Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 April 8

Help desk
< April 7	<< Mar | April | May >>	April 9 >

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.

April 8

What is wrong with the EB1911 template?

For some reason, articles that incorporate parts of the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica (and there are alot) no longer have the relevant article in the template. Instead it has a red link for article name given, that only leads to the wikisource main page for the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica. For instance, from Hecataeus of Miletus

It seems to be working now. I think what happened was that an improvement to the template contained a stray extra pipe, which was then fixed here but it may have taken a while for that fix to propagate. Anyway, I checked three articles using it and it was working in each. Are you still seeing the error?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

==Sources==

• This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

So what gives? Why aren't the relevant articles linked like they used to be and how do with fix it?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be working now. I think what happened was that an improvement to the template contained a stray extra pipe, which was then fixed here but it may have taken a while for that fix to propagate.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I still see it in a few places such as Cyclopædia, or an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not previously familiar with this template, but my reading of the documentation is that at a "minimum", you must provide a title parameter: if at Wikisource using |wstitle=; if elsewhere using |title= in conjunction with other parameters, depending on what you want to do. There is a footnote next to the section stating what the "Minimum is:", that in turn says "It will also work with no parameters, but that sets a category flagging that no article name has been given..." and that does seem to be non-functioning now, in articles like the one you linked above that contains no title parameter. Maybe that is a result of the recent edits by User:PBS, who will now be pinged here. Anyway, it was probably always a good idea to have fixed uses that did not contain the title parameter. Now there's more incentive! --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Not broken. Without an article name how to validate the citation, because what we are saying is somewhere in the 26 volumes and tens of thousands of articles there is some text copied into this Wikipedia page, but we are not telling you where to look instead you can spend time finding it yourself. Without an article title as a minimum (vol and pages should also be given) it does not meet WP:V or guidance in WP:CITE. EB1911 is a wrapper around {{cite encyclopedia}} which now also puts out a red warning message if certain parameters are absent:

• {{cite encyclopedia}}: Empty citation (help)

-- PBS (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

So, if I understand correctly, we are no longer giving an article title, but asking the reader to find where the information came from themselves? While that might be OK when the article to go to is obvious, there are cases when the citation is under a different one from the title ergo Cyclopædia, or an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences where the citation is under Chambers, Ephraim or Ch'unchu people where the citation is Chuncho. It could be more user friendly.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Bellerophon5685, quite the contrary. For years the {{EB1911}} template silently ignored the fact it did not have a wstitle= or title= parameter (I will in future in this conversation combine the two into: [ws]title=). Now we advertise the fact that the EB1911 has no [ws]title= parameter in the hope that an editor will add one. This is because we do not want readers to have to scan all 27 volumes to find the EB1911 article. Here are links to an overview category that will help you understand the size of the problem:

• Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica

In total there are 16,163 Wikipedia articles that contain either a {{cite EB1911}} or {{EB1911}} template most of the {{cite EB1911}} (about 4,000) have a [ws]title parameter. There are 12,204 Wikipedia articles that contain a {{EB1911}} template of which just under 6,000 do not have a[ws]title= parameter. This is for historical reasons. The {{EB1911}} is a very old template. It was created at 01:41, 8 December 2003‎ and at first had no parameters, therefore there is a large backlog of historical usage with no parameters. Eg. one of the the examples you give (Ch'unchu people) where there was no parameter to the EB1911 template until you added it was created on 19 December 2005 and was part of this historical backlog. However the {{Cite EB1911}} was created in January 2009‎ and from the first took an unnamed parameter for the article name (those were eventually converted to take the wstitle= parameter) and so the vast majority of this template has a parameter.

