Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2018 January 3

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.

January 3

Speed of removal of my talk section, possible indicator of favours-for situation

Accusations

PresN , someone with a alert, seemingly, on the Jenova Chen page... has tried to ALSO, characterize my perhaps innaproopriate content on the talk page, about Gevevoa Chen... Firstly ; i do not deny that my listing might have had particuar lines / words that are accusatory or defamatory in nature. secondly , when a person can see that a MISSING subject matter, however badly unresolved, legally... is NOT revealing something about a CRIMINAL they think/know are, a... it is although perhaps not approriate to a unverifyable degree, approriate to put it on the main page... something i thought one could, OF IMPORTANCES ... in the talk. again, i do not deny that i have an interest in defending my OWN idea/IP , person, just as much as Chen would... but like i have said in a message to PresN ... i have already made BINDING STATUATORY DECLARATIONS, about my claim. it is not unwillingness, to take him to court, as to why i have not. i have not, because i am without the knowledge / readiness, to know where to begin, to do so, and in knowledge that i would probably have no evidence. that does NOT LESSEN my obligation to the truth, NOR, my rights to defend my OWN person/personage, when i get described as talking "nonsense". Chen himself, has seemingly never tried resolving this with me, and i doubt he ever will... But to have some alert-reactive INTERESTED person, leap up like a terrier behind a fence when sure, you're taking a whiz on it... rrrrrrmphhh is MORE, than only facilitating valid protection. it is ALSO , inadvertantly protecting criminals. YOUR faciltations, Wikipedia, are allowing favours-for-favours types... CORRUPTION complicits... to protect false images, false deservedness , false personage. the personage of the person WHO CREATED the idea for Journey, is MY, personage. again, i do not deny that i have a vested interest... i should not HAVE TO, i have a right to reveal this criminal for what he is. and i will not be told that the REASON, for a removal, is of it being "nonsense". if PresN , wants to remove the content on a BASIS of defamation, or a BASIS of innapropriate content, THEN HE CAN SAY SO. all he said was "rv nonsense" the part about rv, was right... but not the part about nonsense - HOW would he know? The speed at which this individual acted on my contribution , speaks volumes to me. Vurrath (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Vurrath, this is not the place for a content dispute. Saying that, you need to be careful accusing other users of being biased. There is also policies around what can be added to a WP:BLP page and I'm assuming since PresN has hidden it from site to anyone but admin users that it wasn't appropriate for the article. If you feel differently about that, then you can discuss it on the talk page but you will need to back up everything you said with reliable sources. NZFC^(talk) 02:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Vurrath has accused another editor of bias, without any evidence. Sure, that is bad. He has also accused the subject of an article of a criminal action, again without providing any evidence. That is considerably worse, and will definitely not be tolerated. His accusation has quite rightly been redacted. Maproom (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

My accusation of PresN, was in reaction to HOW QUICKLY, PresN , responded to content on Chen's page... is there some REASON, why someone would have an page-posting-alert for someone else's page, that SHOULD include removing descriptions of criminal accusation? i have not used wikipedia "as a place", to accuse... i have tried to ADD the detailing of the accusation, that i have MADE OUTSIDE OF WIKIPEDIA, a FORMAL reporting, that is, to the police themselves - you are MISTAKEN, in pretending you know, that i would 'only' be making an accusation, here. The fact that he has not been convicted, to my knowledge, does not LESSEN my sense of RESPONSIBILITY, to reveal him for what he is (or from your perspecives, what i am saying, he is ).

RE; Evidence... I could get the reporting-RECEIPT from the police themselves, i suppose. Each reporting / detailing they receive, gets a acknowledgement / case n, even if, it just gets filed in some un-persuable folder.

And just to be clear, my detailing of my own accusation, was NOT A STATEMENT of him being GUILTY... it was a statement of him BEING ACCUSED.

were i asked by a court to not portray him AS guilty, or still-under-suspicion, you (or anyone else) , would be entitled to ask me to not even do that.

But portraying validly, a UNRESOLVED accusation, is not improper - you are pretending as though you KNOW, that it has been dismissed. It has not, and i have NOT, been told by anyone to stop accusing him - he is NOT, under a court's protection from accusation.

And again, i must REPEAT, the difference between portraying a EXISTING accusation, that is OF RELEVANCE, to anyone looking someone up, to see their history before they EMPLOY them... WORK with them... etc.

that is just as RELEVANT, to importances of knowing of possible criminality, as is, knowing if an accuser, is a fraudster or something. I am not, nor do i have a single conviction, nor are my rights lessened in terms of being free to MAKE, the accusation i have made FORMALLY.

So the portrayal HERE... of what would be 'only' an accusation ON Wikipedia... is false - i have NOT ONLY, made one here, and ARE NOT, making one... here. I am portraying him as UNDER SUSPICION.

Which he is, until he gets a court to make me stop, not that that always protects people undeserving (not that people who try it, are necessarily).

The assumption of innocence in terms of convictions, does NOT protect someone from being accused. That is all i have done, and my description of him of being UNDER SUSPICION ... is all im really trying to portray here.

