Help desk
< January 3	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 5 >

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.

January 4

User rights (again)

Not too long ago I reported a problem with this function, which resulted in the fixing of a bug. In that one I suspected that the problem was because the user name had special characters, although I didn't know which one was tripping up the software. I have a new one, and I have no idea why this one doesn't work as expected. What's wrong with this one?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is different from your expectation? I see one entry as expected: Dyrnych with no user rigths or account creation date. The account has no assigned user rights and I guess the account creation was before it started being logged. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know when the account was created but the earliest edit was in 2009. I've seen lots of creation dates earlier than 2009, including my own. On this page there are many that were created much earlier, including one in 2003. That said I vaguely remember some point you or someone else made about when these dates started being automatically recorded but that some accounts created before the automation had dates inserted later. I don't remember the details. If that's true here, when was the automated recording date? BTW, this isn't academic for me. I use the creation date in at least two scenarios. One is as an SPI clerk to determine the oldest account in a set of alleged socks, and the other to get an idea how long someone's been around, although for that one I could just go to oldest contribution, which is what I did with this user.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 October 12#User creation date. Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 December 24#User rights was about an unrelated issue with equals signs in usernames. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for dredging up our old discussion. Considering that it's probably is my burden to have done so, it's kind of you. My vague recollection was that the automatic recording began in 2005 (every once in a while my recollections are accurate :-) ). So, why does this user, who started editing here in 2009, not have a creation date?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the account was registered before 2005 but did not edit until 2009. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That does happen and of course there is a Catch-22 here as there is apparently no way of knowing the creation date, hence no way of knowing if that is true in this instance. In my experience, though, the only times I've seen large gaps between creation dates and first edit dates are with disruptive accounts, and there is no indication that this user is disruptive. One way we might be able to find out is ask the user if he remembers. Just so it's clear because I don't want to cast any aspersions on the user, this is not one of those instances where the reason I wanted the creation date was in connection with an SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have certainly seen constructive users with years between a logged creation date and the first edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

meta:Help:Unified login#History says: "On August 22, 2008, CentralAuth was set to make a global account for all users registered after this date." Dyrnych started editing 26 June 2009 but Special:CentralAuth/Dyrnych says the global account was not created until August 2014. This indicates that Dyrnych created the account at least 10 months before the first edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Poliquin

Could you add a photo for Congressman Bruce Poliquin's Wikipedia page? He's my new Congressman and I think that would be more respectful if he had a photo on there. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakewinslow (talk • contribs) 03:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Blakewinslow. Although his term started at noon today, your new Congressman won't be sworn in until Tuesday. The issue of a photo has to do with copyright. Any random photo from the internet is almost certainly copyrighted. We don't use copyrighted photos of living people on Wikipedia. But works of the U.S. Federal government are in the public domain, copyright free. Once his official photo, taken by a Congressional staff photographer, is available online, it can be added to his biography. You can check into that, and make sure it happens. This is a volunteer project, after all. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can someone be "someone's Congressman"? JIP | Talk 08:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The congressman who represents the constituency you live in can be called "your congressman". Roger (Dodger67) (talk)

We treat ALL living people with respect, but don't have any particular obligations or desires to faun over anyone, just because they are in an elected office.. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JIP, Poliquin and all other US Representatives are elected in single-seat constituencies, and a big part of their jobs is generally seen as helping the residents of that constituency. Neither multi-member constituencies nor proportional representation are known in the USA; there's nothing comparable to the electoral districts of Finland. Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: The United states has in the past had some at large congressional districts in states with more than one representatives. See Louisiana's at-large congressional district and Maryland's at-large congressional seat for examples, but I'm not sure this has occured since the 1960s.Naraht (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I remember hearing about this. I was basically meaning that the situation with Finland, where JIP lives, isn't comparable, and thus suggesting that his confusion is the result of significantly different electoral arrangements. Nyttend (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HTML5 popup spam

What's the best way to block CSS position:fixed popup spam, e.g., id="HD-pageNavBox" on this page? I'm looking for something with class="pageNavBox". –Be..anyone (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's unkind to refer to a box that the designers have added to help people get around the page as "spam". But you can find the answer at WP:Help desk/Archives/2014_September_26#Horrible little box on this page. --ColinFine (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image help

