Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2019 May 14

= May 14 =

Taylor Allderdice High School
John from Idegon thinks he owns Taylor Allderdice High School. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D9CE:6ADE:B23E:6 (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (courtesy ping John from Idegon) You should start a talk page discussion rather than restoring the disputed content. – Teratix ₵ 03:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you follow WP:BRD, you'll have no issues. You are not. John from Idegon (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The fact that Billy Porter attended Allderdice is disputed by only one person: John from Idegon, who it appears from the history of the article has for years has acted as if he controls the article. Anyone who isn't lazy would've done a simple Google search to find Porter did in fact attend Allderdice instead of simply removing it. In the first two seconds of a search, I found these sources: https://archive.triblive.com/news/billy-porters-one-man-show-traces-his-life-onstage-and-off-2/ and https://www.post-gazette.com/ae/tv-radio/2018/12/27/Golden-Globe-nominee-Billy-Porter-Pittsburgh-benefit-concert-synagogue-Pose/stories/201812270112 and https://www.thehistorymakers.org/biography/billy-porter. And he's been listed as a notable alum in the article for many years, yet John from Idegon has never challenged it... until I restored it yesterday after seeing that another editor had inappropriately removed it. That shows an editor who is more interested in control and removal of content, instead of verifying the content for inclusion (even though he's seen that content in the article for many years). As far as the enrollment data, again, that section has been taken from the same source for many years; directly from the school district's website which the site says is updated every October. Yet, even though that data and source have been in the article for years, John from Idegon has now decided to disallow the annual update because he claims for the first time (after all these years) that the school's districts own data is unacceptable because it's a primary source. It's editors like this who drive good editors away from Wikipedia; one's who want to act as boss of articles and make it as difficult as possible to add or update information that no reasonable person would ever challenge. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D9CE:6ADE:B23E:6 (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You cannot demand your edit be retained just because you believe it to be correct; you must collaborate with other users and discuss the matter on the article talk page if it is disputed. Yes, please read WP:BRD. 331dot (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you read? This isn't a matter of opionion. Look at the content, the editing history, and the sources. This is a perfect example of a lazy editor who's more interested in control than in improving articles. He's a button-clicker who loves removing content and showing who's boss, rather than using common sense, looking at the history of the content being discussed, doing a simple Google search, and improving articles. Editors like that are poison to Wikipedia. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D9CE:6ADE:B23E:6 (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Teratix, thanks for formatting that citation I added for Billy Porter. It would've been nice if the lazy editor had taken 10 seconds to find a source (there are many) or ask for one, instead of simply removing the listing which had been there for years. Pure laziness and controlling behavior rather than doing what's in the best interests of the encylopedia. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D9CE:6ADE:B23E:6 (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D9CE:6ADE:B23E:6, that is not how this works. If you want something added to the article, it is your job to add it.  You can't add content with no sources, and then demand that someone else find the sources.  The person who adds the information is required themselves to provide their own sources, which you have done now.  In the future, every addition you make to Wikipedia should include a citation.  If it doesn't, it may be removed by anyone at any time.  See WP:BURDEN.  You have to do your own work.  Calling people lazy because they won't do the work you demand they do is not going to work well for you.  -- Jayron 32 14:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Do your homework first before lecturing me. I did not add the content. I restored content that was there for YEARS. And John from Idegon knew it was there for years because he's apparently on there every single time someone makes even the smallest edit. And the content did not need to be removed. All he had to do was ask for a citation. THAT is why this guy is lazy. Look at his editing history. Look at his talk page. He's an editor who has a great need for control, which is far more important to him than improving articles. So, in this case, he removes one of the school's most famous alum rather than simply asking for a source or finding one himself, which would have taken seconds. People like him are the precise reason so many good editors leave this place. And then there's people like you who spout condescending babble when they know precisely what editors like John from Idegon are doing in their quest for power and control over articles, driving an endless number of editors away. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D9CE:6ADE:B23E:6 (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Just to point out that the text having been there for "YEARS" is completely irrelevant. As Jayron says, if it's unsourced it can be removed at any time.--Shantavira|feed me 08:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikiedia fr-->wikipedia enGuy Cheron (talk) 07:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Is it possible to transfer the page from Guy Cheron done on the french wikipedia but written in english to wikipedia en? Thank you for your answer. I have already an account