Vurrath (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Their other contributions so far have consisted of wild flights of fancy about Tony Blair and opossums, and free-association rants on multiple talk pages. I think I'll watch this for a maximum of another three days and then put in for a WP:NOTHERE block. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Your characterisation, is more offensive and improper than what i have portrayed of Chen's state of SUSPICION... and describing my minor attempt to link that Tony Blair character, is in no way a "flight of fancy" ... it was nothing more than not being familiar with how what links where - you are trying to characterise me... WHY.

It is also characterising, to portray my other contributions as all "rants", especially since most of them are talk-page SUGGESTIONS, and not un-cited additions. i have usually accepted the removal of the un-cited main-page additions, even tho they've seemed common-knowledge enough, to not NEED them (like that possums... NOT opossums,actually... are well-loved - does THAT need a citaion? ).

You could be mistaking the number of EDITS... as multiple topics / purposes... ignore the multiple for each, and your shoot-first-ask-questions-later approach, is clearly wrong. That's sloppy pre-preperation in editING... pre-preparing a page ready-to-publish... not having an invalid purpose.

Vurrath (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You can't accuse people of things on Wikipedia, it has to be backed up by proof from third party reliable sources. Even if you know it's right, we can't just take your word for it and let you add it to their article without that proof. Also PresN was probably watching the page or on recent changes page. It's how we look out for vandalism on articles and that will be why you were reverted so quickly. It's how things are done here. NZFC^(talk) 20:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

As i've said MULTIPLE TIMES... a DESCRIPTION of a FORMAL ACCUSATION ... is not accusING... here. It is describing how someone is under suspicion, FROM, an accusation - like saying a businessman, is under suspicion.

I do not deny that i have a interest in that portrayal.. but why should i not, were i the victim here?

again, i am not saying that i should be able to add that "he is guilty"... i am saying that a detailing OF, an accusation, is not untrue - in the formal accusation, i DID detail, Stromlo High School, and the SOURCING relativity.

I do not MIND, it's removal, since i have no citations... but i will not accept in the talk pages or anywhere else... characterisations like Elmidae has made, nor, mis-portrayals of my INTENT.

Vurrath (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You can't accuse someone on the article, on the talk page or even your own page even if one has been done locally at a Police station or in court. You can't accuse them on on Wikipedia without a published source. Otherwise it violates WP:BLP. That is why it was removed and won't be allowed back. No one is protecting the person, we are protecting Wikipedia from being sued. NZFC^(talk) 20:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

i am not in dispute, about what would be a valid removal, AS OF information, on a main page...

asking, and being told NO, in the talk pages, would be perfectly fine with me, as it now is.

What i am now saying, is that the REMOVAL, of my detailing, OF, an accusation, is a PRETENSE OF PRETENDING, that a detailing, is an accusation, itself.

It is not, however pointless, to attempt, to get put on the main-article.

I am making a point here about what has been done TO, my talk-entry... NOT... what should or should not be on the main-article.

I did in fact accept that it should not be on the main article, soon after suggesting it.

Your ongoing INDISCRIMINATION, between a description OF, a accusation, and what you would have to HONESTLY think was a accusatING... not an accusation past tense... but an accusING... continues to fail to tell the difference.

Your ongoing use of the INCORRECT TENSE... says more about you than it does about me.

i have accepted that my suggestion that my accusation should not be on the main page...

but will not, that it the suggestion FOR it... should be removed from the talk pages.

it will still KEEP being potentially relevant to a future EMPLOYER, of Chen, or anything similar, as i said, in terms of TRUST.

It is perfectly valid, to value, THAT PURPOSE.

i am not trying to say my detailing, should be on the main-article.

This has become an argument about an argument.

Vurrath (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Why can't i add below sentence to Adrian Cheng Wiki?

Below explanation which is a fact that without any mislead

Officer in the Order of Arts and Letters

On 9 December 2017, Cheng was awarded the title of Officer in the Order of Arts and Letters (Officier de L’Ordre des Arts et des Lettres) by the French government, making him the youngest recipient of such title in Hong Kong. The prestigious insignia is given as a symbol of recognition of Cheng’s significant contribution to, and promotion of, French art and culture in China, as well as his role in the advancement of cultural exchange between the two countries.

References

Previous comment by Wonhm005 (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2018‎ (UTC), autosigned by nagualdesign.

This has been addressed by Citobun at User talk:Wonhm005#Managing a conflict of interest. I suggest you wait for a reply there, or discuss it at Talk:Adrian Cheng. And please remember to sign your talk page posts using ~~~~. nagualdesign 07:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Redirects

So, how do you create a redirect? I used to know how to create redirects, but due to the new Article Wizard, I don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyndicaterUI78 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

You begin by creating a page (type https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_redirect into your browser address bar) then type #REDIRECT [[Name of article]] into the edit box and you're good to go. nagualdesign 19:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

You can also use this tool : Wikipedia:How to make a redirect --Railfan01 (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@nagualdesign Thank you for your assistance! :) @Nagualdesign: SyndicaterUI78 (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Railfan01 Thank you for your assistance also! @Railfan01: SyndicaterUI78 (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, @SyndicaterUI78:, you did not successfully ping either of those users with that comment, because the username needs to be linked in order to ping someone. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pppery Huh? What's "pinging"? SyndicaterUI78 (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

