Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 October 30

= October 30 =

Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge
Reference 12 is from a book and the publishing date is all wrong. Please help101.182.180.24 (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Crystal_Clear_app_utilities.png|20px]]Thank you for your suggestion&#32;regarding Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  P p p er y 01:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC

Reference number 12 is still incorrect with the publishing date. Please help.101.182.180.24 (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Crystal_Clear_app_utilities.png|20px]]Thank you for your suggestion&#32;regarding Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).
 * You appear to be an experienced editor who occasionally forgets to log in and who repeatedly asks for help with references. You can learn how to fix them yourself.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Although I have fixed up the date on this page - ref number 13 - I am not sure if it is ok for a BOOK ref. Also. I do not know how to do the accent over the word née in the opening section. I have forgotten how to do it. Please help. Sorry101.182.180.24 (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You have 'fixed' ref No. 12. However you have put the 'th' in the date, which is incorrect. To do accents etc. click on 'special characters' at the top of the edit window and find the one you want from the drop-down. Position the cursor where you want it and click on the character. Eagleash (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * There are two sections on your user talk page User Talk:srbernadette telling you what to do if you need 'née'. --ColinFine (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Mary of Jesus de León y Delgado
Personally I think its supposed Jewish origin by their surnames is not very reliable, and there is no page in Google to talk about that.--79.158.133.9 (talk) 08:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This passage looks like "original research": speculation not supported by the sources quoted. I've removed it from the article Noyster (talk),  11:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Unanswered posting removed from Administrator's Helpdesk
What I believe were vexatious edits were recently made to three pages with which I have been involved. I reported this on the Administrators' noticeboard on 26 October (), but I have received no response from an administrator. The posting has now been removed from the noticeboard by a bot in . Should I repost this to the Administrators' noticeboard, or where should I go for assistance with the original problem? Verbcatcher (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Verbcatcher - What was your objective in posting the report, and what would be gained by re-posting it? I haven't read the details of the report, but is the "vexatious editing" still going on?  If there is edit-warring, you would be more likely to get a response at the edit-warring noticeboard.  If you simply want the vexatious editor punished, calm down and remember that blocks are preventive and not punitive.  It may be that the administrators did not think that your report required a response; if so, that is the way it is.  Is the vexatious editing still happening?  If not, go and edit the article; if the disruptive editing recurs, report it at WP:ANEW or again at WP:ANI.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In further looking at it, I see that you are describing it as a talk page issue only, not affecting the content of the article, except for tagging, and that the other editor did reply to you at WP:ANI. Either discuss the matter further on article talk pages, or just drop it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Robert McClenon, I may have been wrong to post the report, but it was submitted in good faith and it seems discourteous and demotivating for it to be deleted without any form of response from an administrator. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Verbcatcher, you've been here five years and have 6700 edits, you know by now how Wikipedia operates. If something isn't a matter that specifically requires admin tools, it's unlikely to get a response at the admin noticeboards—the number of admins is steadily shrinking, and we have our hands full dealing with those situations that do require sysop actions. If there's a a problem which does need sysop action, re-post at WP:ANI explaining what action is being requested and someone will look into it. &#8209; Iridescent 21:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Verbcatcher - When you complained that your post was removed without any response being taken, I assumed, prior to reading the reply by User:Iridescent, that you were a new user and didn't understand the importance of archiving noticeboards after a period. However, Iridescent points out that you have been here five years.  You haven't answered my original question.  What was your original objective in posting the report, and what would be gained by re-posting it?  If you wanted the other user blocked, you should assume that your post was read by administrators and other experienced editors, and that no administrator decided to block, and that no other editor decided to propose a block.  In that case, you didn't get what you wanted.  Crying won't get it.  If you just wanted to record the situation, you did that.  Do you really think that there should be an obligation for someone to respond to every post and say no?  (That has been seriously proposed, that at any given time, an administrator be responsible for responding positively or negatively to all posts.  It isn't our present policy.  If you think that it should be, take that idea to Village pump (proposals).)  As it is, what do you expect would be gained by re-posting?  Is the vexatious editing still going on, or do you just want another editor punished, or what?  If you really think that all posts should be replied to, then propose that.  As it is, what would you expect to gain by re-posting?  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * There was a dispute on two talk pages, and my protagonist escalated the issue by adding tags to unrelated articles in breach of WP:DISRUPTPOINT, and re-reverted when I discussed the issue. I felt it was important to restrict the dispute to the talk pages. I was not seeking any sanctions, just guidance. If this was not meritied then I was not expecting a detailled response, just something like "no action needed" with the section being closed in a violet box and left in place for a few days. This did not happen, the section simply vanished and I had to make a binary search of the page history to see what had happened (it might have been deleted improperly). I queried this here because the bot might have made a mistake (it had deleted another section at the same time). Should the bot have alerted me when it deleted the section? I am not challenging a decision to take no action, but I received no indication that the issue had been considered. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As per the This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors at the top of the page, ANI is a mechanism for notifying admins of situations which require urgent intervention with admin tools, not a general chat page. We have a rump of 517 active admins trying to maintain a semblance of control over the 40,653,479 pages that make up Wikipedia; unless a post at ANI is specific about what administrative action the poster believes is necessary and why, it's unlikely to get a response. As Robert McClenon says above, if you do genuinely feel "don't archive a thread without formal closure by an admin" is necessary write up a proposal at WP:WPP to that effect.
 * With regards to your original query, while long-term stalking is considered unacceptable, it's not only legitimate but expected behaviour for an editor who believes they've spotted a problem with the edits of a particular editor to check other pages they've edited to see if the same problem exists there; given that the three disputed maintenance tags added by DDupard were all correct taggings, I'm not entirely sure what you're actually requesting here. It's not disruptive to point out that something which doesn't have a reference is unreferenced. &#8209; Iridescent 11:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * With regards to your original query, while long-term stalking is considered unacceptable, it's not only legitimate but expected behaviour for an editor who believes they've spotted a problem with the edits of a particular editor to check other pages they've edited to see if the same problem exists there; given that the three disputed maintenance tags added by DDupard were all correct taggings, I'm not entirely sure what you're actually requesting here. It's not disruptive to point out that something which doesn't have a reference is unreferenced. &#8209; Iridescent 11:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * With regards to your original query, while long-term stalking is considered unacceptable, it's not only legitimate but expected behaviour for an editor who believes they've spotted a problem with the edits of a particular editor to check other pages they've edited to see if the same problem exists there; given that the three disputed maintenance tags added by DDupard were all correct taggings, I'm not entirely sure what you're actually requesting here. It's not disruptive to point out that something which doesn't have a reference is unreferenced. &#8209; Iridescent 11:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I posted the issue to the administrator’s noticeboard following the guidelines at Dispute resolution. I raised the issue on the user's talk page (the user moved the discussion to the article talk pages). Our recent history on other talk pages soon led me to conclude that continuing the discussion on the talk pages would be fruitless. This failed to resolve the issue so I followed the guidelines and asked for an administrator's attention on WP:ANI. The dispute resolution guidelines don't say what to do if you are ignored by the ANI, so I came here.