Guy Cheron (talk) 07:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I assume that the article on the French Wikipedia has been deleted for being in the wrong language? It doesn't exist now. If you were the only contributor, and you still have a copy of the text, then just copy and paste the text to a new draft article on the English Wikipedia.  If others have contirbuted, then you need to retain the attributions.  Please read WP:Autobiography first.   Dbfirs  14:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I see that you have now done this, but before the article is reviewed, you urgently need to add in-line citations to establish WP:Notability, otherwise it will never be accepted. Please read WP:Referencing for beginners.   D<i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  19:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Notification on respective articles to show there is an ongoing discussion taking place
I posted this question on editor's assistance and haven't got much feedback so I'll post here as well:

I’ve started a discussion on the Game of Thrones talk page regarding an editor who has removed all Infobox images from every episodes article. I thought posting it there would be a good central location, but no one likely knows it’s there.

I’d like to place a template at the top of each episode’s article stating where this discussion is taking place, as there’s rogue convos happening on multiple episode articles' talk pages.

1) Is this allowed? 2) If so, what’s the ideal template?

Thanks!!--Templeowls17 (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some variation on Central? Except you're not proposing to redirect all the episode article talk pages to the Game of Thrones talk page, just have the discussion about the infobox images there. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 13:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yea I checked Central out, but as you said, it doesn't seem to fit. Perhaps Under discussion?--Templeowls17 (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * If no template fits, you could just leave the notice manually. (Per WP:CANVASS, you need to keep it short and neutral: something like Please discuss infobox images for episode articles at.)
 * However, you should certainly leave it on the talk pages, not at the top of each episode’s article (I guess you meant the talk page). Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 15:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)\
 * Yes apologies, I was referring to the talk pages. And sounds good, thanks for the help!--Templeowls17 (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Page Protection
Hello: How do I protect my wiki page from being hacked by unauthorized users? Thanks you. Steve Rochinski — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18e:4101:1c53:9045:9809:aa88:5cb8 (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well you can start by signing your edits (use four tildes: ~ ) so that others can find the page. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as an unauthorized user on Wikipedia. WP:RPP deals with page protection, however that's usually only on articles that have recent vandalism. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are meaning the page Steve Rochinski it is not your page, it is Wikipedia's page about you. You need to read WP:COI and WP:AUTO before making any changes. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Martin of Sheffield, your indentation is incorrect. As it stands, you are replying to Vilenski. You should use one more indent than the person you're replying to. And others could easily find the page since he wrote "Steve Rochinski" for all to see. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D9CE:6ADE:B23E:6 (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Steve, you have no authority to grant or deny the ability to edit the article that is about you; it is not "your wiki page". Almost any page and article on Wikipedia is editable by anyone, unless protected due to vandalism.  You can't protect a page merely to lock it to what you might want it to say. 331dot (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see where the Steve Rochinski page has been edited recently, with vandalism or not. The last edit was on 5 February. † dismas †|(talk) 18:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Steve didn't say that he had a problem with any recent edits. He was simply asking if he could protect what he mistakenly thought was "his" page to prevent any disruptive edits in the future? I'm sure the above comments have answered his question. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D9CE:6ADE:B23E:6 (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * 331dot, as an administrator you should learn how to properly indent. If you are speaking to Steve, then why are you replying to me? Here, I've just found some reading to help you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Talk_pages#Indentation. As it explains, "Each comment should be indented one more level than the comment it replies to, which may or may not be the preceding comment." 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D9CE:6ADE:B23E:6 (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information; instead of harping on users for very minor issues like indentation, do you care to respond to the original question posed? I don't see where you were appointed as an Indentation Police officer.  Thanks 331dot (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * An admin not understanding a very basic yet important process like indentation is concerning. By misuing indents, editors can often mistake your comments as being meant for them when they're actually directed at someone else. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D9CE:6ADE:B23E:6 (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I clearly addressed my comment to its intended reader. I've seen varying methods of indentation across different projects that use this software and even within Wikipedia. Forgive me if I made a mistake. I have not reviewed every single Wikipedia policy in existence; I think few people have.  If you know of ways to better enforce any particular indentation method, please offer them in the appropriate forum.  If you want to continue this discussion, you may post to my user talk page so that we do not load down this discussion.  If you do not intend to respond to the original question, I would suggest moving on. 331dot (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems you are the one who has chosen to load down this discussion and not move on. I made a short simple comment about it to you as a simple FYI. The indentation process is very clear: one additional indent than the editor you're replying to. Hopefully, you'll just follow it so that you can set a good example for others. Best of luck. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D9CE:6ADE:B23E:6 (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