What I just did. See WP:Notifications. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@SyndicaterUI78: I just pinged you too by typing {{Ping|SyndicaterUI78}}. nagualdesign 03:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

No you didn't, as pings don't work when your edit does something other than adding content. (Your edit also removed a space elsewhere on the page). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

So what's the purpose of pinging? SyndicaterUI78 (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@SyndicaterUI78: The purpose is to alert the pinged user, e.g. because you answered a question from them. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pppery: Where does WP:Notifications (or anything else) tell us us that a ping doesn't work if other edits are made to the page? That's not a stipulation of which I was aware. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that if I write a message with no ping in it, sign it, and submit it; and later edit it to include a ping; no ping gets sent. I may be mistaken. There is certainly scope for confusion. Maproom (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

That is certainly true, and made clear at WP:Notifications#Triggering events (though presumably many people haven't read that), but the restriction which Pppery mentioned is not one which I have seen before. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks like phab:T138938 was resolved without me every noticing, and thus what I has said was false. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

mw:Manual:Echo#Technical details may need an update but I'm not sure of the precise rules when you do other things than only add new paragraphs. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@SyndicaterUI78: Just to reiterate, you cannot add a ping to an existing message, as you did here. You can only type {{ping|username}} "Message content" "signature".. all in one go. See WP:PING for more help. Eagleash (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Phone number?

Hi! A user just shared me their phone number, but I don't think it would be useful for me. Admin, please hide that edit from public as well as from me, Thanks! M. Billoo 19:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't do anything about the phone number, but due to this comment here, I have posted a warning about WP:COI and also WP:PAID on the users talk page. It maybe because of the poor English though but thought it better to warn them. NZFC^(talk) 20:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no need to suppress a phone number if it was posted by a user themself, and the user is not a minor. See Wikipedia:Oversight#Policy. But thank you for your altruistic concern, M.Billoo2000. — Sebastian 23:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Template not transcluding properly

Resolved

Template:Maurice Ravel is not properly transcluding. It is breaking where it is currently placed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

See below:

I found the issue. There was a stray <noinclude>--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

ahem nagualdesign 20:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Linking to previous versions of images

Is there a way to generate a thumbnail of a previous/superseded version of an image file? I'd like to place a thumbnail of this image (the original upload of File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015.jpg, dated 12:56, 24 March 2015) in the gallery at the top of Talk:Elizabeth II#Infobox image, but I can't work out how to do it. I was thinking it would be something like [[File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015.jpg|thumb|version=12:56, 24 March 2015]], although that wouldn't work in a gallery anyway, but you get the idea. nagualdesign 21:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not possible. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a shame. Thanks for letting me know. nagualdesign 23:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

You could upload it as a derivative and make that clear, just like File:Queen Elizabeth II in March 2015.jpg currently states that it's a Derivative of File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015.jpg. — Sebastian 23:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Sebastian, but I think I'm going to try another idea. If anybody's interested in taking part in the RfC your input there would be very much appreciated. Just give me ten minutes while I sort something out... nagualdesign 23:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

off-topic conversation about cross-posting

nagualdesign, I don't think this is the appropriate venue for notifying others about this discussion; which I would consider inappropriate cross-posting (borderline "spamming"). Moreover, I don't see a need for any more people to participate in the discussion, as User:The Gnome has been very knowlegeable and reasonable in their replies so far, so that the smoothest path forward would be to just wait for their answer to your last question. — Sebastian 23:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC) My apologies. I only mentioned the RfC here because I'd already mentioned what I was trying to do, and I have no expectations as to whether you'd agree or disagree with the proposal I was making; I was only requesting comments. The more the merrier. I certainly wasn't canvassing, since I don't know you from Adam! nagualdesign 00:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC) No worries; I see that your reply is sincere. — Sebastian 00:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Or maybe I was just being charming to get you on my side. nagualdesign 01:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

What links there?

Pages that link to "Engineering mathematics" lists direct links from such pages as Materials science. However, I don't see a link from that page. BTW, related question: The only way I can think of to search for links is to edit the whole article and search for [[Engineering; is there another way? — Sebastian 23:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

For the record: In general, searching just for the opening double brackets + first word would not work for inverse piped links, but that's no concern here. — Sebastian 23:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Engineering mathematics is linked in {{Engineering fields}} at the bottom of Materials science. WhatLinksHere does not have a feature to exclude links which are only present in transcluded templates. "Hide transclusions" only hides pages which transclude the page itself (mainly useful on templates). You can enter {{:Materials science}} at Special:ExpandTemplates to see the resulting wikitext after all templates are evaluated. This result includes * [[Engineering mathematics]], but then you have to work back to figure out where it came from. I sometimes also use my browser's view source function to see the html for a page. For Materials science it includes <a href="/wiki/Engineering_mathematics" title="Engineering mathematics">Engineering mathematics</a>. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Excellent answer, PrimeHunter - thanks a lot! Two good alternatives, lovingly and comprehensibly explained. — Sebastian 00:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved