Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 July 11

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

New article list?

What is the best way to keep track of new articles? Is there a list somewhere? Today I saw an ad hiring people to write a Wikipedia article for a New York-based health website and I want to see the article they will write, but I don't know the name of the website. All I could find was this but that seems to be voluntary. Thank you. Yamada Taro (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

For a list of articles as they are created, see Special:NewPages, but without the name of the website, I don't know that will help much. Without the title you'd have to scroll through about 1,500 articles from just today, not including the 1,000 or so that have been deleted. By that same token it's not unlikely that, if it was created, it has already come and gone; articles on subject like this are often unsuitable and fodder for the deletion mill, e.g. they often are balatant advertising and/or they fail to assert importance and/or are copyright violations. (Newpages is sometimes alternatively called the "raging firehose of crap".) Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I did not know about this page. Yamada Taro (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, my description of monitoring the New Pages was "drinking from the Magic Firehose of Sewage". --Orange Mike | Talk 12:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm Maybe it's just GMTA. I first used that back in 2008 (about vandalism so really about recentchanges) but I could have been bastardizing your turn of phrase then. I certainly don't remember today!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

How to circumvent "This file is bigger than the server is configured to allow."

I am trying to upload an NSA video on polygraphy which uses some excerpts from copyrighted TV shows (Meet the Parents and The Simpsons) and so I am uploading it locally.

But when I have it in an OGV format the upload system says "This file is bigger than the server is configured to allow." - How do I circumvent this so I can upload the file?

Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "uploading it locally"? Where are you uploading it to? Looie496 (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

English Wikipedia, as opposed to the Commons. The idea is that I upload the "full" video here, but to upload it to the Commons I would have to cut out or blank the small portions that are copyrighted (works by employees of the federal government on duty are PD). So for fair use purposes I want the full film here. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I know nothing about this Whisper, but you might get your answer from mw:Manual talk:$wgMaxUploadSize and meta:Uploading files, both found through a Google search for your quote, among others, that look like they have promising information. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for finding these! Are these files about configuring a Wiki's maximum size upload? I remember that there was a trick on the Commons to uploading files in parts, to get around the maximum upload size. Not sure if it can be enabled here on EN? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't ask me. If no one comes along who knows more, I'd try Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you :) WhisperToMe (talk) 07:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Erroneous message not for me.

I have received a user talk warning which does not apply to me and cannot find a way of reporting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.241.115 (talk) 08:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

If the message does not apply to you, just ignore it - as it says in the box at the bottom of User talk:92.24.241.115, "Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users". -- John of Reading (talk) 08:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

CAPTCHA

I'm trying to go through the Pages with missing references, to make sure they all have references - and every time I save a page, I get asked to add a CAPTCHA. The reason is that I'm adding "new external links", but I'm not, I'm only adding a references tag. It's getting annoying, is there any way to turn that off? I understand why people wouldn't bother to be honest. Flying Buttress (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This ends when you become autoconfirmed... "Although the precise requirements for autoconfirmed status vary according to circumstances, most English Wiki user accounts that are more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits are considered autoconfirmed." It looks like your account is only a day old – the CAPTCHA will end in three days, as you've made your ten edits :) — Richard BB 09:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

So I'm going to have to put up with it for 4 days? Flying Buttress (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Post at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed, and an admin may adjust your account settings early. You are doing good work fixing those references. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou! I will do. Flying Buttress (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It does look like it takes some time, there's a request from yesterday evening - but I've put a request up there, I suppose it'll be less than 4 days that way. Thankyou both for your help. Is there anything else you recommend I try to wet my feet, I'm fairly technically minded. Flying Buttress (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

There's Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting as well - those can be tricky sometimes. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Copied material

I have copied material from an external website to a new Wiki page, but I am project coordinator for the Trustees that run the original website - I am copying it for them! How do I lshow that this is OK so the content doesn't get deleted? Spode Works project (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Spode Works project