double use of a picture taken by me
I uploaded a pic on the Dutch page on Tonkinese cats. I would like to embed it on the English page as well, but then wiki refers to the fact that this pic has already been used on the Dutch page, only enabling me to dismiss publishing it. I'd think double use should be no problem, as another pic also features on both pages? How to upload it, then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by C soul (talk • contribs)
 * , is it the picture at right? If so the problem may be that you were trying to upload it locally instead of just using the version hosted on Commons. If it's on Commons, you don't need to upload it twice, just use it the way I did here. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 17:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC) Pluche, Tonkinees.jpg

Page Curation
Why I am seeing page curation toolbar on some userpages? I can even mark them as reviewed. Is this a some sort of bug? Sincerely,    <i style="color:#087643;font-face:arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Masum Reza</i> <sup style="color:orange;">☎  19:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You are seeing the page curation tool bar because granted you new page reviewer rights yesterday.  You will see that toolbar on all new pages where the page creator was not autopatrolled and no one else has marked it as patrolled.  It is not a bug.  If it annoys you, there is a way to make it go away. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 19:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No. It doesn't annoy me. But I don't know it's normal for it to appear on userpages. Sincerely,    <i style="color:#087643;font-face:arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Masum Reza</i> <sup style="color:orange;">☎  19:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's more info about the toolbar, what it does, and when it appears. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 19:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What's up with the humorous "problem solving" essay you got there in your signature? Sincerely,    <i style="color:#087643;font-face:arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Masum Reza</i> <sup style="color:orange;">☎  19:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I wrote it quite some time ago (2006). It was a reaction to several other essays/posts/conversations/etc. trying to figure out what is wrong with Wikipedia, and a reaction to several perennial proposals, mostly those having to do with eliminating IP editing.  It was also about 2:00 a.m. when I wrote it, and I tend to become extremely silly when I stay up too late. It was also shortly after the first Esperanza MFD, which was somewhat discouraging, and it was at a time when I was also going through a lot in my personal life that was discouraging.  Nevertheless, to this day I frequently see posts talking about how the "structure" of Wikipedia is the source of all its problems, and I disagree with that.  If humans were perfectly logical, predicable, reasonable, unemotional things, the structure of Wikipedia would be just fine - we aren't.  The problems and fights we see on Wikipedia are the same sort of problems and fights we see elsewhere on the internet and in the real world.  The problem isn't structure or governance, it's human nature, and that's what I'm trying (in a tongue-in-cheek, slap happy, awake at 2:00 a.m., sort of depressed way) to convey with that essay.  Even though I wrote it over 12 years ago now, I still occasionally look at it and think, "yep. That's about right."  So I leave it in my sig. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 20:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * the link is pretty descriptive. The toolbar will show up on any pages that haven't already been curated as per above comment. This includes mainspace, talkspace, userspace and templatespace (as far as I'm aware.) Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)