I have looked at the three articles you have recently edited that contained the template {{EB1911}} none of them had a [ws]title= parameter before you added them. So the change has not been to hide "the relevant article in the template" instead it now highlights the fact that there is no parameter in the hope that an editor such as yourself will add one. I did this for two reasons the first is that now that the main citation templates (such as {{cite encyclopaedia}} use a WP:LUA module and report errors as documented in Help:CS1 errors it seemed time to pass through unnamed parameters for error reporting and to warn of templates without a [ws]title= parameter (I forgot to update the template documentation to match the change. I will do that shortly). The number of just under 6,000 Wikipedia articles with the EB1911 template and no article parameter used to be several thousand more. The main editor currently working on reducing it (by adding [ws]title parameters) is David Brooks, but as the ^{article name needed} banner has led to at least one other editor (yourself) to realise that the EB1911 template needs a [ws]title parameter (and added them in several instances), this is proof that the red banner is helping reduce the backlog ☺. Also I have given a couple of example on the talk page of the template, where the passing of unnamed parameters to LUA had flagged errors in other parameters that have now been fixed. -- PBS (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@PBS: The change you made the footnote is good. I'm wondering, though, if it should taken out of the footnote and in fact made extremely prominent, maybe even placed in the first usage section. I would think with the new error message that 99% of the people looking at this documentation will be people seeing the error message and visiting the documentation to see what what the problem is and the solution.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, but they can click on the red link, it takes them to index on Wikisource (a hint); and as there is now a message with {{cite books}} etc :{{cite book|first=Fred |last=Smith |publisher=A Good Publisher}}; Smith, Fred. A Good Publisher. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) -- I would have though would mean that most editors ought to be aware that templates need a title= parameter. But if you really think it would help, then I will not object if it is changed, although the bit about "it is not much use to the reader.." ought to remain in a footnote. -- PBS (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I've added it in and kept the excerpted footnote text.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, so you shifted the burden to the editors to create a link, actually to create a new wikisource entry, where the template says there is none. The problem is that doesn't help the average reader who is now said, basically, that the information in a wikipedia article is vouched for somewhere in the 27 vols. of EB1911. Which is OK if the EB1911 title is the same as the title of the article, but if it isn't...go out and find it?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a rather large burden on the casual reader, is what I'm saying.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bellerophon5685: The heart of verifiability is that a reader can check for themselves that content is previously published human knowledge from reliable sources, not original research, where it comes from and so forth. Telling a reader that an item of information comes from somewhere and then not telling the reader where that somewhere is, so they can check, makes verifiability inaccessible. Telling them it comes from somewhere in the 29-tomes of Britannica is very poor verifiability. The error message is a service to all. It tells readers to be wary, as they should be, of poorly verified content, and alerts editors to a real problem, that needs to be fixed. It always needed to be fixed! The problem preexisted for every use that did not have a title parameter – it's just that it was previously disguised by the lack of an error message. I don't understand what you mean when you say this places "a rather large burden on the casual reader": there is no burden on the reader, just much better information; and for editors, they are now informed of the preexisting problem. It also makes it less likely new uses will be poorly done in the manner some past uses have been. No, this does not require a new Wikisource entry. If there's no wstitle= to point readers to, then you use the various title= schemes to target the source.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

So I guess the right thing to do is copy information from the Gutenberg version onto wikisource? It would seem more logical to me to present a link directly to the article in Guterngerg, but I guess that would be more difficult from a technical stand point - ie, not being able to link to the article directly with it being embedded in a large page?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bellerophon5685: Are you reading the template's documentation? There's no need to transfer anything to Wikisource. The title= parameter allows you to link to anywhere. If the article from Britannica about a topic is reproduced at Project Gutenberg, or the Internet Archive or somewhere else, link that directly – and if not, supply the name of the article in Britannica, so that reader seeking verification knows where to look in it at a library. The documentation's blank is:

{{EB1911|title=|url=|first=|last=|volume=|pages=}}

and gives a filled-out example, using Britannica's article on Alfred the Great, as reproduced at the Internet Archive, as:

{{EB1911|title=Alfred the Great|first=Charles|last=Plummer|url=http://www.archive.org/stream/encyclopaediabri01chisrich#page/582/mode/1up|volume=1|pages=582–584}}

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Bellerophon5685 there are several choices to fill in a EB1911 citation on Wikipedia. one option is to use title= and url= which may or may not link Gutenberg (the other alternatives are listed in the article Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition#External links); and there is a whole category of such entries see Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica without Wikisource reference.

It is not a good idea to copy the text from Gutenberg directly into the Wikisource for two reasons

1. The editions of EB1911 used at Gutenberg and those on Wikisource are different. The differences are minor and subtle.
2. It is preferred to use translucent versions of the source.

