Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 April 7

= April 7 =

Help needed with Authority control
I would like some advice about how to create the template for the Authority control (AC) box at the end of a Wikipedia article. I have successfully put an AC box at the end of a Wikipedia article in my English-language Wikipedia sandbox, but in my Russian-language Wikipedia sandbox the AC information in the template sandbox produces only a thin empty box on the article sandbox where the AC box should be. What might I be doing wrong?


 * English-language sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dolzhnikov/sandbox
 * Russian-language sandbox: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0

Thank you.

Dolzhnikov (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see:
 * The 'Russian-language sandbox' URL actually points at the Russian Wikipedia's main page, ru:Заглавная страница.
 * The ru:User:Dolzhnikov doesn't have any sandbox in Russian Wikipedia: ru:special:AllPages/User:Dolzhnikov
 * The ru:User:Dolzhnikov doesn't have any contribution in Russian Wikipedia, except the Wikipedia sandbox: ru:special:contributions/Dolzhnikov.
 * Possibly you mean this version of ru: global Sandbox? --CiaPan (talk) 06:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I suppose AC won't work on Sandbox. You need to make a regular article in the Main space, then link it with versions in other languages (if they exist), supply appropriate data in corresponding Wikidata entry—and then AC template will get filled with those data.
 * Take care when making interlanguage links – en-wiki already has a page about Sue Owen, but they are different persons! --CiaPan (talk) 07:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Why am I blocked for editing?
I got blocked for editing. Shown reason was that I blanked my own talk page multiple times. Primarily, I tried to improve an article but someone did not like it. They started insulting by reverting the past conversation which I considered unnecessary to keep because old ones, and adding insulting messages. I talked against first but they reverted again so I blanked them because I did not like to be insulted in that way. That went on multiple times. The problem was - they were on the administrator side. The claim was immediately accepted to block my account. I believe, however, I did nothing harm to Wikipedia, except I removed messages to insult me on my own talk page. I believe the five pillars supports to do so. I put a reference to corresponding five pillar parts to my and their talk pages and they just removed it. Oh, I forgot to mention that the issue was of Japanese version. Here, administrators behave as if they are guardian to bind users follow their favorite rules to govern, I felt. Well, the question is "Is there any ways I am happy to contribute to Wikipedia any more when I am repeatedly insulted and blocked?" Thank you for constructive suggestions. --Wordmasterexpress (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You have never been blocked, and your user talk page has never been blanked. What are you talking about? -- Hoary (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * this is the help desk for English-language Wikipedia. We have no influence over what happens at Japanese-language Wikipedia, and I doubt people here even know what their policy is for talk page deletions. Maproom (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for replies. It seems Wikipedia of different languages are put under different rules albeit the rules appear to be very similar besides translated.  Under the same rules, though, they once even blocked over major universities for unlimited time which lasted several years.  I think I should quit there.--Wordmasterexpress (talk) 08:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Each language-version of Wikipedia has it own rules, and they can differ quite widely. Maproom (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * We are often asked questions here that we don't understand that turn out to be about other language Wkipedias. As has been mentioned, different Wikipedias with different languages have different rules.  Most of them have their own Help Desks.  We can't help with non-English Wikipedias, and most of use here don't know the other languages.  By the way, you are welcome to contribute at this English Wikipedia, and have not been blocked.  If you have questions about our rules, ask here.  (You may have blocked if you violate our rules, so asking about our rules is a good idea.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, guys, for comments and warm welcoming messages. I try to make some contribution here. Wordmasterexpress (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

wiki page
If people have bit good name and achievements then there is no Wikipedia page for them ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.76.53.6 (talk) 06:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Does Notability (people) answer your question? -- Hoary (talk) 07:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Henley & Partners Visa Restrictions Index
Good day

I submited my draft page titled "Henley & Partners Visa Restrictions Index" on 24 February for review by your editorial board, however I have not heard back from anyone and the page is still not active.

Please advise on next steps?

Thank you

Mara.ispas (talk) 08:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The submission was declined on 24 February because "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." You were notified of that both in the draft header and on your user talk page. What you need to do is rewrite the draft from a neutral point of view and then click the blue "Resubmit" button on the draft. —teb728 t c 08:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Visual Editor Talk Pages
Dear all,

Why is the Visual Editor not available on Talk Pages?

