Help desk
< May 20	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 22 >

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.

May 21[edit]

Kitty Terry aka Kitty Woodson Terry[edit]

I have been trying for years to establish a page on Wikipedia I will donate money if need to Can someone help me how to get through the difficult process of getting a page for an established artist on Wikipedia I have an album picture I would like to upload as well. You have given my husband a page and he really hasn't done much but co write three way Lay Down Sally He also punched Eric in the chest but that isn't important. You gave him front row Why is it so difficult on a page where the public can supposedly contribute yo get a page for myself. Would you get me on touch with someone to help me I will donate Before I die I would like to leave a legacy of good work for my son. I am 60 and have worked very hard to achieve what I have accomplished. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitty Terry aka Kitty Woodson Terry (talk • contribs) 00:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For help creating a new article, please see Wikipedia:Creating an article. However, you should not create an article about yourself, as autobiography is generally prohibited here. To request that another editor consider doing so, please see Wikipedia:Requested articles. Since you have provided no explanation of any difficulties you may have experienced, this is the only advice I can offer you. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note our policies concerning notability. Please be prepared to provide citations and/or links to independent, published and reliable sources that document your claim to notability when requesting that an article be created. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And please note that Wikipedia does not accept bribes... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kitty. The "you" who wrote an article about George Terry is a few editors (out of the thousands) of Wikipedia who happened to choose to work on this article (including yourself). There isn't a staff or editorial board that decides what we should have articles about - we all do this, according to the agreed policies. Unfortunately, most of the people who have contributed to that article are unaware of our policies that (especially for an article about a living person) every single piece of information in an article needs to be cited to a reliable published source, the bulk of the article must be cited to sources unconnected with the subject, and if such sources don't exist then it is impossible to write an acceptable article about the subject. As it stands, that article may be deleted at any time, and it will remain under that threat until such time as somebody finds, and cites in the article, several places where people who have no connection to Terry have written substantial articles about him and had them published in reliable places. How much or little he has done is irrelevant: the criterion is whether people have written about him or not. If such sources do exist, and somebody adds them to the article, the next criterion for an acceptable article will be that it be written in a neutral tone, with no hint of promotion about it. (The material you added to the article last week would be partly acceptable if it were referenced, but some of it is promotional language and not acceptable in any case).

The same strictures would apply to any article about you: it must be based entirely on published information and almost entirely on material written by people who have no connection with you. If such material has not been published in reliable places, then an article will not be acceptable however it is written. As Dwpaul says, you are very strongly discouraged from trying to create it yourself. Finally, I'm afraid I must say that you desire to leave something for your son, however understandable and laudable, has nothing whatever to do with Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, nothing else. I suggest you create your own site, which you can use any way you like. --ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kitty Terry aka Kitty Woodson Terry: Please return to this page and read the responses above, instead of harassing other editors on their talk pages about this issue. Dwpaul ^Talk 17:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Long[edit]

I would like to edit Marital status and relationships of barry Long , I have proof of a significant relationship and would like it included.... how do I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karma46 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karma46, I assume you refer to the Barry Long article. When you say "I have proof" do you have a citeable, published, reliable source? If not, the information should not be included. If you do, I suggest posting to Talk:Barry Long if you are unsure of how to format or word the addition, and others should help. DES ^(talk) 02:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And even if there are references, if the material amounts to supermarket tabloid gossip, it probably isn't appropriate for Wikipedia.--ukexpat (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox article[edit]

I have just written an article on my sandbox, but now it seems to have disappeared. Can you get it back? It doesn't yet have a title, but it is about Diary of a Man in Despair.

Sardaka (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sardaka: I reverted this edit, in which you blanked the article. For some reason you also have another sandbox page named User:Sardaka/Sandbox, which also contains some content; neither sandbox appears to be about Diary of a Man in Despair. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading photos[edit]

Hello,

I have a quick question about uploading photos. I would like to upload photos that I have been given permission to use by the Department of National Defence (Canada). These photos are owned by the Crown, but have been cleared for public use. What is the correct 'phrase' I should click on in order to ensure the photos do not get taken down (which is something I experienced when I attempted to do so before).