Hi everyone, I have been e-mailed by the subject of an article (Stephen Constantine) after he noticed I was editing the article about him. He has sent me some photographs to use, and has copied in the person who took the photographs (i.e. the copyright holder) who has said we are fine to use them. What's the best way for me to properly upload and attribute? Giant Snowman 10:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GiantSnowman. You need to get the copyright holder to agree to release the photo under a copyleft licence such as WP:CC-BY-SA: see Donating copyright materials. Once they've done that, they or you can upload the photo to Wikimedia commons. See User:Yunshui/Images for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks @ColinFine: I have e-mailed them back. Giant Snowman 10:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vienna Conservatory

Hello folks and greetings here from Austria. Well, I typed Vienna Conservatory into the Search machine on Wikipedia and it was linked automatically to Konservatorium Wien and the Konservatorium Wien is not the same as the Vienna Conservatory, that's why I deleted the link on this article. So please don't think that I vandalized this page because when I have time, I will create this article at once. You can see it on Google that the Vienna Conservatory is not the same as Konservatorium Wien. Opo Chano (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted. Leaving blank pages is not a proper solution.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: Perhaps Vienna Conservatory should redirect to University of Music and Performing Arts, Vienna or become a disambiguation page?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Vienna Conservatory should be redirected no where because the Vienna Conservatory is an own conservatory in Vienna and when I have time, I will correct this article. Opo Chano (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Opo Chano. If the Vienna Conservatory is Notable in Wikipedia's sense, in that multiple reliable sources, independent of the school have written at length about it, then there may be an article about it, and Vienna Conservatory should probably be a disambiguation page between Konservatorium Wien and Vienna Konservatorium - or possibly it should be the article about Vienna Konservatorium with hatnotes at the top of both articles. But before that can happen somebody needs to establish that it does meet the criterion of Notability: without that, Wikipedia may not have an article on it, and at most it should be a mention in Vienna: that still requires a published reference, but the test is less strict. -ColinFine (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Want to Create Own Profile

Hello, This is Baljinder Muhar... i'm a video editor. i want to create my own profile on wikipedia. How can i create own profile on wikipedia, please help me. Need to create profile people search on me & know about me. so please help me. Regards Baljinder Muhar <redacted> Video Editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balmuhar (talk • contribs) 15:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Balmuhar. I am afraid you have misunderstood nearly everything about Wikipedia. It is not a social media site, or directory. It contains articles, not profiles. It is not for promoting or telling the world about anything or anybody. It is an encyclopaedia, which consists of articles which are based entirely on published information, and almost entirely on information published by sources unconnected with a subject. If there are multiple reliable sources (such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers) which have written about you, then there may be an article about you; but because it is required to be neutral and not promotional in any way, you are strongly discouraged from writing it yourself. Please see WP:autobiography. --ColinFine (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not want to create a profile, i want to a article about me & my Brother Jassi Sohal He is well known singer

other singers articles display Search Gippy Grewal, Diljit Dosanjh. So i Want like that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balmuhar (talk • contribs) 15:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have an inherent conflict of interest in the way your brother is presented, you should not create or directly edit any such article. The best practice is to submit to the requested article queue the name of your brother and links to reliably published sources that show that others have taken note of his work. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait before creating a page about a company or organization.
Since you have a close connection to the company or organization, you have a conflict of interest. Please read the FAQ first. If you still think your article is appropriate, you can submit it to Articles for creation. Just click this link and follow the instructions. -- Gadget850^talk 11:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes linking to combined disambiguation page