 * The disputed tags were correct by a strict reading of the corresponding template pages, but they were made in total contradiction of DDupard's arguments elsewhere for the retention of unsourced and unlinked names in lists, and amounted to WP:DISRUPTPOINT.


 * My experience of dealing with these issues leads me to conclude that I should change from my consensual style of discussing potentially contentious edits to a more aggressive "shoot first and ask questions later" style. This is because a talk page discussion can soon turn into a prolonged exchange which other editors are unwilling to analyse. However, if there is an edit at the start of a dispute then other editors will take a view on that edit (often ignoring the discussion).


 * In spite of my years as a Wikipedia editor, this is the first time I have encountered this sort of thing, and the first time that I have had to consult the dispute resolution guidelines. I am not experienced with the ANI so I don't plan to propose changes in how it operates. Your work on the help desk probably gives a better position to take a view on this. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge
please help - I have tried to link up in the "History" section the name William Middleton Esq. with the section below that is headed "Generations of Middleton lawyers". I have failed. Please fix Srbernadette (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You have been told in the past how to link to a section. Try Help:Link. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi David Sorry - but I have tried - the thing I am trying to do is have the link on the William Middleton name (linking to the "Generations of lawyers" section ) and also on the link "Esquire" (Esq.) attached to his name which is why I cannot do it. I have checked over and over the   and the  are in the right place. Sorry again David. Please help if you can.Srbernadette (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

This seems to have been fixed by KeithD of whom the same help requests are frequently asked as are made here. Eagleash (talk) 05:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)