Help desk
< October 11	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 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.

October 12

Delete a photo that is my own work because it has an incorrect title

Can someone delete the following file: File:St.Barnabas High School Walkway.JPG It was titled incorrectly. I tried to overwrite it and upload it again but now I have two of them with the same wrong title. Can someone delete them or if not please explain how to delete them in non Wiki-speak fashion so that I can do it. Thanks User: TheBronxNYC (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can paste {{Db-author}} at the top of the file, see WP:G7. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBronxNYC: Skip to last paragraph if you do not care for the details.

I had tagged it for speedy deletion, but reverted upon inspecting your contributions because I think you uploaded the second version in the same place. A better way would probably be to move the file.

In non-Wikispeak: on Wikipedia, any editor can request deletion of anything for which they are the only contributor, and it usually is granted. If so, one should place the template {{db-author}} on the page.

However, the procedure you want to follow here is to move the page, that is, change its title. If you cannot do it yourself because your account is to new, go there, and copy-paste the template that appears above the edition box, filling in the blanks. "I am the only contributor and uploaded with a wrong title" should be a sufficient reason. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Wikipedia Editing Rights for a Semi-Protected Wikipedia article

OMICS Publishing Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi Wikipedia Helpdesk,

I wish to seek permission to edit a semi-protected article.

There are many latest updates which are missing on this page. Please let me know, how can I do it?

Naila Aaijaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by RLConline (talk • contribs) 03:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can make edit request at the article's talk page for now. Otherwise, you'll just have to wait until you receive autoconfirmed status, unless you can demonstrate some reason why you would need to be given confirmed status right now. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that if you have a relationship with the subject of the article, you are strongly discouraged from editing the article of an organization with which you have a relationship. See the FAQ. If this is the case, you are still welcome to make edit requests on the article talk page. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 06:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Created a Wikipedia article and I want to change the name of the Article

I just created a Dal Food article and I want to change the name from Dal Food to DAL Food how can I do that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iyzir (talk • contribs) 09:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need to move the page. However, Wikipedia doesn't stylise names with all capital letters. Joseph2302 10:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, yes it does, see MOS:CAPS. If the capitals are part of the common name, they stay.

This being said, the article Dal Food should probably be deleted rather than moved. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes caps are used if that's how the company styles itself or common name. See BBC, RAC Limited or ITV (TV network) for example. Agree though that Dal Food doesn't really fulfil requirements overall. Eagleash (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan and Eagleash: We capitalize acronyms (which is why it's NASA, FAQ, SQL – excepting where the acronym is no longer typically treated as an acronym but were originally ("Laser", "Scuba") and ignore all pure caps stylization [(Carquest (not: CARQUEST) Skechers (not: SKECHERS) Ridgid (not: RIDGID)], unless the capitalized part of the title is pronounced by each letter (ATI Technologies, EVGA Corporation), and only look at pure stylization caps where almost all reliable sources follow the company's lead, unlike the typical titling holdings of WP:UCN, which has been interpreted in numerous requested moved discussions to not cover stylization.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that the company was D-A-L foods and not 'Dal' to rhyme with 'Hal' or 'Sal'. Eagleash (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then it should be moved. I was just trying to clarify the naming issues, since I (well I used to) spend a great deal of time at requested moves.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on List of Medal of Honor recipients

Reference help requested. I have created references errors. When a bot alerted me I did not appreciate that ref name="AMOHWStat covered multiple rdeferences. While AMOHWStat is very good in many respects the introduction to this reference specifically states that its statistics are not up to date. The best website for keeping Medal of Honor statistics up to date is the Medal of Honor Historical Society of the US http://www.mohhsus.com/medal-of-honor The other source of Medal of Honor statistics is the site of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society but for more than a year they have an unresolved calculation error which gives a figure of two more than the correct total. I plan to learn how to create a refname for the MOHHSUS. Anthony Staunton (talk) 09:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC) Thanks, Anthony Staunton (talk) 09:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anthony Staunton. Reference names are nothing to do with the quality or generality of the reference: they are simply a device to avoid having to duplicate a reference within an article: the actual name used is completely arbitrary (and doesn't even appear to a reader unless there is an error): it is simply saying "for the rest of this article I am going to refer to this particular reference (which I am fully defining) as 'AMOHWStat'". What is happening is that you are removing the citation where that name is defined. This is perfectly fine, except that there are later places in the article where it is used. If you want to remove its first use, you need to find the next place in the article where that name is used, and transfer the full definition (the text between the <ref> and the </ref>) to that use. If you remove that one as well, you need to transfer it to the next one, and so on. Please see WP:REFNAME for more information.