See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the correct procedure. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You should also look at our user-names policy, as your current name indicates that it is being used on behalf of an organisation, which is not allowed. All edits must be attributed to an individual. Rojomoke (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

... and note that Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials says "If you are not the copyright holder of the material you cannot donate rights to Wikipedia". The copyright holder must explicitly grant the appropriate permissions to Wikipedia - you cannot do that for them, even if you assure Wikipedia that you are acting on their behalf. If the material in question is descriptive text it is almost always simpler and quicker to re-write or summarise the material in your own words. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

... and it is unusual that material from an organisation's own website is written in a neutral enough manner to be appropriate for a Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism in Moody's Investors Service

To anyone it may concern: I noticed recently that a new paragraph in the article Moody's Investors Service is nearly a word-for-word copy of a WSJ report. I have explained the situation in a post on the article's discussion page and even provided what I think is an acceptable replacement. I believe I should not edit this article, because I work for Moody's. I am aware that editing by COI parties is not completely off-limits but I would not wish to provide any opening for criticism of my engagement of this page. Is another editor open to considering this change? Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done I've implemented a slightly altered version of your suggestion and updated the talk page. Thanks!  drewmunn  talk  14:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

SHI International page reads as an advertisement

I just visited the page SHI International, and I noticed that the page reads like an advertisement, with very little information about the company itself. Is there some way that this should be handled? Can someone take care of addressing that? eykanal talk 14:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I personally suggest a speedy deletion per G11 (blatant promotion) as it needs a complete rewrite to be fully subjective. If the delete is contested (as previous ones have been), then a full rewrite should happen anyway.  drewmunn  talk  14:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You can't re-nominate for speedy, as it has already been nominated - to quote WP:SPEEDY "If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations" - Arjayay (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

That applies to only XfD. Meaning if it survives an XfD, it can't be nominated as a non-notable, etc. However, blatant advertising, when there's no good version to revert to, is always a speediable offense. If it survives XfD, it must not have been promotional enough to speedy. So, this one should qualify for a G11, as it was prevously nominated as A7. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 14:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm always willing to learn, (and I'm not arguing for retention of the page), so where do I find the guideline that over-rules what it says in WP:SPEEDY? - Arjayay (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Arjayay. This is just a language parsing issue – speedy deletions are not deletion discussions so when WP:CSD says "If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion..." it excludes by definition both speedy deletions and PRODs, only meaning deletion processes where there is a discussion (AfD, Mfd, RfD, TfD, CfD, FfD). Also, note that the quote in the lead is a summary of the more detailed criterion in the body which is WP:CSD#G4. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. see {{Notg4}}, which I created to flag the issue to newpages patrollers when they tag pages under CSD G4 despite that the page was only previously speedied.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - perhaps WP:SPEEDY could be reworded to avoid this confusion? or is it just me? - Arjayay (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, maybe (and any such change would be proposed at WT:CSD) but I do think it's rather clear. First, the very first sentence of the page is: "The criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion." Then, at the last section of the lead it is explained that

Besides speedy deletion, there are the following methods of deletion:
 • Wikipedia:Deletion discussions (AfD, Mfd, RfD, TfD, CfD, FfD), the normal method of carrying out deletion.

and sandwiched in between is the language you came here about, which as I explained, is just the lead's summary of G4 which is in the body of the policy. The actual criterion should always be looked at in any case, not what's said in the lead. So maybe it is just you:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

CRTC web page

Hi!

