Help desk
< July 21	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 23 >

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 22

The Three Stooges

In the movie credits you left out they had a cameo role in the western North To Alaska with John Wayne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.80.47.40 (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, fellow editor! I see that we have an article about John Wayne's movie North to Alaska to refer to. According to that article, filming began in May 1960, and the movie was released to theaters the following November. Based on that timing, it seems any mention of this in our article about The Three Stooges would need to be placed in the section entitled "The comeback: Moe, Larry and Curly Joe". Before being added to the article, though, you will need to find a third-party reliable source to document that the Stooges did in fact have a cameo in North to Alaska. Once you do, you will be able to add this information, along with a citation to the reliable source so that other editors who may wish to verify the claim will be able to do so. Alternatively, you can visit the talk page for the Three Stooges article—which you can find here: [Talk:The Three Stooges]—and create a new section at the bottom of that page, much like you did here. Talk about the John Wayne movie, the cameo, and the reliable source you have to document the cameo, and ask for help in integrating this into the article. (And don't forget to "sign" your comment by typing four "tilde" characters at the end, like this: ~~~~ ) I'm sure someone who watches that page will help you, but if you don't get a response within a couple of days, feel free to ping us here at the Help desk. Happy editing! Cheers, — Jaydiem (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live Chat No Help With This Question

Hi. I tried to get on to live chat for over two hours and no one gave me a response. Perhaps this will be better. Regarding the following page - Liam Burrows - You'll notice on the page the second image is the album cover. For some reason, no matter what I do, this coding still shows up - [[File: |frameless|upright=1|alt=|]] - I would like that coding to disappear. What do I do, or can you help, please? I would really like to get this resolved. Sincerely, The Brain Coach. The Brain Coach (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - because it's in the infobox template, you don't need the square brackets or the File prefix. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And further fixed in this edit.--ukexpat (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article that is not an article it is actually an avertisement

The article Orthotropics® is not actually an article it is an ad prteneding to be an article , not meet wikipedias guidelines, could you please nominate it for the articles for deletion (afd), thank you ,83.78.25.182 (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted, I've sent the article to AfD. Sam Walton (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother with AfD? Looks like a clear G11 speedy to me, and so tagged.--ukexpat (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change Redirect to BLP Stub

In P versus NP problem, an unsolved problem in mathematics and computer science, there is a mention that Vinay Deolilakar published a supposed proof, and that his proof is not widely accepted. There is a redirect from his name to P versus NP problem. I have written a short BLP, containing what information I could obtain from reliable sources, in User:Robert McClenon/Vinay Deolilakar. I tried to move it to replace the redirect, but of course the redirect prevents me from moving it. I tried using the Requested Move template, and found it to be confusing. Is there a simple explanation for the Requested Move template, or some less confusing way to replace a redirect with a short article? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the article, it will redirect you. At the page you are redirected to look at the top left for a blue link saying it was redirected. Click that link. You will go to the page you were redirected from (and it won't redirect you again because that link has a special code that means don't follow redirects.) Edit it as normal. That is the easiest way to handle this. RJFJR (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean to overwrite the redirect with the article? I thought that overwrite was discouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moving by copy and paste causes attribution problems but in the case of a draft from userspace it makes no difference since the author who created the draft is the same as the author who copied it across. Preserving the previous redirect in the history is also not a problem. Pasting your draft over a redirect is fine and normal, or rather it would be if there was not the inexplicable incident of user:Tchaliburton prematurely moving it into mainspace in order to prod it. I'll ask them what that was about shortly, but in the meantime I have moved the article for you in order to preserve the history of Tchaliburton's action. SpinningSpark 15:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert McClenon. If this situation comes up in the future, you can place a {{Db-move|page to be moved|reason}} template on the redirect page, and a helpful admin will come along and do whatever is appropriate, as Spinningspark did here. While copy-pasting your own text from one page to another doesn't cause attribution problems, it may cause other minor complications such as the need for deletion of the extra copy, loss of the edit summaries, and distortion of the edit history, making it appear that the text was all composed in one edit. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page archived but archives disappeared

Another editor has asked me a question I don't know the answer to so I hope someone can help them here. Yesterday the talk page for the article Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia had old discussions archived [1] but there is no link to the archive on the page. MICHAVP has asked me where they went, I can see that there was a new page created [2] but have no idea why the talk page doesn't show it or why it says "Archive 20" when it is the only one. Thanks Smeat75 (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone set the counter to 20, which caused it to start at archive 20. I'm also working on fixing the display issue. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok should be fully resolved, I fixed the counter, and moved archive 20 to archive 1, which now appears in the talk page header. Let me know if there are any lingering issues. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!Smeat75 (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sa.wikipedia.org problem

