Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 July 12

Help desk
< July 11	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

July 12

Offer to create a BLP for pay

Dear editors: I would like to report an incident of someone contacting the subject of a declined AfC article by e-mail and offering to improve it, using the same language as in e-mails last year when someone was pretending to be me. I can no longer remember where I was supposed to report this. Any advice?—Anne Delong (talk) 02:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you to report this to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Ayub407^talk 08:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Ayub407; I've done that.—Anne Delong (talk) 10:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Karen Blixen

The warning template has been removed from this page- there are enough refs. now I think - I added three. Please let me know. Plus, I have "trippled up" with the same ref. Please do what is necessary so that the same ref. Is not "repeated", if you know what I mean. Cheers Srbernadette (talk) 05:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Although you are far from a beginner, you need to read Help:Referencing for beginners, and particularly WP:REFB#Same reference used more than once. You also need to read Template:cite web to remind you about the things you have been told countless times, such as what goes in the |publisher parameter and what goes in the parameter |date, and also read Template:cite book to remind yourself about the parameter |isbn. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Lisa Lewis (adult entertainer) NEEDS TO BE DELETED

Lisa Lewis (adult entertainer) NEEDS TO BE DELETED

A hater has set this page up about me and needs to be removed immediately.

I am NOT an adult entertainer. I am not a stripper.

I am Lisa Lewis

Who ever set this page up has used tabloid journalism,

An investigation needs to be investigated as into who set this defamatory wikipedia page up about me = Lisa Lewis

There is MANY wrong facts on this wikipedia.

How do we shut it down

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Lewis_(adult_entertainer)

Please somebody do something, I am getting to the point where I'd rather see the article deleted rather than spend my days doing damage control instead of working on constructive editing. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzealander838 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Newzealander838: There is already a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, you're of course welcome to ask for help here, but you may find it easier just having the one conversation -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 07:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

New page patrolling help

While I patrolling, I came across one user who keeps moving articles which are tagged for CSD deletion from mainspace to draft without any discussion. I want to know that is this allowed? Here an article which I tagged for CSD A7 for example. Thanks Ayub407^talk 07:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Ayub407, In general, of course, we encourage drafts so articles can be improved. Draft articles are not immune from deletion, however, particularly for spam or copyright, and in this case I felt that the promotional tone an total lack of verifiable notability justified deletion even as a draft Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Ayub407, We generally reserve moves to Draft space only for article that have real potential for development and meeting inclusuin criteria. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Tiger Gang is a confused new editor and has been told a number of times not to make such moves. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Jimfbleak & Kudpung, I am aware of that but I became confused after seeing Tiger Gang moving multiple articles nominated for speedy deletion from mainspace to draftspace and I wanted to know what he was doing was right or wrong. The issue was resolved shortly after it was reported at ANI. Ayub407^talk 11:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Karen Blixen

Please help me with my 2 queries as we have listed above. Thanks101.182.141.11 (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

No. But I'll tell you what you did wrong with the citation templates so that you can fix it youself:

{{cite web| last1=Wilson| first1=Katharina M.| title=An Encyclopedia of Continental Women Writers, Volume 1| url=http://books.google.com/books?id=2Wf1SVbGFg8C&pg=PA319| publisher=Taylor & Francis, 1991 (pages 318-320)| accessdate=12 July 2016}}

1. An Encyclopedia of Continental Women Writers is a book so you should use {{cite book}}
2. The volume information, if it is required, belongs in |volume=
3. page numbers belong in |pages=, not in |publisher=
4. |access-date= is not appropriate for book cites
5. the book has a publication date; that goes in |date=

When reusing a citation, the first instance is named and is the definition for later use:

1. first <ref name="Wilson">{{cite book |title=An Encyclopedia ...}}</ref>
2. for every use after that: <ref name="Wilson" />

Go now and fix your citations.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

few questions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

say someone has a 1rr restriction..A. how is this imposed? can any admin just impose it somehow or is there some formal place/process for imposing such? B. does the WP software/code prevent the person from editing beyond 1rr or is the person just watched for this? C. if they are just watched how do people know they have this restriction?

Also, could there be more unique restrictions placed on someone..like only allowed to edit talk pages in article space? and how would this be imposed/maintained?68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

A. There are multiple ways it could be imposed. It could be the result of a discusison at WP:ANI, the result of an WP:ARBCOM case, or as arbitration enforcement. This isn't normally imposed by a single administrator. A 1rr can be applied to an editor or to an article or even a subject area.

B. No, the software does not do this, someone has to know there is the restriction and monitor the situation.

C. It depends on the exact restriction. If it is on an article, then it is usually annotated on the talk page. If it is on an editor, then it will be annotated on their talk page what the restriction entails.