How to translude the text, the manual of style for the text etc is covered in the EB1911 project on Wikisource see s:Wikisource:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, and more specifically s:Wikisource:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Style Manual and s:Wikisource:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Transclusion. It is a massive undertaking and regulars there like user:Library Guy and user:Slowking4 will appreciate all the help they can get. -- PBS (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

welcome to wikiproject EB1911. we have been transcribing for about 5 years to build these references from hand wave endnotes. user:Charles Matthews started it. we do not use gutenberg, we are better. there are currently 5990 Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with no article parameter - that would be a nice backlog to work on. if you have specific articles you want transcluded at wikisource, please make a list and i will be happy to do those there.[1] i've pretty much knocked out this backlog, but you will have to make the wikipedia links since folks here won't let me. 158.59.127.107 (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Not me for EB1911, in fact; you must be thinking of the DNB, and that (to be accurate) was founded by Archdude after others had worked on it ... So the real point is that filling in the template provides a route to checking the text, which may well have OCR and other errors, and (in practice just as important) a way to pick out the "original" text. I'm neutral on the use of red ink, but the underlying maintenance issue is real. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I do use Gutenberg for any situation where it exists. People certainly use much worse sources, like the raw OCR. I don't know what a "translucent version of the source" is so directive #2 doesn't help me. I have not found any differences between the Gutenberg text and the edition we are using, and if they are minor, surely the Gutenberg will serve as a "proofread" version, but show me the differences, I am curious. Last time I checked, the Gutenberg effort seems to have stalled about halfway through. Unfortunate. Library Guy (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

If you look at EB1911 in Page space, you can see the project in action. There is a canonical scan presented alongside the latest wiki-text, which starts as a raw OCR and should be cleaned up and verified by two different users. The chosen scan is of the US imprint, which differs in a few ways from the Cambridge imprint on archive.org, but as far as I have seen the text body is the same. Here's one I worked on recently: s:Page:EB1911 - Volume 27.djvu/1043. Then I transcluded one article to main space: s:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Vera, Augusto. An increasing number of wikisource main space articles are getting the benefit of this transclusion. Hope this helps. David Brooks (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and your contributions to EB1911 in Wikisource. This seems the wrong forum to argue about the merits of using Gutenberg for Wikisource's edition of EB1911. The project discussion page seems the right place. If PBS or anyone has concerns on this issue perhaps they can post them there, and I'd be glad to reply if they ping me. Library Guy (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

History and state of the EB1911 template

To return to the original questions, a little history may help. About 11 years ago there was a heroic effort to beef up WP's coverage of obscure topics by dumping topics from the high-quality, 1911 EB into it, article by article. Often we used some of the fairly ragged third-party scans until that became a bad idea for various reasons. Editors wikified the text and added the older {{1911}} at the end to acknowledge that this is copied PD text. It's important to understand this was in the days before "verifiability" was a thing. So now the emphasis is on becoming less vague, and there are two separate actions to take. PBS is right that adding a wstitle or title parameter is a first step (I always use the archive.org page in the url parameter where there is nothing on wikisource). But that's only the easy part, because in the modern Wikipedia we also need to add ref tags to identify which text comes from EB, because many of these articles have since been expanded with additional information (or could be expanded in the future) and we have to exclude those expansions from the EB citation. For text that is still verbatim, we use the {{EB1911}} template, either with an inline parameter (my method) or with a {{sfn}} referring to the References section (PBS's, which works better for very long articles). If the text is not verbatim, we use {{Cite EB1911}} with the same parameter list as a general reference. Needless to say, identifying the original text is time-consuming, and Earwig's duplicate detector is very useful. There are also a few articles where all traces of the original material have been edited away, and we can remove the acknowledgment. David Brooks (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC) [ETA... remove it, or reference it in "further reading"] David Brooks (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

rename request

Please rename Talk:Yorkshire Terrier/Archive 9 to Talk:Yorkshire Terrier/Archive 1 - mistake in Miszabot parameter on Talk:Yorkshire Terrier Thank you--76.14.40.2 (talk) 05:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Done, and counter on parent page adjusted accordingly. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Use of Wikipedia brand to sell a product

I came across an Amazon product listing in which a company is using the Wikipedia name, logo, and overall appearance to sell a mediocre trivia game. This feels like people could be potentially misled into thinking the product is affiliated with Wikipedia, although the product description does note that this is not the case. Is there a way to submit this for legal scrutiny by the Wikimedia Foundation? 2601:644:1:3E52:C1BB:1B62:935:659E (talk) 05:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this packaging misuses the Wikipedia name and logos. I'm about to submit a report at meta:Special:Contact/licenseabuse. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Can they even do that with the logo? Is it under Creative Commons--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 06:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

No. wmf:Trademark policy --ColinFine (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

floyd salas

Floyd salas the writer is not mexican..his family from castile spain and belgium..I am a relative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.44.169.129 (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The article Floyd Salas, assuming it's the same person, states that he is American. Eagleash (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I have removed a stub template and category which indicated Mexican descent.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 10:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Missed that! Eagleash (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Help! I can't log in.