This is just to let you know that the information provided on Wikipedia related to CRTC is not accurate. The Minister responsible for this agency is James Moore and not Christian Paradis. Accordingly, CRTC falls under Canadian Heritage and not Industry Canada.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.61.2 (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Please post this, with a citation to a reliable published source, on the talk page of the appropriate page. --ColinFine (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Pipe character in citation

How does one encode a pipe character in a citation? Citation #4 in Alice Robie Resnick is messed up because the source includes a pipe character in its title; someone copied it quite properly, but the citation template treats it as a metacharacter. I assume that there's a way to do it with percent-encoding, but I don't know what the right code is. 2001:18E8:2:1020:1DC:B109:F51C:1F42 (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

%A6 I think.--ukexpat (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but it doesn't work. Checked percent encoding (didn't think to look there before!), and it links to Help:URL, which gave me the right code. 2001:18E8:2:1020:1DC:B109:F51C:1F42 (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Trying to change a logo

Hi,

I work on the marketing team at adMarketplace. I am trying to update our logo. Every time I try, it tells me I do not have a confirmed account.

How can I update my logo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pluckett (talk • contribs) 17:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Just as a quick note, it's good practise to sign posts on talk pages with 4 tildes (~~~~). As for your request, only confirmed users can upload images to Wikipeda. Users are autoconfirmed after 4 days and 10 edits. However, you would not be able to edit the page in question, as it would constitute a conflict of interest. It would be more beneficial for you to request the change on the article's talk page, and another user will deal with the changes as necessary. I hope this helps.  drewmunn  talk  18:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You can make an upload request at WP:FFU.--ukexpat (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

To be strictly accurate, users with a conflict of interest are not banned from editing a page, just strongly discouraged from doing so, as they would find it difficult to maintain a neutral POV. I can see no reason why you shouldn't upload your company's logo. Just make sure you understand and comply with our copyright rules. Rojomoke (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

unable to edit another user's talk page

Hello. I'm AmericanLemming, and I've been editing on Wikipedia for a few months. Recently, an editor, Baffle gab1978, reverted my edit, and I, being a newbie editor, wanted to ask him why by posting on his talk page. However, I've tried to do so multiple times on different browsers and have always been unable to do so.

I can edit his actual user page, but it is my understanding that such behavior is generally frowned upon. Anyway, how do I inform him that his talk page is broken and/or find someone who can fix it? I don't expect the Help desk to be able to fix this problem, but I do hope that you would be able to point me in the right direction. Thanks! AmericanLemming (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Having checked, there does seem to be an issue with his talk page. The user states that they are on a break from Wikipedia at this time, so they may not respond anyway, but I have left a request for him to contact you on his talk page, and informed him that there is an issue.  drewmunn  talk  18:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Scratch that final part, my edits will not save correctly on his talk page. You've mentioned him here, so he'll get a notification next time he logs in, but that's about all that seems possible (outside of emailing, but I wouldn't recommend that as he's on break). Instead, I'll take a look at the edits in question and try to explain myself.  drewmunn  talk  18:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I just edited his talk page with no problem, so it's hard to guess what might be going on here. Do you people get any sort of error message when the edits fail to save? Looie496 (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I get a message about the server failing to save part of the edit (after managing to compose the message behind the sidebar, which slides right over the content). I tried in both Safari and Chrome; I know they use the same render engine, but they're the only two browsers I have to hand. It may be that the render engine is partially (or wholly) to blame. What browser/OS did you use?  drewmunn  talk  18:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I tried Safari and Firefox. AmericanLemming (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

So it's not a render engine issue. Did you have java disabled, Looie?  drewmunn  talk  18:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Firefox 22, Win 7. I don't understand the bit about the sidebar sliding over the content -- I'm not seeing anything like that, either in FF or in Chrome. I have Java enabled in Firefox at least. What skin are you using? Looie496 (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm using Vector, but the issue's been resolved now, thanks to Kww.  drewmunn  talk  19:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm not very tech-savvy. I know how to use computers, but I don't know they work. Anyway, the article is Villa Regina, and the issue in question is whether an quotation should be formatted as a block quotation or not. The 40-word quote is "Two hours on the way up from Chichinal, we camped on a place a bit far from the river, close to a water reservoir. [...] The ground is plain with ligere landforms. The canyons to the north increase their altitude westbound;" you'll find it in the first paragraph of the body of the article. To find the revert, go to the page history and click "older 50" once. You'll find it easily, as you'll see 49 of my edits and one of his. The relevant MoS guideline is WP:MOSQUOTE. AmericanLemming (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure which style I prefer, but if the guidelines are being stuck to by the letter, the quote isn't long enough to require block formatting. Saying that, it's right on the limit, and the wording is vague, so it may be something to start a request for comment about if you think the article would benefit from block formatting.  drewmunn  talk  19:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

