Help desk
< August 11	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 13 >

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.

August 12

Minor redirect clean-up - best process if any?

Hi, not sure if this is the best forum to ask. I came across Angus Vicker. (with a trailing dot). Angus Vicker (no dot) also exists and also redirects to Henry Felsen.

Is it appropriate to clean up the redir having the typo? It doesn't do any harm, but nor does it add value. I was going to tag it with {{Db-r3}}, but the text of that template says it applies to "a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer" [emphasis added]. Despite that wording, can we speedy old pages? Or do I need to post it to RfD (which seems like a big process to apply to a small issue)?

Cheers, Pelagic (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could tag it for csd as a housekeeping task or as a bad title. I've anyway done it for you. Lourdes 08:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop accidental rollbacks

So apart from me being a bit more careful, is there a way to stop accidentally rolling back edits. When on mobile and sometimes trying to click through to read or look at peoples edits, I'll hit the rollback button by mistake (managed to do it twice today). Even if I hit the cancel rollback option, I find that the rollback has still be actioned. NZFC^(talk) 05:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:MusikAnimal/confirmationRollback.js (description of the tool at User:MusikAnimal/confirmationRollback). Lourdes 08:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, thank you Lourdes. NZFC^(talk) 08:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delta_IV_Heavy#Upcoming_launches

Hi, is there anyone who could update this article? There was a successful launch a few hours ago. Thanks! Ericdec85 (talk) 10:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have been done, but the point of Wikipedia is that you could do it yourself. Matt Deres (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do with obvious non-declared COI editing that abides by discussion rules??

I've been keeping an eye on the TerraCycle article for a few months now after adding a criticism section and becoming aware that there have been several accounts over the last few years who have only added positive coverage of the company to that article and deleted negative coverage.

Sure enough, after a few weeks, one of those accounts deleted the criticism section. I restored it and put a section on the article talk page, pinging them and warning them not to do it again. The account replied and apologised for not abiding by discussion rules, providing a draft for an "improved" section. The problem is that this "improved" section is obviously written in favour of the company, deleting critical sources and adding in apologies, weasel words and uncritical sources.

I then put a copy-paste section asking for disclosure of paid editing on the account's talk page, to which they replied that they were, in fact, an enployee of TerraCycle. The account has now also gone ahead and put in the new criticism section after I haven't replied to the talk page discussion for a month due to real-life commitments.

I'm therefore asking for help with how to proceed with this situation: Even though the account seems to abide by normal discussion guidelines and has a civil tone of conduct, it is in my eyes obvious that there is a formally undeclared form of paid-for-editing going on. There have been half a dozen accounts involved in this practice on that article in the past, all of which stopped editing at some point, only for the next account to be opened a few months after. Should or can I still expect good faith editing here? And what should be the next stepts?

Thanks for your help! Zarasophos (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that editor claimed to be an employee, then they are not in fact abiding by the rules. See WP:PAID. First, the editor must declare paid status to comply with the terms of service of the owners of this web site. This is a higher level of constraint than the policies and guidelines of the volunteer Wikipedia community. Next a paid (or other COI) editor is not supposed to edit an article directly at all. They violated this guideline when they moved the proposed edit into the article. Your next move is to revert their edit and tell them to read WP:PAID.-Arch dude (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the sentence just above the "publish changes" button on any edit page. The "terms of use" that you agree to are linked to this Wikimedia Foundation page. You agree to these terms when you hit the button. -Arch dude (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zarasophos, I reverted their changes and and left a message for the editor on the talk page of the article. When I have a bit more time, I will look over their suggested changes and give them feedback on it. First thing I notice their is no sources provided by the user but there maybe still stuff that could be changed. I suggest you comment on their proposed changes as well to help. NZFC^(talk) 19:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assessing consensus

I need help with assessing consensus. I saw on my watchlist that User:Legobot removed an "expired RFC template" on Talk:Blond. I took this as the discussion period had ended and I saw that one option was most popular so I tried to edit the article to reflect that. But I have been reverted three times by one person who has made no comments, only saying "I don't think so" and "no consensus", but the consensus seems clear to me. What do I do? NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe a discussion needs formal closing, you can request it at WP:RFCl. Regards So Why 18:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]