people that passed away in 2016 He starred in M*A*S*H along with Alan Alda Henry Morgan Lorretta Swit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curlychips55 ( talk • contribs) 15:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I posted an article in my Sandbox and the comment says "it reads like an advertisement,' though they don't cite anything specific. And that I posted inappropriate external links. Can someone tell me exactly what part reads like an advertisement? I am trying to state the circumstances as best as I can based on the articles I've read about the company, and the only external link I had was the company's official website, which I've since removed. Although I am confused as other companies in the same industry have their official websites listed in external links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raptorsquad ( talk • contribs) 19:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I wrote an article " Madhu Singhal" . How long will it take to get the Google indexing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudipa Biswas ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I am wondering about a WP policy compliant and constructive way to handle a situation where it has not been possible to reach a consensus.
I have removed some aspects in an article which in my opinion were either off topic, violated WP:BIO or where misinterpretations of sources ( WP:SYNTH). After the original author reverted my changes I went to the talk page and we engaged in an endless tit for tat without convincing each other. After that I started a RFC process to get other opinions. Regarding the crucial aspects (the WP:BIO violation and the WP:SYNTH) the two people who participated in the RFC agreed with my objections (in my eyes). The other editor, however, still does not agree and prevents me from removing the contested contents with the argument that I would need to reach consensus first for removing it. As I call for removing the content and the other editor calls for keeping the (in my eyes misleading) content there seems to be no option for an alternative wording or similar as a consensus.
I know that wikipedia is no democracy and it is clear to me that there may be different opinions than mine on what exactly is "off topic" and what exactly constitutes a good "encyclopedic" article (with no off topic stuff) but the general question bothers me as I see this strategy to boldy revert any edits by other editors and then repeat the same argument again and again in the discussion to prevent a consensus as quiet an effective way to keep questionable content in an article. Especially in an article which is seldomly frequented (there are only 2-3 active editors on the talk page).
How to proceed here constructively? With regards to the "only" off topic stuff I could also just leave it as is and move elsewhere but the WP:SYNTH stuff in my eyes leaves something wrong in the article if I would just leave it know as it is (which seems to be the suggestion of WP:CONSENSUS).
For reference and demonstration (not for WP:CANVASSING!), the article I am referring to is Murder of Maria Ladenburger. Thanks, LucLeTruc ( talk) 23:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Help desk | ||
---|---|---|
< December 31 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | January 2 > |
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. |
The article Perley Bridge is in the hidden maintenance category Category:Location maps with possible errors. If I look at the category page, it says "This category contains location maps that appear to contain some type of error, but are still able to render successfully. The sort key will contain the type of error that was detected." Where do I find the sort key containing the error message.
It also seems that the TOC for the category is messed-up. MB 02:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
i myself look forward to the year in edit you do why did you side not do one for 2016? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.0.47 ( talk) 04:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't really know where to put this, but the article that states: 1959 – Cuban President Fulgencio Batista fled to the Dominican Republic as forces under Fidel Castro took control of Havana, marking the end of the Cuban Revolution. there's a mistake, Fidel Castro ended fulgencio Batista's dictatorship on the island, not the "end of the Cuban revolucion". It was the "Cuban revolution" that ousted Batista. Thanks.
Alex.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cohibabros27 ( talk • contribs) 08:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Revert of my edit
Please see the article's
talk page. I think my deletion was correct and appropriate; what do I do now other than just delete it again? Thanks in advance. --
Dyspeptic skeptic (
talk) 12:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
You forgot to add his death on the list of people that passed away in 2016 He starred in M*A*S*H along with Alan Alda Henry Morgan Lorretta Swit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curlychips55 ( talk • contribs) 15:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I posted an article in my Sandbox and the comment says "it reads like an advertisement,' though they don't cite anything specific. And that I posted inappropriate external links. Can someone tell me exactly what part reads like an advertisement? I am trying to state the circumstances as best as I can based on the articles I've read about the company, and the only external link I had was the company's official website, which I've since removed. Although I am confused as other companies in the same industry have their official websites listed in external links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raptorsquad ( talk • contribs) 19:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I wrote an article " Madhu Singhal" . How long will it take to get the Google indexing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudipa Biswas ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I am wondering about a WP policy compliant and constructive way to handle a situation where it has not been possible to reach a consensus.
I have removed some aspects in an article which in my opinion were either off topic, violated WP:BIO or where misinterpretations of sources ( WP:SYNTH). After the original author reverted my changes I went to the talk page and we engaged in an endless tit for tat without convincing each other. After that I started a RFC process to get other opinions. Regarding the crucial aspects (the WP:BIO violation and the WP:SYNTH) the two people who participated in the RFC agreed with my objections (in my eyes). The other editor, however, still does not agree and prevents me from removing the contested contents with the argument that I would need to reach consensus first for removing it. As I call for removing the content and the other editor calls for keeping the (in my eyes misleading) content there seems to be no option for an alternative wording or similar as a consensus.
I know that wikipedia is no democracy and it is clear to me that there may be different opinions than mine on what exactly is "off topic" and what exactly constitutes a good "encyclopedic" article (with no off topic stuff) but the general question bothers me as I see this strategy to boldy revert any edits by other editors and then repeat the same argument again and again in the discussion to prevent a consensus as quiet an effective way to keep questionable content in an article. Especially in an article which is seldomly frequented (there are only 2-3 active editors on the talk page).
How to proceed here constructively? With regards to the "only" off topic stuff I could also just leave it as is and move elsewhere but the WP:SYNTH stuff in my eyes leaves something wrong in the article if I would just leave it know as it is (which seems to be the suggestion of WP:CONSENSUS).
For reference and demonstration (not for WP:CANVASSING!), the article I am referring to is Murder of Maria Ladenburger. Thanks, LucLeTruc ( talk) 23:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)