How and where do I start a request for comment? AmericanLemming (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It was something in the edit notice for the talk page. I've disabled it and left a note with Bafflegab.—Kww(talk) 18:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Cheers!  drewmunn  talk  19:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Tawan W. Davis

Hello,

I asked a question on June 28, 2013 about removing the orphan status and the unreviewed article tag. I followed the suggestions by adding more citations and the article has several other articles that link to it, but nothing has changed. Could you please take a look and provide assistance?

Thank you. Jill kennebrew (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)jill kennebrew

Not being an expert on the subject, I couldn't comment on the matter too much, but I don't see that the subject is particularly notable. Either that, or the article needs some reworking to improve the tone so it doesn't read as a CV. There are also a few spelling, grammatical, and layout issues, but they can be cleaned up with a little work. The main cause of orphaned articles is a lack of notability; if a subject isn't notable enough to be mentioned elsewhere, then it's likely their dedicated article won't get much footfall or linkage.  drewmunn  talk  19:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jill, the templates don't go away on their own, editors have to remove them. While the article isn't entirely an orphan, the only article that links to it is kind of weak: List of Georgetown University alumni. I've removed the orphan tag. I've also removed the citations tag, since there are a few more references now. The notability of the subject is still not well established in the article. (Here's where the harsh-sounding questions begin:) The article says that he's an economist and investor. So what? Why does he get his own Wikipedia page? What makes him so important? Should every teacher/VP get a Wikipedia article? Why does he stand out from every other working person in America? Also, some of the language is full of puffery, in case you were interested in toning it down. "He is recognized as one of America's emerging economic, social and political leaders." This statement is over-the-top: "Newsweek compared Davis to President Bill Clinton, siting him as a 'leader in youth politics'". There's more, but I gotta go! Hope that helps a little. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I've done some cleanup on the article, including adding a notabilty tag - I too question whether this meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria. I see *zero* cited news articles where Mr. Davis was subject; what appeared to be such an article ( in the Harlem News) turned out to be a word-for-word reprint of a press release. (For the record, I removed the "Newsweek compared" statement - that is simply untrue (it was a columnist in The Daily Beast; and the comparison was about Clinton and Davis both running for student body president, which makes the comparison unimportant); the "recognized as" statement is also now gone (not in any way supported by a citation). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Article is entirely a copy/paste.