Also. There are other types of restrictions where someone is restricted from editing an article but can edit the article talk page. Someone can be topic banned from an article or a subject area, this may include no discussion of that topic anywhere. Other editors just monitor the situation and raise concerns at ANI or with an administrator. -- GB fan 12:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no software preventing or watching for breaches of restrictions. Editing has to be watched manually. Admins have broad latitude to impose any form of restriction necessary (within reason) for topics arbcom has placed under discretionary sanctions. See Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions. Admins can also sanction disruptive editors editing articles under general sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

okay, and if a person has a 1rr or uniquely designed restriction this is noted on their talk page in a way they can't erase?68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not placed there in a way they can't erase. -- GB fan 12:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

that's probably a deficiency in the system, no?68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You have to understand that every single page on Wikipedia is a "wiki page" - that is, editable in any way. There have been attempts to introduce more structured editing via software to certain subsets of pages - all have spectacularly failed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

but if an editor has a current restriction shouldn't that at least be permenately noted on their talk page/contribution page...so people 'know' it exists..??68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Believe me, the editors involved in getting the restriction imposed and/or editing in the same area will know the restriction exists. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

looking at my final post in this ANI thread...is my suggestion possible/practical?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Reporting_user_Vvven.27s_disruptive_editing68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it would need community consensus however. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

is it correct then that an admin can't unilaterally take that step of imposing the unique restriction (which is less harsh than being blocked) but can unilaterally block someone (for disruptive editing, for example)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The community has allowed admins to block for disruptive editing, vandalism, etc. It has allowed admins to place restrictions on editors editing in certain areas. It has not allowed "do whatever you think best" across the project. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I think ideally in the case above ad admin could unilaterally impose the restriction (as the case is pretty obvious) and place a permenant note about it...this could then be challenged and overturned by consensus...currently they can just block the person for disruptive editing and then that can only be overturned by another admin (so consensus doesn't really apply)..is this correct?68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Most of what you say is incorrect - unilaterally imposing, permanent note, blocks only being overturned by another admin... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm stating that ideally they should be able to unilaterally impose/place perm note, but they can't...they can only unilataterally block for "disruptive editing" and then the person can only appeal to another admin (so there's no consensus process for that)..In any event, this is probably getting beyond the scope of this desk and I think my questions have been answered...68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I have just realised who this IP is. I believe all of the above is regarding the fact that I took away his talkpage access last month in an effort to prevent him digging himself an even deeper hole than he was already in, and a (vain) attempt to find a policy I violated in so doing. ‑ Iridescent 14:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

why would you believe that? It's obviously rooted in my suggestion regarding that ANI thread I linked to? how could this possibly be construed to have anything to do with you? don't be so self-centered and try to assume good faith..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Karen Blixen

I am not able to fix up this page. I will ask my students to do it for me. I am sorry to be a bother to both David biddulph and also Trappist the monk. Please see their responses above. Sorry again. 101.182.141.11 (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

(Changed to capital B in Blixen to fix the link.) RJFJR (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

editor refuses to go to to dispute resolution

What to do when an editor refuses to go to dispute resolution over an edit and writes he will no longer discuss the issue? The dispute involves this editor on one side, with another editor and myself on the other side. Formulairis990 (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest you to report this to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard if there's a dispute over an edit. Volunteers there will help you to sort things out. Be sure to give every details about what dispute you're facing. Ayub407^talk 15:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try this as the next step.Formulairis990 (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The editor has explained why he doesn't want to go to dispute resolution at this time. He only said he would stop contributing to the conversation if you don't address his points and continue discussing him. Stop talking about editors/bringing up block logs and discuss the content. -- GB fan 15:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

the OP is dealing with a very aggressive editor, I assure you...so it's a little understandable that he began looking into him a bit...but, yes, try to keep it substantive...I just weighed-in over there at the talk and asked a question...68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

To GB fan, the question was a to the point procedural question, instead you answered with your opinion on a misrepresentation of my behavior; not unlike the editor in question. If you read the very lengthy discussion starting where I came in [1] and at the very top with the original editor [2] you will see that editor immediately responds with personal attacks, and in my case also brings up my past edits on other articles, and continuously focuses on me. After several responses, and prodded by a particularly egregious response by him to my asking him to explain his apparent double standard, I brought up his repeated blocks history which describe the very behavior he appears to be engaged in. To call attention to an editor's current behavior by pointing out his past blocks for the same behavior seems warranted. His repeated blocks do show he has fans that excuse his behavior because they find him entertaining.Formulairis990 (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

consider doing a RfC and clearly and concisely explain the issue in the RfC...and, yes, that editor is often abrasive and profane and proud of it..but he's only one editor and ultimately only has one 'vote' as far as consensus in regards to article content...68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting this. But the system is surely broken if this is the only remedy.Formulairis990 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

if you've got two editors at a standstill you have to find a way to get more editors to come to reach some kind of consensus; that is the system..as far as the content dispute, I probably agree with you but would have to look at it a little closer first..i'll perhaps continue to participate at that talk page...68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you I appreciate your input, and the question you asked made a good point. My concern is that this will appear as canvasing.Formulairis990 (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