Hi ! I want to share some problems with you, because you are connected with sa.wikipedia.org. Our admin is neglecting us. Admin is not involving us in policy making process and when we are propose some requests, then also he don't even reply us. I and many other users of sa.wikipedia.org are felt helpless against our Admin. Please guide us in this problem. if you will not take it seriously, then in future it may be a big problem of sa.wikipedia.org.NehalDaveND (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(For the benefit of readers, sa.wikipedia.org is the Sanskrit-language Wikipedia)

Sorry, but this is the help page for the English-language Wikipedia. Wikipedia's for each language are autonomous, and we have no control over sa.wikipedia.org. If the problem cannot be dealt with internally, your best option may be to contact the Wikimedia Foundation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few administrators on sa.wp and only two or three of them have edited recently. Nevertheless, you may still be able to take the issue to another administrator or bureauocrat to deal with the issue locally. In an emergency meta:Stewards can act as administrators or bureaucrats on any Wikimedia wiki. However, you will probably need to convincingly demonstrate that there is community consensus for some action (for instance, by pointing to a community discussion) that cannot be achieved locally for whatever reason. SpinningSpark 16:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

archiving... sorta...

I wanted to copy a discussion that took place between another editor and myself to the relevant talk page. this edit mostly did what I wanted, but the language seems kinda.... imperative. What is a better way to do this? Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could use {{divbox}} which allows you to set your own headings and colours. SpinningSpark 16:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately, this template does not seem to like signatures and/or indenting. [3] 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand what you did in that edit, but whatever it was, it wasn't using the divbox template. SpinningSpark 21:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It works fine in my sandbox. The only problem I had with indenting is if the very first line is indented, but the first line of a talk page thread is not usually indented. SpinningSpark 21:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I copied your sandbox markup, and that worked. I'm feeling a little less educated than I'd hope regarding what I did wrong, but reading the divbox instructions further, I think it has something to do with unnamed parameters. Thanks for the assistance! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an article page for my company

Hello,

I would like to know how can I create an article page for my company. Global Accounting Group, Corp.

It will have some basic subjects as who we are, what we do, mission and vision. www.globalaccountinggroup.com

Thank you

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Global313 (talk • contribs) 16:45 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Global313: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We generally prohibit editors from creating articles about themselves or for a company they work for, as they have a high conflict of interest in the subject. As well, we prohibit usernames from being of the name of a company, as it implies shared usage, and on Wikipedia accounts belong to one person, and one person only. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 16:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't - this is an encyclopaedia, not a provider of free advertising space, and your company clearly doesn't even remotely meet the Wikipedia notability criteria to justify an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arts Alliance Media

What has happened at Arts Alliance Media? It has no history before today, but includes tags dated April, which today's creator is complaining of at the talk page: Noyster (talk), 17:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Noyster: The article has now been deleted. I don't know what was up before. Piguy101 (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was created with {{Multiple issues|{{advert|date=April 2014}}{{notability|Companies|date=April 2014}}}} at the top and better infobox code and other formatting than we usually see from one hour old accounts, so the creator probably started with code copied from another article, and then thought Wikipedia had added the box. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny. I have seen new editors create a articles with CSD tags in the article. Then, they contest their own deletion! Piguy101 (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

struggling to upload photos

I am really struggling to upload photos. Could I please have some help?

@Ravi Sharma (Sonu): To upload photos, you need to be an autoconfirmed user. This means that you must have at least 10 edits and your account must be 4 days old. Then, try using the File Upload Wizard Piguy101 (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that if you upload the image to Wikimedia Commons (which you should prefer anyway, as it will allow the images to be used in all Wikipedias, not just this English-language one), there is no ten-edit restriction. Maproom (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the border line between a new photo and a minor change to an existing one?