It reads "Exception encountered, of type "Exception"". How can I solve this problem? --111.4.3.129 (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Try again in a few minutes. If this does not resolve the issue, you might try using a different network or internet connection, or try using a different computer. This should resolve your issue. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The error message means the account is probably hit by the bug at phab:T119736. If the username gives the same message when entered at Special:CentralAuth then it's almost certainly this. The usual solution is to add the username to phab:T119736 and wait for somebody with the right database access to fix the account. If you give the name then I can add it. If you don't want the username and IP address to be associated publicly then you can mail me the name to jens.k.aget2net.dk. The name without the IP address would still be listed publicly in phab:T119736. It may take days or more than a week before listed accounts are fixed. You are free to create a new account if you don't break Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes I found the same message when entered at Special:CentralAuth before. My username is User:Isakoshekso--111.4.3.129 (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I have added your case to phab:T119736. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.--111.4.3.129 (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia

What is the main purposes of using Wikipedia? What dose it real help? and when is it helpful? Does it indicate any future opportunities to the society at a particular community ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.172.44.162 (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.
Welcome to the Wikipedia Help desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here not to do others' homework, but merely to aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems.
Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. You can search Wikipedia or search the Web.
If you need help with a specific part of your homework, the Reference desk can help you grasp the concept. Do not ask knowledge questions here, just those about using Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Uploading my own image work to an Wikipedia article

Hi there,

I am wanting to upload an image file to a Wikipedia article, and it is all of my own work, however, I do not know how to prove this nor do I want to be accused of copyrighting.--AlexMlcfc (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexMlcfc (talk • contribs) 15:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi AlexMlcfc. We so often get misunderstandings here (and at the Commons) of what "own work" really means, that I hope you can provide some detail. Is this a photograph that you took, holding a camera in your hand (not: an image create by someone else that you found and downloaded/screenshotted/scanned/secondarily photographed), or alternatively, an original drawing/chart etc. that you personally drew or created in an image application?

If so (and assuming any photograph does not capture any derivative material that remains unblurred), then yes, you own the copyright and can release it under a suitably-free copyright license (or into the public domain). If this is the case, don't upload the files here but to the Wikimedia Commons (as previously linked) so that the image can be used at all projects. In fact, if you upload it here, it will just create work for others to transfer it to the Commons. To do so, go to the Commons' upload wizard and follow the steps, choosing a free license.

What is important is that you provide some detail upon the upload. For example, the image page created through the wizard will have certain information fields listing how you answered. You can edit them after the upload if there's insufficient detail when first uploaded. Don't just leave it at "own work", but be more transparent, such as "photograph by me on ____ using..." or a myriad of other possibilities, but making it clear by context you are really the author.

If you did not take/create the file yourself, it still might be free, but we would need the detail to give an opinion on that. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

The image I want to upload is of my own work entirely, created in office online powerpoint containing no photographs. Hopefully this is ok? Once before I tried the same upload and it was declined by Wiki but that could've been me not giving enough information. This time I'll be extra careful in adding more clearer and precise information about my upload. I'll have a go at attempting an upload, and I'll let you know how I get on. Thanks ever so much for your tips, advice and help on this, much appreciated. UPDATE: It has worked fine, so really pleased. It's in my uploads at the moment, so at some stage once I've tweaked/updated it to what I want, I'll consider fully uploading it to the related wikipedia article. If I don't upload the file to the article, at least I'll have it for future reference If I ever went back to this. --AlexMlcfc (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@AlexMlcfc: Ah, yes, I see you uploaded an image at the Commons previously at File:Leicester City 2014-02-27 18-52.jpg that was deleted because it was a sports logo. This is entirely different, so there shouldn't be a problem. Nevertheless I would add something next to own work there, like "created using powerpoint", e.g.,
|source={{own}}; created using powerpoint.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Problems adding a date to an image

I'm trying to upload an image to my Wiki article, I've got everything done so far, except for the date. I am not sure how to add a date in the "Date" category of the image upload, when I type in a date, the "Save" button is still unavailable, the date Is required to upload the image. When I click on the provided date numbers (April 0008 - 0016) the selected date does not appear in the text box. There is not an option to scroll down, so I assume that there is a glitch or something. Please answer back ASAP, I need to get this article completed. The image is an illustration of a character, created by myself (SkinnyGreenKiller). I'm not having trouble with a copyright problem, I am literally having trouble with adding a date to the upload.