Hello. I'm translating/adopting Wikipedia:Disambiguation into Persian. In the last line of Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Combining terms on disambiguation pages section it says: "When a combined disambiguation page is used, redirects to it (or hatnotes, as appropriate) should be set up from all the terms involved." But most of the examples made in this section have no such hatnotes. For example Cure (disambiguation) includes 10 Films and Musics entries with the title The cure, of which only one article (The Cure) has a hatnote linking to the disambiguation page. Doesn't that quoted sentence mean that all other 9 articles must have a hatnote, or I misunderstood? Thanks in advance.Saeidpourbabak (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Saeidpourbabak. I am not sure, but I don't think your interpretation is right. The point, as I see it, is that if you search for "The Cure", then the page The Cure should have a hatnote taking you to the DAB page. But you're only going to go to the other pages (such as The Cure (Manning album)) on purpose, so they don't need a hatnote. I think. --ColinFine (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ColinFine. Adding hatnotes to a primary topic page that has an associated disambiguation page is actually what one should always do. So what is the purpose of putting that sentences there, emphasizing the necessity of presence of hatnotes in all terms involved in a combined disambiguation page? other examples, not random ones but examples given in the same section, are even more confusing. In Honor (disambiguation) two out of three Honour spelling (Honour (feudal barony) & His Honour) have hatnotes (these are specific pages and one only goes there on purpose), while the third one (Honour (play)) doesn't. Surprisingly Honor (band) (Honor!) has also a hatnotes. As for Eagle's Nest only one entry Eagle Nest, New Mexico (again specific title) has hatnotes. I'm totally confused!Saeidpourbabak (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Saeidpourbabak: You must read the whole section to see what "all the terms involved" refers to. It is not all articles linked on the disambiguation page. Usually it is roughly put: Terms which could refer to at least two entries on the disambiguation page, or could be likely search terms for somebody looking for those entries. Nobody is going to enter "The Cure (Manning album)" in the search box if they are looking for any of the other entries. But there are multiple entries about things called curing and no primary topic so Curing is a redirect to The Cure. So is Cured. There is only one entry Cured (album) with "Cured" in the page name but somebody looking for some of the other entries might attempt a search on "cured". Honour (play) is the only play on Honor (disambiguation), so somebody searching on "Honour (play)" is presumably either looking for that play or something without a Wikipedia article. Note however that while the guideline specifies places where a redirect/hatnote should be placed, it doesn't say to not place them on any other pages. Additionally, with millions of articles and redirects there are bound to be some which don't follow the guidelines. I don't see contradictions in the examples mentioned at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Combining terms on disambiguation pages. The only examples mentioned for Honor (disambiguation) are Honor and Honour. The guideline doesn't claim that everything on Honor (disambiguation) or pages with redirects/hatnotes to it are in accordance with guidelines. Such a claim would be impractical. Even if it was checked and found valid when the example was added to the guideline, nobody can be expected to constantly check that it keeps being valid. Maybe Honour (feudal barony), Honor (band) and Eagle Nest, New Mexico shouldn't have hatnotes. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunter, thanks for the answer. I had read the whole section several times and I was completely fine with redirects, which your answer was mostly about. My doubt and question was/is only about hatnotes. In short, which pages does that sentence cause to include hatnotes? Again thank you for your time and attention.Saeidpourbabak (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Saeidpourbabak: The sentence is both about redirects and hatnotes. It says "redirects to it (or hatnotes, as appropriate)". If it would normally have caused a redirect on X but there is a primary topic and X is an article then it should instead cause a hatnote on X. For example, The Cure is an article about a band and "The Cure" is not the same title as "Cure", but "The Cure" could refer to many entries at Cure (disambiguation) which is a combined disambiguation page for the terms "Cure", "The Cure", "Cured", "Curing". Cure is an exact title match so it obviously has a hatnote to Cure (disambiguation). Cured and Curing don't have a primary topic so they are redirects. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: It is now crystal clear with The Cure example. Thank you very much.Saeidpourbabak (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

removing my account

I will not use my Wikipedia account anymore, I will only use Wikipedia logged off, however, I can't find anything about deleting my account, because of this I would like an admin to do it for me

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan iz cool (talk • contribs) 23:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not possible to delete an account. Just stop using it. Meters (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's just he username that is a problem you can rename it (see WP:RENAME). Since you have no edits other than this one, it would be simpler to just abandon this account and create a new one. Meters (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not possible to delete user accounts, as all contributions must be assigned to some identifier; either a username or an IP address.

All Wikipedia editors have the right to leave Wikipedia for good (ie, permanently). The usual way to leave the Wikipedia project is simply to stop editing. Your contributions remain in Wikipedia. If you wish to resume editing at a later date, you can simply start again by logging into the same account. Old accounts that have any significant edits are almost never deleted or recycled to new users.

If you decide to make a fresh start and do not wish to be connected to a previous account, you can simply discontinue the old account(s) and create a new one that becomes the only account you use. Discontinuing the old account means it will not be used again; it should note on its user page that it is inactive— for example, with the {{retired}} tag —to prevent the switch being seen as an attempt to sock puppet.

Editors seeking privacy per their right to vanish can have their accounts renamed and their user pages and (in some cases) user talk pages deleted. -- Gadget850^talk 11:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]