I was asked a question that I cannot answer. original question here

If an editor removes a watermark, does that constitute a new version of the same image and thus be uploaded over the old version, or should it be considered a new photo? I was tempted to say it is OK, but I recently saw a discussion in which an editor stated that tweaking the colors in a photo contributed a new photo and should not be uploaded over an old one, but uploaded as a new photo. I suspect there is guidance, but I'm not finding it.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If an image has a watermark, or an erased watermark, I would assume that the watermark was put there to help protect someone's copyright, and the image should not have been uploaded anyway. Maproom (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at the source of the question, it looks like the copyright status was already discussed, so I presume that got acceptably sorted out. Monty ₈₄₅ 21:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked briefly, and couldn't find any relevant policies, guidelines. My opinion is that in this case, uploading over the old image is the correct decision. We really don't like watermarked images, and if that is the only change, there is no circumstance where we would want to use the old version instead of the new in an article, or for pretty much any other purpose that wouldn't be served by the history of the image file. Monty ₈₄₅ 21:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Watermarked images are not permitted on Wikipedia per WP:WATERMARK except in very limited circumstances. If the copyright owner wishes to supply a new version without the watermark then not only is it fine to overwrite the existing image, that is kind of required by policy (or else the original has to be deleted which pretty much amounts to the same result). What we should never be doing is removing the watermark ourselves, but I as I understand it in this case the work was done on behalf of the copyright owner. SpinningSpark 23:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent point that we would normally be concerned about an editor removing a watermark from an image. As noted, in this particular case, the owner had provided a license for the image. However, I'm slightly concerned about the possibility that the permission was granted under the assumption that it would work as advertising, and the decision might be different if she knew only the excluding watermark image can be used. I'm out of town the next couple days and can't do much but I think it would be wise if the editor confirmed with the copyrightholder that removing the watermark wouldn't change the decision.--S Philbrick (Talk) 00:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have doubts I suggest that you contact the OTRS team and ask if they are satisfied with the permissions provided. If they are, it really does not matter what the motivations of the copyright owner are, provided of course that someone has not been making misrepresentations to them in order to get the permission under false pretences. SpinningSpark 14:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Building a sentence from two or more references in a biography

I feel like I'm asking a question I already know the answer to, but I'm involved in an edit discussion/conflict in Talk:Mitch McConnell. To break it down to its basic essence, there's a sentence talking about McConnell's association with a person (linked) and what they were doing together (referenced). However, that reference didn't give a basic description of that person. But other references do provide a basic description for that person. So, I was thinking that one could give a short (objective, despite what the other party accuses) description of the person associating with McConnell and if especially contentious, apply citations that already back up the basic description in that associate's article. Essentially, this is building referenced content from two or more sources. Is there an issue herein that I'm missing? Is it really reasonable (per the other party) that for a reader to find out anything about this associate, they have to click a link? I have long thought we could build verifiable content (even one sentence) from multiple sources from since I started editing over 10 years ago. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I fully understand that there can be no synthesizing of material between two references (re WP:OR), but that wasn't my aim. My aim was simply to describe the associate, followed by what that associate and McConnell were doing together. Two separate sets of facts in one sentence. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute. Are there two people disagreeing, or more than two? If two, I suggest getting a third opinion. If more than two, then you might use a Request for Comments if talk page discussion does not establish consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of these processes, thanks. I'm not seeking any form of conflict resolution at this moment. What I'm seeking is a general clarification of guidelines with respect to this matter, which I hopefully phrased in a generic manner. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm not in any rush here. The content as it stands in this case isn't that unreasonable. Until I have a better understanding of the guidelines as they relate to this, I don't really want to go any further. I'll wait months if I need to. :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Context matters, but it is likely to be inappropriate.

[John Smith], a haberdasher (source identifying smith as a haberdasher), met Jane Doe at a racetrack (source talking about the meeting of Smith and Doe at a racetrack). Smith being a haberdasher is completely irrel and anyone who doesnt know can find out by clicking the Smith link.
[John Smith], a haberdasher (source identifying smith as a haberdasher), met MP Jane Doe at a racetrack while the Parliament was discussing hat related legislation.(source talking about the meeting of Smith and Doe at a racetrack while the legislation was pending) . Clearly the inclusion of the haberdasher vocation is clearly meant to emphasize something illicit about the meeting and is inapprpriate under WP:SYN and WP:NPOV.

I cannot think of a situation where such attribution would be relevant without it being SYN/NPOV -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

well maybe

[John Smith] , a haberdasher (source identifying smith as a haberdasher), says that Jane Doe is singlehandedly responsible for bringing hats back into fashion (source that says Smith says Doe is responsible for new Hat trend) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In looking at the McConnell article, I ha]]ve two comments. First, there is a slow-motion edit war over whether to characterize Wilbur Ross as a billionaire investor in coal. Don't edit war. Second, the characterization of Ross as a coal billionaire is not necessary because he is blue-linked. The only fact about Ross that is directly relevant in the McConnell article is the fund-raiser. I suggest that the description of Ross's business interests be left out of the McConnell article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and the fact that the chosen sobriquet under question is "coal billionaire" rather than, oh, "American industrialist" also says a lot about how much "no SYN" is actually going on. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, the statement about Ross lacks context. Why is the fact that Ross hosted a fundraiser for McConnell notable? If there's some allegation of wrong-doing, then it's notable - find a source that attests to that fact. If there's no allegations of wrong-doing, it's non-notable trivia.