This is NOT a "homework question" I am a adult, I do not have homework. This is a serious question involving a problem with uploading my image to my article. I am creating this article so that people may better understand information on a series that I am creating, do not mock me with your "homework question" bullshit.

Thank You~ SkinnyGreenKiller (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)SkinnyGreenKiller

In regard to your question, I would expect that dates requested would be of a form like 2015/04/05 or April 5, 2015 or something similar. I'm not sure what April 0008 - 0016 means.

Also, two points. Wikipedia discourages people from writing Autobiographies (see WP:AUTOBIO) or any article where there exists a significant conflict of Interest (WP:COI)Naraht (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for original text such as yours. Please see my note on the talk page of the article, and copy your text to your own computer before it gets deleted. Sorry to disappoint you, but this is the wrong website for your efforts. You are welcome to contribute to this encyclopaedia by adding facts that are already published in WP:reliable sources. 19:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Dbfirs

Find Sources

How do I correct the Notice "Find Sources" warning? Eking91484 (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Eking91484: I'm assuming that you're referring to your draft, Draft:IBM Faster. To find sources means basically that. Find sources for where you got the information in the article and then add those sources, or references, to the article. They should be unrelated to the subject of the article. So, something not published by IBM. Was there an article in an industry journal? Maybe magazine articles? Those would be considered sources or references. See WP:RS for more on what is considered a reliable source. Dismas|^(talk) 17:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Image in the infobox is misleading but referred to automatically

In the infobox of a chemical element, the crystal structure is identified as "tetragonal." This is the correct nomenclature for both the crystal system and the crystal structure (of which there is a subtle but essential difference between these terms). However, the image shown is misleading, as it shows the crystal SYSTEM and not the crystal STRUCTURE. I cannot seem to edit it, since the image is directly inserted based on the format of the infobox. How can this be resolved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kclarevalentine (talk • contribs) 17:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Only by uploading (preferably to WikiCommons) a correct image and subsequently replacing the one in the infobox. You'll probably need to provide something as a source for the change too. Eagleash (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kclarevalentine: Thanks for helping improve Wikipedia! Regarding your question, I'm you're talking about the pictures in the element infobox, found here. This falls under the umbrella of WikiProject Elements, so if you think the infobox formatting is mistaken then either be bold and change it yourself (using images that comply with WP:IUP), or leave a message on their talk page where you're likely to be able to talk to editors who are experienced in that field. Finally, please sign your messages on a talk page with ~~~~ so everyone knows who you are and when you left the message. Cheers —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 18:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Saved Pages on mobile aren't found on desktop site

I have the Wikipedia app from Google Play Store. On the mobile app I can sign in and have "Saved Pages", but on the Wikipedia desktop I can't find where my saved pages are. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easloans1 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

They are only saved on within the mobile app. The feature is not currently available on desktop or the mobile website. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

David Jolly

An editor just added a personal attack about David Jolly on the article's talk page.[3] Can a talk page rant like that be removed since it has absolutely nothing to do with the editing of the article and, most importantly, the article is a BLP? Dirroli (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Dirroli. WP:BLP applies to pages in all namespaces, very much including talk pages. Unsourced negative or controversial content about a living person may not be stated as fact on any Wikipedia page, and may be removed by any editor, and such removal does not constitute edit warring. DES ^(talk) 21:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, DES! I saw you hatted it. I don't know if it's even possible, but shouldn't it be removed altogther, including from the edit history, since it's a personal, unsourced attack about a living person? I know very little about Jolly, except what I've read in the sources, but it seems to me that an attack like that is defamatory and shouldn't even be in the history. Otherwise, anyone can could go on a talk page and call someone a rapist or a murderer, and it would just stay there forever for the whole world to see. Also, in my opinion, hatting a personal attack like that, instead of completely removing it, only serves to put a huge spotlight on the comment, thus tempting more people to read it, not less. Does my point make sense? Dirroli (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