Hey, was hoping to get some eyes on this article: Kamarupa of Bhaskar Varman. Short story: it's essentially been copy/pasted from at least one source. I'm not confident that the source material is still under copyright, but portions might be. While I did find a 1966 source that had some verbatim passages, I found those same passages in an 1897 publication. My write up is on the Talk page. I've tagged it as a copy/paste, but was wondering if I should tag it for deletion because I surmise that the entire thing has been lifted. (Also it's a text wall, also it's not written in a neutral tone, also I don't even know where to begin to fix it, also...) Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It may be worth listing for speedy deletion under copyvio. This requires that a large portion of the text is plagiarism, and that "there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving". See Template:Db-g12 for information on tagging in this manner.  drewmunn  talk  21:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the input. The editor who created the article says that the book is in the public domain and I don't disbelieve him, but curious whether the article should be canned for being wholly taken from another source and completely unsuitable as an article. If anybody has a second to lend me their thoughts, I'd be appreciative. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quire sure what you are asking. We have a number of articles which are mostly taken from an old edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica: there is no copyright violation, since it is expired, and the tone and content are prima facie appropriate because the source is an encyclopaedia. If the book is in the public domain, then there is not a copyright issue (though it would be very much preferred if the source were acknowledged) but the tone and content may or may not be appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the 1897 statements are in the public domain. If there is any 1966 text that was not copied from 1897, it is copyrighted. We do sometimes have paragraphs copied from public domain encyclopedias. If the article is non-neutral or a wall of text, and can't be fixed, there are other ways to deal with it than copyvio, which does not seem to be the issue here. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys, I could very well be in the wrong here, I admit, and I may not be explaining my position clearly. Please ignore the copyright issue and let's assume that the source is free for the plucking. However, the source is not an encyclopedia, firstly. Secondly, though the article creator claims one book in question is "closely paraphrased", I find it odd that paragraph after paragraph, thought by thought, the content of the article is lifted from that text, and becomes, in essence, the ONLY voice of this entire article, which is alleged to be an overview of the Kamarupa region during the reign of Bhaskar Varman, but instead reads as a legend substantiated ONLY by that book. Where is the contrary voice that establishes an objective, or at least a more balanced, view of the subject?

If I created an article about London during the time of Sherlock Holmes, and rather than research the subject, I just copy/pasted one of his early public domain stories from The Strand, would that be acceptable as an article? Granted, I still have lots to learn at Wikipedia, so if my peers think I'm getting needlessly aggressive about this, or blowing things out of proportion, please let me know and I'll withdraw. Something about copying and pasting, almost indiscriminately, the bulk of an entire text on a niche subject, public domain or not, which is unattributed, unlicensed, not reworded, and which is written in an authoritative tone that attempts to explain metaphorical nuances, doesn't seem like a genuine article to me, even if it is not a technical copyright violation. If I'm wrong, tell me, please, and I'll gladly go back to reverting Spongebob vandalism. :) I definitely don't want to agitate anyone over this jive article.

Excerpts:

• "Hangsavega replied, "At this moment he is well, since your majesty so respectfully inquires with a voice bathed in affection and moist with a flow of friendship."
• "The newly formed alliance was disastrous for Sasanka for while Sri Harsha's cousin and general Bhandi probably attacked from the west"
• "Hangsavega then said: 'In former times, your majesty, the holy earth having through union with the Boar become pregnant, gave birth in hell to a son called Naraka. It was he who won this umbrella, the external heart of Varuna.'"
• "The origin of Sasanka is shrouded in mystery. Some scholars suppose that he belonged to the line of the later Guptas of Magadha ... It is however curious that the Aphshad inscription of Adityasena, the grandson of Mahasena Gupta, makes no mention of Sasanka."

None of these claims are properly attributed either to the primary source, or to any independent source.

Thanks for listening, y'all. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Having looking through it again, and read a bit more on the subject, I'd agree that it seems much of it is free to use, but tonally incorrect. A rewrite may do the trick, but it'd be quite a substantial one; a restructure would do the world of good in improving the readability.  drewmunn  talk  09:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for poking around the article. In retrospect I think I was wrong to bring this (especially with this much detail) to the Help Desk. My apologies, guys. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Please recheck my wiki

Logi.pk

I have deleted copy write part from it.

please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samee2cool (talk • contribs) 20:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

As I've noted on the talk page, this article does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, so should be deleted with or without copyright issues. Maybe at another time, when it may have become notable enough for inclusion, you could draft a new article. Thanks!  drewmunn  talk  21:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The article has been deleted. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

How do you delete a user page?

An article about a person has been created and approved, but there is a user page,User:Ofeliamccollough, about this individual that is not referenced and comes up in searches. How is this page deleted. The user does not remember log-in or password. EduFact (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I have tagged it for speedy deletion as housekeeping as the article exists in mainspace.--ukexpat (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)