The original question, whether this is SYNTH, is beside the point. If there were notable claims of wrongdoing here (notable being the key criterion) then sure, explaining who this person is might be acceptable per the idea of providing useful context for readers. In this case, there doesn't appear to be any evidence that the connection to Ross is notable. Explaining who he is, and letting readers "draw their own conclusions" is problematic, since it creates a new implication ("there's something fishy here") that isn't is either source. Guettarda (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The construction "coal billionaire" is arguably messy and that's not what I was personally trying to add. I added an objective description that was backed up by references in the Wilbur Ross article ("a billionaire investor in steel, coal and other industries"). Perhaps that could be worded better but it is referenced fact. Anyway, the context for the whole statement is the heading "Fundraising" which falls under "Tenure". So the article is talking about notable fundraising under his tenure. Perhaps its notability can be questioned but that's not the matter I have brought here. Also, I find Robert McClenon's position to be both inaccurate (there's no "edit war") and out of order as this is not a conflict resolution matter. This is only a help matter. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TRPoD's initial response speaks to my question here. I was thinking this way, that adding the blurb about Ross was about backing up the notability of the whole statement, in that this fundraiser was notable because of who Ross is. I also can see how this blurb can suggest something illicit, although that seems rather tenuous. Is it suggesting something illicit to say someone is a billionaire, or an investor, or an investor in a set of industries? Or simply descriptive? Does it violate any guideline to describe a person with the intent of establishing notability for a statement? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To get back to the original question, I appreciate the answers to my query so far, and I hope nobody is holding back more because of accusations (including the artful, opinionated essay below). I am genuinely trying to understand nuances of writing Wikipedia that I didn't understand before. While it is possible that I could use such information to bolster an argument, it could equally make me reconsider my position in the related disagreement. I would hope that people would consider my long, constructive, mostly uneventful presence here (well over 10 years) and realize that I have no interest in anything except knowing what is expected in Wikipedia articles. That's what I thought the Help desk was for -- to clarify how to use and edit in the Wikipedia, and that's how I have been using it. I have not asked anyone here to take sides in a dispute. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical Question

It is common for edit warriors, POV warriors, and other editors with conflicts to come to the Help Desk or the policy talk pages and pose hypothetical questions about situations that are not really hypothetical, but have to do with actual issues. The regulars at the policy talk pages and the help desk usually avoid answering the hypothetical questions and look at the actual case. You say that my answer was both incorrect and out of order, because this was not a conflict issue but only a "help" matter. No. If anything was out of order, it was your attempt to ask an abstract question. It is very common, as I said, for someone to ask an abstract question, and, too often, the objective is to get a wikilawyered answer that they will then use in defending their possibly biased edit. You said that there is no edit war. There was a slow-motion edit war. Read Edit Warring. If content is added and reverted twice, that is a slow-motion edit war. It is disingenuous to claim that you came here only for a "help" matter. You are one of three editors engaged in a content dispute as to whether to add the characterization. If you wanted us to give you abstract assurance that adding the characterization was all right, then you don't understand that Wikipedia looks at specific articles, not at abstract questions as ways to lock changes into articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your active imagination and your ginning up a conflict way more than it actually is. But really, you should WP:AGF and see that I'm here for the reason that I stated. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I encourage everyone to look at the edit history of Mitch McConnell to see that in this so-called "edit war", there were actually no reverts by me. Not even a partial revert. Fancy, huh? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you asked a good-faith question. This was a content dispute, and content disputes are almost always in good faith. However, when a good-faith abstract question is asked at this Help Desk or at the policy talk pages, the regulars usually look at the specific circumstances, because often the OP, while asking the question in good faith, is looking for an abstract agreement, which could be used to do good-faith wikilawyering (and much wikilawyering is in good faith, just not the Wikipedia way). Because there are very few hard-line rules that can be stated abstractly and described abstractly, the regulars at the Help Desk and the policy pages don't give abstract answers, but specific ones. In the specific case, you did a partial revert, by adding back part of a characterization of Ross. It is true that a previous editor had added something much more extreme, a poorly sourced conspiracy theory, but you still did a partial revert. Since you asked, I was commenting. Please don't get annoyed if you ask abstract questions and get specific answers. Maybe you aren't expressing such annoyance. It seems that you are. Please don't ask abstract questions in general that are more appropriate to a bureaucracy. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not annoyed by any of the answers to the actual questions I have brought here. The other stuff is a different story, but I'll leave it at that. As for the "partial revert", that did not occur in the least. What was there before was a clumsy, subjective phrase. I added an objective description of someone McConnell was associating with, all major, referenced descriptive elements of Ross. I was actually expecting the other editor would have no issue with an objective description. I had no interest in warring, and the edit history and my comment that went along with that addition proves it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to the specific issue about Mitch McConnell, knowing that you are asking the wrong good-faith abstract question, I will answer the good-faith question that you could have been asking. What do I advise you to do about whether to include the characterization of Ross? Publish a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as my personal understanding of how Wikipedia works in regards to the questions I asked here is complete, I may do that. But not until that occurs. Having a wider discussion on that particular disagreement is way less important than myself understanding fully how Wikipedia works. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]