Possible hoax

List of best-selling albums in Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi. Sorry about my english. In es:WP this article is in DR because it is a hoax. Most artist are from Mexico (except Durcal who lives half of her life there and sang "rancheras"), but does not include artist from other countries but best sellers than these. In addition, numbers are wrong, since the sells take in consideration in this list are worldwide, and not only in Mexico. The result is an incomprehensive salat that spray all over the net. Non oficial data from Amprofon or Sony Music (presumably original author of the list) exist to soport this list. Apparently the spanish article come from this list in english. MSN Latino is not online but wayback machine says it was a list with pictures or videos, no source nor official data neather. Please chech spanish DR to an extended and carefull analisys] of the sources. Also please check others articles that use the same source. Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganímedes: I have tagged our list as needing an update and having possibly unreliable sources. If you need any help desk assistance with the Spanish Wikipedia content, please see es:Wikipedia:Café/Archivo/Ayuda/Actual. Thanks for raising your concerns about it. Murph9000 (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. However, I don't agree. That's too soft and not enough IMHO. I'm telling you it's a hoax. I was waiting for a DR since this article has been too long here and spray a lie all over the net. I've seen articles with these adds for years, and meantime the lies is there. However, I'll copy this message in the TP, waiting to someone who take another action. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I.e. In this page says "“Los Dúo” in 2016 was one of the best sellers of the singer with 1 diamant, 4 platinum and 1 gold, sealing 570 mil units in Mexico. "Tu ángel de la guarda" says it sold 2.800000 copies, but in México only get 4 platinum, wich represents 400.000 disks. Problem isn't "no reliable sources", but simply *fake* data. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

w.hancel.net

While googling for a Chinese Wikipedia page, I inadvertently clicked into a site called https://w.hancel.net, which looks exactly like the Wikipedia. (Front page here: https://w.hancel.net/wiki/Wikipedia:%E9%A6%96%E9%A1%B5). Not realising that it was not Wikipedia, I clicked on the "Edit" button on an article, which returned an error about no editing via proxy, which prompted me to try to log in. After doing this twice and being directed to an error page, I realised that it was not actually Chinese Wikipedia. Then I thought that it might be a good scam to set up a site that looks like Wikipedia, in order to phish for Wikipedia account passwords. I can definitely see how the Chinese government might find such information useful.

So, does anyone know whether w.hancel.net is a harmless mirror, or could it be a scam of some sort? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey PalaceGuard008. I'm not sure such non-compliant sites are ever truly harmless, though I have no idea whether there's something deeper than it being just a non-compliant mirror. Regardless, you should list it at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks, I guess under Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Ghi or should it go under w? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @PalaceGuard008: I wouldn't want to speculate about benign vs. malicious. There are certainly plenty of sites out there republishing WP content, some of them even comply with the copyright licenses which permit them to do so, and some of them are relatively harmless. Assuming you can interact in Chinese, your question might be better asked at the Chinese Wikipedia equivalent of our help desk at zh:维基百科:互助客栈/求助 (assuming the interlanguage links are correct, and assuming that it's a mirror of http://zh.wiki.x.io/), as they are more likely to know of mirrors of their site and be able to better assess any issues with it. We can only really offer support for English Wikipedia here. Even if the site is relatively harmless, do not use your Wikipedia / Wikimedia login and password on it, and immediately change your password if there is any possibility that you entered it while browsing that site. Murph9000 (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both. I am not comfortable enough with written conversational Chinese to post a help message on the Chinese help desk, so I won't bother. But I have listed the site on the list of mirrors and forks and changed my password. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a little digging on this, it looks like an open proxy at 45.58.55.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). It was blocked on ZH-WP for 2 years on 27 September 2016 by 和平奮鬥救地球 (talk · contribs), then had its talk page blocked by Jimmy Xu (talk · contribs) on 30 September 2016: zh:Special:Contributions/45.58.55.132 Murph9000 (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If my memory is correct, it was Antigng (talk · contribs) whom found that mirror site. Maybe he would know more about this?- Earth Saver _(talk) at 16:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good reasons for a previous AFD not to be linked?

It has been suggested that some wp:AfDs should not be linked from the talkpage of articles that survived a deletion attempt. I am not very experienced with deletion discussion and was wondering what would be a good reason to keep a discussion less findable. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Ottawahitech, can you give us the context – where this was suggested? Hard to extrapolate without some direction, but maybe where there are BLP concerns. For example, where details of inappropriate content, then in the article, were discussed, and now that such content is no longer in the article those details should not be advertised; clearly defamatory commentary that was never removed; maybe where the subject of a BLP, or someone involved with the subject, involved themselves in the AfD in a manner that would be embarrassing for them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: It was posted as an answer on my previous question here. I did not want to clutter that discussion and started a new thread (maybe unwisely?) Ottawahitech (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