That was a quick response, Dirroli, for accusations rather less serious than ones of rape or murder. I also warned the poster about the matter. It is possible for me to "revdel" the content so that only admins can see it. An oversighter (which i am not) could remove it so that only the few people with oversight permission could see it. I don't think that is warranted here, but if you think it is, use the contact methods on the page linked above to request such action. What I did will prevent it from being indexed by search engines, or visible at a glance. DES ^(talk) 22:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Although the editor's accusations do not rise to the level of rape or murder, saying the someone has "ties to a criminal enterprise" is still extremely serious. Therefore, at the very least, I feel it should be deleted from the talk page. And thanks for the info about "revdel"... can you please do that, and have an oversighter remove it? I'm sure your request will be taken much more seriously than mine. If you or I were notable and accused of being part of a criminal enterprise, with absolutely no evidence, I'm sure both of us would do everything we could to get it removed so that no one could ever see it, right? Thanks again for your feedback on this. Dirroli (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Actually I am more of the "publish and be damned" school, feeling that an unjustified accusation often boomerangs, Dirroli. However, I have redacted the specific accusations, and deleted the revisions where they were present. (The page history shows who edited and what the edit summary was, but the actual content is hidden from anyone who is not an admin.) That should be enough. There are specific conditions for the use of oversight, and i don't think this case meets them. If you disagree, read the oversight page and reach out to an oversighter by email as suggested there. Such a person will independently review the issue and apply the relevant policy. @Dirroli: DES ^(talk) 23:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks much, DES. Sounds good. What you've done already sounds reasonable enough. Dirroli (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

How to "center" an Infobox

See image top right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holly_Arntzen

I'd like it centered? How? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BSmith821 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

When using infoboxes, you don't need the [[File:(name)|thumb|(caption)]]. You just need to put the file name in, and the caption on the infobox line that says |caption=. I have fixed it, but if you have any more questions, please let me know. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The ethics of creating and disambiguating an entry

There is an IT company in California named Astreya, with the url Astreya.com. I am the author of a book entitled The Astreya Trilogy. I can't control Google, but Wikipedia asks me "Do you want to create a page called Astreya?" Could or should I do that? If I did, it would enhance the opportunity for potential readers to find me and my book and stop them getting confused by the IT company. Is this a fair use of Wikipedia? I'd just go ahead and try, but it seems inappropriate for an author (me) to create inter-referencing pages based on his or her books or the characters within them. Also, is it ethical or egocentricity of the worst kind to create a Wikipedia page for myself? Seymour C H (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Seymour C H. As per WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI it is discouraged for you to create an article, under any name, about yourself or your own work. Also, Wikipedia should never be used to promote a person, a book or product, a movement or cause, or anything else. Wikipedia articles should be neutral, describing as objectively as possible what has already been published about various topics. First of all, is your book truly notable? (See WP:NBOOK.) Has it been covered at some depth in multiple independent published Reliable sources? If not, it does not qualify for an article here. If it has, then you could try Requested articles, but there is a long backlog there. You could just wait until someone with no COI writes an article. Or you could use the article wizard to create a draft, and put it under the Articles for creation project. After you say it is ready, (perhaps quite a while after) an experienced editor will review your draft and either accept it and move it to the main article space, or decline it and indicate one or more issues that must be corrected. It often takes several tries to get an article draft accepted. If you want to take this route, please read Your First Article, Referencing for Beginners, and Wikipedia's Golden Rule as well as the pages linked above, before you start. DES ^(talk) 22:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

How do I report a Wikipedia-admin?

