Help desk
< December 24	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 26 >

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.

December 25[edit]

Alan Shatter[edit]

I am the Realtor in Florida for Alan Shatter. You have mislead viewers by noting he has had an "eviction row" in the U.S. The fact is as someone who did the filing, "me" is as follows. His tenant was in arrears of his rent for over 8 months, did you hear me? Eight solid months.. .., Alan Shatter gave him every opportunity to pay in any way possible and he TOOK ADVANTAGE of a very kind person. When you interviewed the tenant he said "it was a "misunderstanding". ......my EYE.....it cost Alan Shatter $12,000 US dollars to restore a beautiful property due to the cat urine, dog feces and chewing damage; the carpeting was completely replaced due to cat urine soaked into the carpet and squirted on the walls. The home was INFESTED with German cockroaches from filth. Alan Shatter has maintained his Florida properties in a 5 star, "A" number one condition at all times.....you need to retract your untruthful statement about his"row" with a US property. EXCEPTIONAL HUMAN BEING! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.203.13 (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine! Calm down, willya? It didn't say anything bad about Mr Shatter, just that he was having a row which is true. I removed it as trivial and possibly misleading so everythings OK now. Herostratus (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Whitlock of ESPN would like a picture to run on his page[edit]

I would like someone to add a picture to my wikipedia page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Whitlock

Any picture off Google images will do. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason whitlock (talk • contribs) 01:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can request an image be uploaded here: Wikipedia:Files for upload. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But any picture off Google images will not do, unless the copyright holder (who is usually not the subject) explicitly licenses the image to be used by anybody for any purpose, including commercial. See WP:donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 11:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked this account with {{Uw-ublock-famous}}, since it's a clear claim of "I'm this famous person" without support. If it's really Whitlock, hopefully he'll provide ID soon so that he can be unblocked. Nyttend (talk) 05:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To Jason Whitlock (or whoever else it was that posted the request above):

The blocking of your username is required by our policies, but is not intended as a punishment. Your request is a perfectly reasonable one, which we would like to comply with. However Wikipedia is very proper about obeying copyright law, we will only use a picture which we know we are allowed to use. So even if you get your wife or sister to take a picture of you and send it to Wikipedia, we can't use it unless she goes through the business of supplying a copyright-release form. Your easiest method would be one of

tell us about a picture on the web which already has a copyright-release notice with it
Ask someone to take a picture and upload it, maybe using this form

Maproom (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The person can also take a selfie, in focus and well-lit, and upload it to Wikimedia Commons under an acceptable free license. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having trouble with links (redirects?)[edit]

Never mind -- I found the page to submit a redirect change -- thanks!

Bohemian Gal (talk) 04:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article deleted???[edit]

My article on The Church of the Creator was deleted by user Nyttend as "not significant." I've reinstated it, because it IS significant and for good reason -- it is NOT affiliated with the white supremacist group "The Creativity Movement" to which the search phrase "Church of the Creator" links. In fact, the "movement" is legally estopped from using "Church of the Creator" in any form.

I tried to have the redirect changed a few months ago and was told the only way to accomplish that was to have an article for it to point to. I've done that now -- so the article needs to be left alone.

Here's the original conversation, from January of 2014:

"Hi, I've moved the Church of the Creator discussion there, since it was started on the 6th, not the 5th. —rybec 06:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion has not been closed, but given responses so far, and under the principle of WP:SNOW, it's improbable that the redirect will be deleted unless and until there is something (an article) to replace it. The article doesn't need to be elegant, but it should be substantial enough (and have enough citations) to establish that the organization that lays claim to the COTC name is notable enough that it should have its own Wikipedia article."

However, I still need the "Church Of The Creator" search phrase to lead *only* to my article, not the Creativity page. How can I get that done? Bohemian Gal (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you 'need' and what Wikipedia requires appear to be two different things. To justify an article, you have to demonstrate through coverage in third-party published reliable sources that the Church meets the relevant Wikipedia notability criteria. The mere fact that the Church isn't linked with another organisation, and has a legal judgement to that effect, doesn't make it notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And incidentally, were we to have an article on the Church, it would certainly have little resemblance to your proposed version. [1] This is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for the propagation of proselyting puffery. As an encyclopaedia, we aren't for example in the habit of telling our readers that the utterance of a certain phrase "acts as a vibrational harmonic which resonates and sets Cosmic and Divine Law into motion. It creates an automatic alignment of Heaven on Earth. Divine Right Order allows Truth to manifest, Justice to reign supreme, and Love to bring forth Harmony, Liberty, Freedom and Peace, United in Christ." You are of course free to believe that. You are also free to tell other people that. But not here. Not in Wikipedia's voice as an assertion of fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, my head almost exploded when I skimmed that version of the "article". That is so far away from a neutral encyclopedia article that it seems that every single sentence needs to be fundamentally rewritten. But I am unconvinced at this time that the topic is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking again, I see that it has been identified as a copyright violation anyway - see this edit summary. [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whack it, then. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Creator has now been turned into a disambiguation page by User:Dr.K - probably the simplest solution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And un-turned by me. Dr.K appears to have misunderstood: one of the entries was Creativity (religion), and the other was Church of the Creator founded by Ben Klassen, who was the founder of Creativity (religion), not of some other organisation. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of the Creator, where the Divine Right Order people were deemed non-notable and redirected to the Klassen people. Nyttend (talk) 15:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There should be NO redirect to the white supremacists, since they no longer are allowed to use the Church of the Creator name. In the interest of accuracy, which is what you folks proclaim you want, that's the very least you should do. You don't like what I wrote? Fine, I didn't particularly like it myself -- was simply trying to put something there, as directed by editors earlier in the year. Just put in a stub that says something like "The Church of the Creator is based in Oregon and has no affiliation with the Creativity Movement." And then put a link to the hate group if you want.

The Creativity Movement may be more "notable," but linking the "Church of the Creator" name to them is incorrect.

I'm not trying to be argumentative or violative of "community norms" -- I just honestly don't understand why this is such an issue for you.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who types "Church of the Creator" into Wikipedia's search box may be searching for an article about the white supremacists who were once so known. As Wikipedia only has one article about any organisation that has ever used that name, Wikipedia's policies recommend a redirect to that article. But I would be upset if anyone ever thought I supported that organisation, so I sympathise with Bohemian Gal. I hope someone can come up with a better solution than the current one. Maproom (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

about revision of wikipedia article[edit]

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by FEYE Shoppy Onine (talk • contribs) 07:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Username policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]