With that context, it seems to me pinging Iridescent to ask what types of AfDs shouldn't be linked is likely a good direct route for an answer. One might be AfDs that have been courtesy blanked (which I imagine is often a result of there being BLP issues like I was talking about).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; generally either when there are BLP issues in an AFD discussion which has subsequently been courtesy blanked; occasionally also when something has been deleted or oversighted as an office, Arbcom or OTRS action and there are specific reasons (either legal or ethical) that we don't want to draw attention to the fact that a previous version of the article ever existed. (For obvious reasons I'm not going to give examples.) The situations aren't common, but they exist often enough that a bot addition of {{Old AfD}} to all articles for which an AFD discussion exists but don't already have the notice on their talkpage—which I assume is what you have in mind—isn't going to be appropriate, as it will have minimal benefit (any fresh AFD will automatically list the former ones anyway), and has the potential to cause significant disruption. ‑ Iridescent 16:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HTML File Name "the free encyclopedia" removed ?

When a user saves a Wikipedia Article as a Html file, the filename contains "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

e.g. Pages saved from es. and pt. Juan Manuel Santos - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre.html Juan Manuel Santos – Wikipédia, a enciclopédia livre.html

but from today the english version is simply Juan Manuel Santos - Wikipedia.html "the free encyclopedia" has been removed ...

I find useful and user-friendly to have an unique filename for any language version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.79.57.4 (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was decided to change the html title at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: Amend page title element to remove "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". See also Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Tab title. It's not intended as a file name and your browser can probably change it when you save a page. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Add My Own Photo

Phil Cox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hey Community, I am trying to add a photo of myself, that I own, to an article about me. Pretty simple, right? However it keeps being rejected for not confirming to community standards. Its a pretty simple photo, that I own all the rights to. Any help would be appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocularduck (talk • contribs) 16:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ocularduck. It's hard to answer questions like that without more information. Where were you trying to upload it (Wikipedia or Commons)? At what point was it "rejected", and what was the exact message? I can't find any record of your having uploaded any pictures or had any deleted, so I have nothing to go on. --ColinFine (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up [[U|ColinFine}}. The article in question is found here: Phil Cox and the photo, which is of me and I own, is from my corporate site, seen here: http://50-state.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/PhilHeadshot-272x300.png

The help is appreciated since this is all new to me and I just want a decent photo on my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocularduck (talk • contribs) 16:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ocularduck: You will need to follow the steps given at WP:DCM to prove that you are yourself, i.e., that you own the copyrights to that image. It sounds silly, I know, but on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

Note also that if you did not take the photo yourself, you will need the photographer to do the donating - even if they allowed you to use the photograph, they may object to the whole world (or at least Wikipedia) using it. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, all that sounds kinda reasonable. What if I paid the photographer for the photo and it is therefore my property and not theirs. So I still need some permission from them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocularduck (talk • contribs) 16:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have purchased the copyright from the photographer (which is not what usually happens), you don't need permission from them, but you do need to show that you own the copyright. Maproom (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocularduck (talk • contribs) 17:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that paying for the photo is not the same as paying for the copyright. Please make sure that the purchase contract included the copyright. This is more common now, but it used to be quite common for photographers to sell the photo and retain the rights.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to a Wikipedia Article

Do I need to obtain permission/authorization to place links to Wikipedia articles on my website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A9A1:6A00:D49C:AA9D:9688:51C8 (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to place links to Wikipedia. If you also want to display content from Wikipedia then see Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No, you may cite or link to Wikipedia freely. But be aware that the page you link to might get edited at any time, so if you're depending on a particular version of an article, it might make more sense to use a Permalink. Please see Citing Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lost wikipedia page

Hello,

I had created a page for "Robert A. LeVine" last year, I am unsure as to why I cannot find it on Wikipedia anymore. Could you please give me guidelines on how I can bring back this page?

Thank you very much, Sweta — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwetaraJoshi (talk • contribs) 18:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was deleted. Click on the red link to find out why, when and by whom: Robert A. LeVine – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The article Robert A. LeVine was deleted by administrator Jimfbleak. The reason can be found in the deletion log. clpo13_(talk) 18:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Why was my page deleted? The most common reasons are:

To find the specific reason a particular page was deleted:

Go to the Deletion Log
Type the page title in the case-sensitive search field
The date, time and reason for deletion will be displayed

Murph9000 (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case, it was speedily deleted as consisting of "Unambiguous advertising or promotion: no independent sources, self-referenced spam". --Orange Mike | Talk 23:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding new material

Hello, I was hoping to help Wikipedia by adding information I know that comes from NAILS Magazine, a trusted source for nail industry statistics and information. Every time I add anything, it is removed quickly. Please let me know what I can do in order to help make additions that will adhere to your guidelines and/or remain apart of the article for the foreseeable future. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancyravenk (talk • contribs) 22:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the bad formatting, your edits lead me to ask what your position is at NAILS magazine. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]