He banned me from the Swedish Wikipedia without a reason, can I report him?--Butterfly1066 (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. We have no control over administrators at other language Wikipedias. There might be a complaitn process you could engage in at meta but your question, versus the facts, does not motivate me to track it down. You should be bending over backwards when posting something like this to not display yourself in a false, positive light. It would take you so much farther. For example, had you written here something to the effect of, "while I was warned about edit warring and about the three revert rule, I had explained that the edits I reverted were really within the exception to the rule. The admin nevertheless banned me peremptorily with little discussion, labeled me a troll in the block log entry, and did not even allow editing of my talk page to allow an appeal (and so forth)". Your white-washed spin on what happened is bullshit.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The thing was that I stopped the edit warring quite soon, and continued to just argue; they didn't have any reliable sources or anything.. And all the sudden he just bans me, with only one comment "troll".--Butterfly1066 (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Butterfly, you said you were banned "without no reason", which means you were banned with reason. A double-negative; that's basic algebra. In any case, you can report anyone for anything. But, remember, it's like a lawsuit... you can sue anyone for anything, but it doesn't mean you'll win or that it won't be deemed frivolous. Or that it won't backfire on you. Dirroli (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I thougt this is the way you speek;) I've changed to "a", is this ok?--Butterfly1066 (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, perfect. Haha. But it's speak*, not speek. ;) Dirroli (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Butterfly, it took awhile to find your account on the Swedish Wikipedia since I do not read Swedish, but I found your contributions and block log. The next-to-last thread on your talk page titled "editing War" has these three comments: (1) "Read what we write about restoring several times in a row in our approach on redigeringskrig.Yger ( discussion) April 8, 2016 at . 19:55 ( CEST )", (2) "Have read it: ' Exception vandalism . Removal of graffiti and vandalism may require three resets or more, and even users who have already made three restorations of an article for 24 hours has the right to recover the article by graffiti. However, important to distinguish from vandalism edits that you simply do not agree with. ' - Butterfly1066 ( discussion) april 8, 2016 at . 22:55 ( CEST )", and (3) "To avoid accusations of edit wars do well to avoid even come close to making restorations that can be perceived as such. Riggwelter ( discussion) April 8, 2016 at . 23:02 ( CEST )." The final thread on your talk page titled "wonder" is another three-comment exchange with the admin who blocked you: (1) "Do you feel that you understand what is Wikipedia ? Or do you just want your opinion plazas completed and published ? Riggwelter ( discussion) April 9, 2016 at . 00:06 ( CEST )", (2) "I know very well what Wikipedia is just find interesting that all other Wikipedia pages say one thing while the Swedish says something quite different. Please show sources of your statements so that you can take them seriously .-- Butterfly1066 ( discussion) April 9, 2016 at . 00:12 ( CEST )", and (3) "I think Swedish Wikipedia can do without your quibbling. Bye! Riggwelter ( discussion) April 9, 2016 at . 00:13 ( CEST )". Riggwelter then blocked you indefinitely with this message: "A Google translation for your block says, "April 9, 2016 at . 00:12 Riggwelter (Talk | Contributions ) blocked Butterfly1066 (Talk | Contributions ) with a duration of indefinite ( account creation disabled e - mail blocked , can not edit own talk page ) ( Troll Account )". Dirroli (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I translated the talk page discussion at Sverige, which apparently led to your block. I don't really understand the issues involved, but you clearly were not trolling. You were indeed attempting to add sources, and you were participating in the talk page discussion in a civil manner. However, I have no idea whether the sources you were trying to add were reliable or not. It seems that the other editors were just getting annoyed with you for some reason. You may have deserved a temporary block for edit warring, but nothing you said or did appears to warrant an indefinite block, especially one given so abruptly and with almost no provocation. But, again, I may be missing some key facts. Anyway, I think you should appeal your block and get a full explanation about why it was given. I don't know how you would do that, and I see you can't even edit your own talk page any more, so hopefully someone here can educate you on how to file an appeal on the Swedish Wikipedia. Dirroli (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort Dirroli, you understood this correctly. That's why I am here, because he banned me from the Swedish site altogether I cannot write anything there. Maybe I can use the same page you use for reporting members? Sorry for the bad English.. --Butterfly1066 (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Butterfly1066 You should still be able to edit your talk page on the Swedish Wikipedia. To request an unblock, you need to put the template {{avblockering|motivering}} there, replacing "motivering" with the reason you think you should be unblocked. Be specific about why you were blocked and where the misunderstanding between you and the blocking admin was, as this will make it more likely for you to be unblocked. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 14:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Wow, it seems they've blocked you from editing your own talk page, that is odd. Since I can't speak Swedish, I can't really help. I don't know the consensus on the Swedish Wikipedia, but their blocking policy page says that you should still be able to access your own talk page. Sorry I can't help —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 14:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Crh23... Yes, as I showed above, the block says his his talk page access was removed. The block message says, "Riggwelter (Talk | Contributions ) blocked Butterfly1066 (Talk | Contributions ) with a duration of indefinite ( account creation disabled e - mail blocked , can not edit own talk page ) ( Troll Account )". Dirroli (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's Riggwelter he has no right to block me from editing my own talk page. Because his accusations are untrue; I have not been trolling. To file an appeal I need to edit my talk page and add {{avblockering|motivation}}, but I cannot because my account is blocked. There have been no trolling from me at all, maybe some edit war. But only a short period of time while I also added a source. Please can someone help me with this?--Butterfly1066 (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Butterfly1066 I'm pinging Rursus and Ethanlu121 here as they are listed as Swedish speakers at WP:LOCEMB. They may be able to help, as they can communicate on that Wikipedia and are more likely than me to know how best to appeal there. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 17:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok great, thx!--Butterfly1066 (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