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CFHSPAO (talk • contribs) 13:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First you should communicate the permission to OTRS by email to: [email protected]. Please also confirm that the permission is for all purposes including commercial reuse. Permission limited to use on Wikipedia is not sufficient.--ukexpat (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confused by apparently blacklisted link[edit]

There is a Wiki article for MoneyWeek which itself includes a link to its website. But if i try to link to a page on the website http://moneyweek. com/author/dominic-frisby/ (remove space before "com") here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Penbat/Dominic_Frisby it is rejected as a blacklisted link. MoneyWeek mentions some criticism of it referenced by a blog MoneyWeek#Controversy but personally im not aware of any major issues with it.--Penbat (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

moneyweek.com appears on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist preventing its use, but some links to specific pages within the domain may work because they are listed on MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist which provides exceptions to the blacklist. You can request whitelisting of the link you want to use at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Deli nk (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can i also request removing it entirely from the blacklist as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoneyWeek#Controversy is supported only by a blog http://coppolacomment.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/the-end-of-britain-not-yet.html which is not a reliable source and also does not support the "criticized by various independent writers" claim. Also I tried putting in the link to Moneyweek home page into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Penbat/Dominic_Frisby but it was not allowed.--Penbat (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can request removal here MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals, for reference it was added to the blacklist in this edit October 2008 which appears to have been based on the publisher doing something, not the individual site. Monty ₈₄₅ 13:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to get reason for page deletions from user Coffee, but have not received a reply[edit]

Howdy Wikipedia!

Was a yearly donating member to your most excellent cause, I was initially rather distraught when two of my pages were deleted (Victim Cache and Chipsurf). The user Coffee appears to have deleted the Victim Cache page. I suspect it may be due to the collision with the actual CPU cache of which our band name was derived. A felt a much better course of action was to simply rename the page (e.g. 'Victim Cache (Band)', and/or to contact me about this.

This is the second time my band's page has been abruptly deleted without me being contacted and, again, as a yearly donating member, it is irritating at best. While I'm not asking for special treatment, I've spent hours working on said pages and made efforts to make them comply with Wikipedia's policy. I do not believe they violate said policy and ultimately deserve to be there.

Either way, I think I deserve to be contacted about this. I understand Wikipedia is run by volunteers but abrupt deletions without any contact mentioning the reason is only less bad than asking for clarification and not getting it.

Regards,

Tim S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M00dawg (talk • contribs) 13:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@M00dawg: Hi! Victim Cache has been deleted twice, both times because the article didn't indicate that the subject was notable. A notable thing is defined as something that has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large". You show a thing (like your band) is notable by showing that it has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". You say this is the second time the page has been "abruptly deleted" without you being contacted, but that's not exactly true. The first time it was deleted you were contacted with a note on your talk page, see here. The second time it was deleted through a process called articles for deletion, where a page is listed for a week so people can discuss if it belongs on Wikipedia or not. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victim Cache was actually listed for 2 weeks, and then deleted. A two week period for debate and discussion is hardly "abruptly deleted."

At any rate, if you want to recreate the article and avoid having it deleted again, you need to make sure you cite sources. These sources must be published material that was not created by the band itself and show why the band is important. If you have questions or need help with this, let us know. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Essential reading:

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

Wikipedia:Notability (music)

Per the conflict of interest guidelines, you are "strongly discouraged" from creating an article about your band at all - and if you do so, you must make your relationship with the band clear on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One further point, M00dawg: nobody here has any idea who has sponsored Wikimedia and who has not (unless somebody chooses to announces their sponsorship) and it plays no part whatever in deletion or any other administrative decisions. --ColinFine (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the idea that donating would put your articles above any others is disturbing and entirely against the the very foundation of what Wikipedia stands for. PureRED (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look at the deleted article. The problem, as others have suggested, is that the article did not demonstrate sufficient 'notability'—that is, there just doesn't seems to be enough independent, outside coverage of the group to support a Wikipedia article at this time. The only two cited sources that weren't from the band's own websites or social media accounts were two very brief posts (two and five sentences) from the Dingus On Music blog, giving minuscule, capsule reviews of a couple of the band's tracks; the coverage identified seems to fall far short of the standard set in WP:BAND. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Printed and not online sources[edit]

Hello, If I have some infomation from magazine, newspaper,... that don't have online version. For example, I have a magazine and want to use it to cite an infomation in an article but only printed version is available. How can I make the preference without any url? Thanks Thien (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news which may be some help. MilborneOne (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have checked the Template:Cite news but all the example there have "|url=" in it. Can I just type "none" in the url part? It become like this which is something wrong.