Thankfully,

~Robert orschiro (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * As mentioned at VisualEditor, that is a known limitation / possibly intentional design. I would suggest asking your question at the Wikipedia Visual Editor Feedback page to find out more. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 09:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! Just asked my question there. orschiro (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

amending page name
Hi

I like to amend the page name. Could someone advise ? Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyce See (talk • contribs) 09:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, you need to move the page. As this requires your account to be confirmed, I've moved Mount Alvernia Hospital and Medical Centre to Mount Alvernia Hospital, as from your contributions list, I guess this is what you wanted done. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

EHelp with 'orphan' pages
I have recently had my Wikipedia page approved, however it is currently classed as an 'orphan' page. It says that there are no other articles linked to it, however, there are a lot of internal links throughout the article. Is there somewhere else that I should be linking as well? I really want to improve my page so would appreciate any help.

The link to my page is here: Bourne and Hollingsworth Group

Ilonam23 (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)ilonam23Ilonam23 (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It is an orphan because no pages link to it. Links from it do not affect its orphan status.  If in doubt, please read WP:orphan (linked from the tag on the page). --David Biddulph (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * What David said... And speaking of links, you've overdone it. There is no need, in such a short article, to link the same terms repeatedly. You have 'London' linked at least 2-3 times, 'The Chap' is the same, etc. Once is enough. See WP:OVERLINK.  Dismas |(talk) 12:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Text in patents that has expired
What is the copyright status of text and pictures in US patents that has expired? Can it be copied into Wikipedia? Bytesock (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It depends on the country, the status of the patent usually has no effect on the status of the copyright of the text and images. Read Copyright on the content of patents and in the context of patent prosecution. — crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 16:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Charles Pierrepont, 1st Earl Manvers
Refs numbers 2 and 3 are the same - how do I avoid the doubling up? Please keep all quotes. Thanks 101.189.0.102 (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The method is described at Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * And while you're at it, please ensure that the  parameter contains just the publisher (where appropriate).  There is a separate parameter for the date.  See Template:Cite web (or Template:Cite news which is more appropriate for a newspaper reference). --David Biddulph (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Please help me. Wikipedia editor - David Bulluph - responded to my request a few hours ago, but he has a very high expectation - I  am unable to do the technical stuff he suggests. I thought that refs 2 and 3 on the above page should be "condensed" into one ref - no doubling up. Please do it - we are unable form our end. Thanks 101.189.0.102 (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merged from below -- The Voidwalker  Discuss
 * I have added the named reference. If you would like, I'll go through the references to deal with the  parameter. --  The Voidwalker  Discuss 00:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have also added the  parameter. You can view the changes I made here. --  The Voidwalker  Discuss 00:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you honestly believe that to follow the simple instructions in the links which I gave you above (and have given you on numerous occasions in the past under various IPs and usernames) is a "very high expectation"? The Voidwalker has given you a link to show you what he's done.  If there is something there which you don't understand, please tell us so that we can try to make the instructions clearer for you.  (I notice also that yet again you started a new section though it was a continuation of the existing problem, and The Voidwalker had to waste his time putting the question and the answer into the section where it belonged to tidy the page up and put the question into context.  This again is a point which has been made to you on numerous occasions in the past, but you appear not to listen, or not to understand, or not to take any notice if you do understand.  Again, is there any way that we can make this clearer for you?)  I have asked in the past whether you have trouble understanding English but you have assured me that this is not the case.  (If other editors here think that they can explain things to this editor to get him to understand, please do so.)  --David Biddulph (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Problems trying to save
Hello, Wikipedia won't let me save and is saying it looks like I've tried to save an email address when I haven't. do you know how to get past this warning and publish the page please? Is there an issue with my citations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HannahCostello1986 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Your abuse filter here shows repeated attempts to include an e-mail address in the Newcastle College article, whilst the article history shows your previous edit was reverted by a sysop as "Obvious COI". Before proceeding further, please read our policies on conflict of interest and neutral point of view Since it won't save, I can't see what you are trying to add. Is there anything in your addition that might make a Bot think it is an e-mail address? such as an @ sign? - Arjayay (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi HannahCostello1986 - Please sign all posts on talk pages with 4 tildes ( ~ ) which will add your signature and a timestamp.