See, I knew we'd probably find a very nice editor like Crh23 to help you out. Although perhaps you deserved a (temporary) block for edit warring here, I do not understand why it was indefinite, nor why your ability to edit your talk page was removed immediately. You should've been given the opportunity to appeal, and the editor who blocked you should have included a template that explained how to do it. Calling someone a troll is a serious accusation, and actual trolling is obvious to everyone. From my brief review of your edits, I saw nothing that was even remotely close to trolling. I hope you're able to appeal and get more information. I'm just curious, have you ever had any other accounts on the Swedish Wikipedia, and have you even been blocked previously? If so, why? Thanks. Dirroli (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it’s nice of crh23 and you to help me. This is really strange behavior by riggwelter and I have never been blocked before on the Swedish Wikipedia or any other sites. But in general I have seen this kind of behavior in Sweden, it’s not appreciated if you go against the grain. They don’t like different opinions, they like consensus.--Butterfly1066 (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, it's good that you've never been blocked before prior to this incident. But you didn't say if you have/had any other accounts on the Swedish Wikipedia? Thanks. Dirroli (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes I know, because of the Swedish rules I cannot answer that question. But I can promise you that I had never been blocked/banned, had any trolling intentions or suspicious accounts on Wikipedia or any other sites.--Butterfly1066 (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: this admin always blocks from own talk page when blocking (I checked a few of the other most editing admins on that Wikipedia, who don't), I've left a message on his talk page asking for clarification. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 20:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, Great thank you. Let's wait and see then--Butterfly1066 (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Crh23, that's a very interesting find. I can't imagine why an admin would always block someone without giving them a way to appeal, and instantly removing their talk page access? How could an admin be able to do that for so long without it being addressed by the community and those above him? It looks like he's been an admin for 10 years, since March 2006. Is it possible that the Swedish Wikipedia has a different blocking process than the English Wikipedia? I would be very surprised if that was the case. Dirroli (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I know about Riggwelter. He is very arbitrary in his actions, adds templates on a whim, and threatens to delete pages with flimsy arguments. By the way, I avoid the Swedish Wikipedia which has a long history of abuse, battles and political and religious POV-pushing. I guess that the Wikipedia model doesn't work on languages with about 10 million speakers. It's sourcing is pathetic, and I don't use it for fact lookup, unless the English article counterpart is missing. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Quote Butterfly1066: But in general I have seen this kind of behavior in Sweden, it’s not appreciated if you go against the grain. They don’t like different opinions, they like consensus.

Hah! That's true in essence but an overly diplomatic way to express it – the Swedish administrators have a hard time accepting opposing views. There is nothing like WP:BOLD nor WP:NEUTRAL in the Swedish wikipedia. Neutrality there is "adher to the political majority of the admins", nothing else. The administrators of the Swedish wikipedia explicitly reject adhering to the rules of the English Wikipedia. I have now and then pondered starting a new Swedish Wikipedia that adhers to the rules of English Wikipedia, but I have no time. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually this closely tracks my brief experience on the English Wikipedia. I was threatened with indefinite blocking, unless there was "major adjustment to your attitude", even though there was no edit warring, and most of my activity was responding in discussions on my own edit proposals. The admin popped in out of nowhere, I think after noticing shifting attitudes in my favor. I dropped the matter. I did post wikipedia policy and process questions on this help desk, that this experience raised, but alas it appears beyond Wikipedia community discussion capabilities. Formulairis990 (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)