Pank, Philip (2013-10-18). "Families Accuse Network Rail of Cover-Up". The Times. London. Archived from [none the original] on 2013-10-18. Retrieved 2013-10-18. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) Thien (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When using that template, if you don't have information for any of the slots, just leave them blank. Like this: Kent, Clark (2015-02-28). "Superman Exposed!". The Daily Planet. See? The url field is just left off. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you , just one more thing, if I scanned the magazine page and upload the scanned picture. Should I put that url in "|archiveurl=" or "|url="? Since that is "me post" not original, I guess it can not be in the "official" url place, but leaving "|url=" blank and "|archiveurl=" not blank create some red code error. What should I do? Can using a reference without any url lead to an "unverifiable" notice? Thanks.Thien (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is discussed in the "Accessibility" section of the "Verifiability" policy. Print sources are definitely acceptable; there is no need to create an online copy. Most print sources are protected by copyright, so you should not scan and post a copy unless you can verify the copyright has expired or the material has been released under a free license. See Wikipedia:Copyright assistance. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that in this era of Photoshop, purported scans of articles are not regarded as reliable sources unless on the website of the original publisher. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Thien (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article Creation[edit]

NAC: Article titles salted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hello! I want to create article about macphun software company. I did 4 attempts with 4 unique articles but all of these were deleted. I did not paste any commercial links or promotional content. Can you help me submit the article as far as macphun users often need wiki advice on the company - please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SipleDailyUser (talk • contribs) 18:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only edit that you have done, unless your previous edits to create the article were deleted, but you don't even have any talk page messages about deleted articles. Did you use a different account to attempt to create the articles, or did you attempt to create the article from an IP address? IP addresses cannot create articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every time the article was deleted I created new account and started over again, I want to say apple.com also has their page on wiki with links and company info, so we tried with macphun. What shall we do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SipleDailyUser (talk • contribs)

@SipleDailyUser: Please don't create a new account for every new attempt. You can keep it to just one account.

You may find it easiest to go through the Articles for Creation process to get the article written and approved. That way you get some guidance along the way. Note however that just because Apple has an article here, it doesn't mean that every company is notable enough to have an article. I have no idea what "macphun" is but if it is a company, it would have to be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia by coming up to the standards at WP:CORP. Dismas|^(talk) 19:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we are notable enough as far as we have minimum 5 million users and the number grows + we are highly rated company on the appstore for 7 years already. Thanks - I wiil try again right now — Preceding unsigned comment added by SipleDailyUser (talk • contribs) 19:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the extracts from the deletion logs at Macphun.--ukexpat (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And Macphun Software.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SipleDailyUser. I'm afraid that, like many people, you misunderstand what Wikipedia is, and what it is for. Apple does not have an article in Wikipedia. In fact, no company in the world has an article in Wikipedia - not even the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia has an article on Apple. This is not just pedantry: Apple has no control over the Wikipedia article Apple Corporation, and had little or no involvement in its creation. Material will not be added to the article just because Apple wants it there, and will not be removed just because Apple doesn't like it. We are able to have an article on Apple because there is a great deal written about it by people who have no connection with the corporation - and ideally, the article is entirely based on these writings, and little or nothing based on what Apple have said.

So for your company, the same holds. If there is substantial published material about your company, written and published by people who have no connection with the company, then Wikipdeia can have an article about the company. It will not belong to the company, the company will have no control over it, and in fact you (as somebody belonging to the company) are strongly discouraged from editing it at all, because it is likely to be difficult for you to write in a neutral manner. If there is little independent material about your company, in reliable sources, then the company is not notable in Wikipedia's special sense. The number of customers is of no relevance. --ColinFine (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Poster's use of the pronoun "we" is troublesome, because it strongly implies an affiliation with the company, which is a conflict of interest. The throwing away of accounts and creation of new accounts is also troublesome. It seems to imply that they think that their article is more likely to be accepted if there is no record of the previous deletion of the article, which would be avoiding accountability in violation of the sockpuppetry policy. Why did you throw away each account and create a new account, if not to be evasive? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.