How to Complain a user ?
How can I complain a user? /// How can I contact with admins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Source7123 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, please sign your posts on talk-pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ). Your only contributions, apart from posts at this page, seem to be at Battle of Baideng where there seems to be a content dispute in progress. If you are in dispute with another editor over content you should try to resolve it by means of discussion at their, your or the article talk-page. Without knowing the nature of your concern it is difficult to say whether it is something that an Admin. might deal with; they do not typically become involved in content disputes. I do note that there is one edit summary in the article history which might be considered inappropriate. Eagleash (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

extended confirmed user
In my watchlist I see that I have been promoted to an "extended confirmed user." I used to be only "pending changes reviewer and rollbacker". First, let me say that I am honored. Second, let me ask what I can do now that I couldn't do before. Can I diss other users with impunity? Change British spelling to American arbitrarily? Thanks for any insight. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Extended confirmed user privilege is a new privilege, which is given to users who meet the 30/500 criteria (account is over 30 days, and has over 500 edits). It means that you can participate in discussion where ArbCom have added 30/500 editing restrictions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * See section above. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It just allows you to edit a few articles that are restricted to "extended confirmed user". It's not a big deal. Legacypac (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy
Hello. I am trying to understand WP:What Wikipedia is not "Wikipedia is not a directory" item 7. It states: [Not allowed] "Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose. Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted." I am interpreting the exception as allowing a simple list of "CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries". Is this correct? Admins and editors are objecting to this without providing rational grounded in Wikipedia policy. Can a consensus override my citation? Thanks.Formulairis990 (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Your link doesn't work. Perhaps you intended to link to WP:What Wikipedia is not ?  --David Biddulph (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * This is apparently already being discussed at Talk:WNYC#Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees [excluding compensation], where many other editors have given their views. Bringing it here might be regarded as forum shopping.  If you don't agree with the consensus at the article talk page you might want to read WP:dispute resolution.  --David Biddulph (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As I noted on the article talk page, this is a content dispute. It has been discussed at the article talk page, where the discussion is inconclusive.  The advice to seek dispute resolution is good.  This doesn't look like forum shopping to me, but a somewhat loaded question, and this Help Desk tries to give unloaded answers to loaded questions.  Try either Third Opinion or a Request for Comments.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought that Third Opinion applied only for disputes between 2 editors? In this case a number of editors seem to disagree with the OP. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I meant WP:What Wikipedia is not, thank you.
 * Thank you. No forum shopping. No loaded question -- perhaps you mean the bit about the admins not providing "rational grounded in Wikipedia policy". I put that in there to indicate that I have not gotten the above questions answered there, and that that is why I turned here. I also came here to see if I am not missing something before considering turning to WP:dispute resolution. I'm trying to get straightforward answers to pretty straightforward questions: Does the citation allow me to do what I interpret it to do? And can a consensus override such a citation? Formulairis990 (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Short version - no. Consensus determines how facts are presented in an article - and consensus is situational. So no, that citation does not allow you to add a list to an article when multiple other editors object to that list - even if another article has such a list. Your task would be to convince other editors that such a list would improve the article. If there still is no consensus, then perhaps it'd be best to wait until more of the individuals you plan to list are notable - a list of notable individuals is much easier to justify. But either way, that's a discussion you need to have there, and not here. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I was mistaken and had not counted the number of editors involved. Third Opinion is not applicable, because there are multiple editors.  To explain what User:Ultraexactzz has said, a citation is the minimum that is needed to include information.  It does not justify overriding a consensus, because other issues such as due and undue weight apply.  To restate the question, a citation does not override a consensus.  Consensus governs, with the exception that consensus cannot override Wikipedia policy, but Wikipedia policy doesn't require (or forbid) the table, so consensus does apply.  If the editor who wants to include the table disagrees with the consensus at the talk page, Request for Comments is a way to get a larger consensus.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you all, this is helpful.
 * I'm not trying discuss the merits of my edit. That's why I've avoided specifics here. As a new user, I'm trying to understand the process, and reconcile what I've experienced with what I've read on the Wikipedia guidelines/policy pages such as WP:AADD and WP:DISRUPTSIGNS item 4.
 * I strongly believe there is bias. But I am confused if this bias is allowed because it is the consensus POV.
 * "consensus is situational" is very vague to me. How do you determine when consensus is out of bounds biased?
 * Are there policies/guidelines to making an objection?
 * I've been interpreting the objections as making logical fallacies, intentional or not, straight out of WP:AADD, putting aside the ones that I do believe are disingenuous.
 * Doesn't an objection have to address my specific evidence and rational for inclusion? I ask because I've gotten a lot of this isn't interesting because it's not X, but not addressing my specific argument for why there is a large information seeking constituency that would find it interesting for other reasons.
 * Maybe this boils down to how can I determine if an objection is founded/legitimate? I don't mean if I can find an alternative policy meaning due to a missing apostrophe. Formulairis990 (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Train Route
What page is the map of the train route on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.248.144.131 (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What train route? This is your only edit.  I am assuming that you are asking a question about Wikipedia articles.  If not, this is the Help Desk, which is for questions about using and editing Wikipedia.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)