no, it can't...you haven't sought anybody out here with an expectation they would side with you in the content dispute over there...I just decided to go check it out on my own initiative after seeing this post, which I'm perfectly free to do...68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussing other editors is never OK in a content discussion. Discuss the content not the editors. Trying to insert discussion about an editor into a conversation about content will always derail that conversation. It doesn't matter if he did it first. I tried to explain how you might get the conversation back on track and work towards a resolution of the problem. Dispute resolution is not a mandatory process and he does not need to go there if he doesn't want to nor does he need to engage in a discussion if he doesn't want to. No one can force him to do either. -- GB fan 17:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I mostly agree with User:GB fan not to discuss another editor. The only time to "discuss another editor" is if all else has failed and it is necessary to report the abusive editor to WP:ANI. In fact, in mediated dispute resolution at DRN, if an editor tries to "discuss another editor" rather than discussing content, the volunteer moderator is likely to collapse the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I have modified my comment above. I was specifically talking about content discussion and have added that to my post above. -- GB fan 18:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Then we are in agreement. You can't discuss content and conduct in the same discussion. By "discussing the other editor" in a content dispute, you sink to the other editor's level (if you weren't already down there). Only discuss the other editor if all else fails, and it is better to try to discuss content than to discuss conduct. GB Fan and I are in agreement. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

GB fan, for whatever reason you took the position that the user's refusal to go to dispute resolution were honest, and your comments falsely claimed that I refused to discuss his points, and that my mere mention of the user's history of blocks was the cause of the user's approach and refusal to continue, when in fact from the start the user has refused to have a simple honest discussion and the user's constant antics appear aimed at ever keeping the discussion from remaining on track. The observations from the other commentators here about his profane and abusive style which the user takes pride in, suggest what I've described.

And note, I haven't brought up the user's style here, and in my talk with the user I only referred to it by telling him to focus on the discussion and not on attacking his projection of me.Formulairis990 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Formulairis990, I guess we will need to agree to disagree. I said nothing about you and did not say you were the cause of this. You asked what to do, I tried to explain a way forward, discuss the content not the editor. You were discussing the content but you were also discussing the editor. -- GB fan 20:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Comments

There seems to be a considerable amount of confusion about dispute resolution, if this is about the discussion at Talk:Harvard University. I first suggest that all editors re-read the dispute resolution policy. Ayub407 is right in saying that the dispute resolution noticeboard has volunteers who will help to discuss a content issue. However, I wouldn't use the phrase to "report" a conflict there, but to "request assistance", because mediation (and DRN is a form of lightweight mediation) is voluntary. Other methods of dealing with a content dispute are third opinion, for disputes between two editors only, which is also voluntary and even lighter-weight; formal mediation, which is also voluntary but is more formal and may take longer; and Request for Comments, which is binding and is the only content forum available if an editor refuses to discuss. None of Third Opinion, DRN, or RFM are arbitration; DRN and RFM are mediation. There are also a variety of specialized noticeboards listed in the dispute resolution policy, such as WP:RSN, WP:BLPN, WP:COIN. They have varying degrees of voluntary or binding nature, but are only for particular types of disputes. RFC is the most feasible content forum if a single editor refuses to discuss. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It has been mentioned that a particular editor is abrasive and profane. That can either be dealt with as a content issue, by ignoring the profanity and discussing content, or as a conduct issue, incivility. Conduct can be reported to WP:ANI. I would recommend using ANI only as a last report; it often generates more heat than light. It can impose sanctions on an abusive editor. If other editors can ignore the profanity and deal with the content, that is better. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the above descriptions and comments. Though at no point did I ever threaten WP:ANI, except by mistake when I meant WP:DR.Formulairis990 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Uploading an image

I have an image that I need to add to the Lynda Resnick wikipedia page, the image that is being used now is low quality. The image is owned by the Wonderful Company and i am making the edit on the behalf of the company. The image appears in a Google search because as the owner of the image we have used it along with various other newspaper articles and releases. Please let me know what I need to do to get this image replaced on the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynda_Resnick

thanks Wonderful2016 Wonderful2016 (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Wonderful2016: Your company and the photographer will need to release the image under a free license, see commons:Commons:Email templates.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Wonderful2016: Also note that you are discouraged from making substantial edits to pages where you have a conflict of interest, and as your conflict of interest is financial, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose it. Additionally, your current username is against our username policy as it is promotional and implies shared use. This being said, updating an image on a page is usually acceptable, and as long as it is released under a sufficiently free license (CC-BY-SA is the usual one) I would be surprised if there was opposition to addition of a good image. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 17:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

References for the same material on two separate pages

If the same information is being mentioned on two different pages, do we use different references to justify the material on both pages or do we use the same reference on both pages? Thanks, 73.223.175.207 (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. There is no straightforward answer to this. The requirement is that information in an article is verified by a reliable source. There is no requirement that the same source is used in different places, if they agree. Perhaps both sources should be cited, if they are independent of each other. --ColinFine (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)