Help desk
< January 6	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 8 >

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 7

Deletion of Dave Merrick page

I cannot find the Dave Merrick (artist) page - it appears to have been deleted yet I cannot find it in the Deletion Log. (Note: He is not the same person as "David Merrick" the Broadway producer). Can you please help me to find out why it is missing and then I would like to reinstate it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.13.175 (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to find anything on that. I haven't checked userpage for deleted versions because I have no clue under which User to look therefore. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Merrick. You're welcome to try and reinstate it, but since the deletion discussion didn't find any evidence of notability, I think the chances of it being reinstated are at best slim. --Viennese Waltz 07:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did You Know Review Problem

I tried to review 608 Fifth Avenue (my first attempt at a review) and I made a mess of it. The article is good on all counts, but it now appears on Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created/expanded_on_January_3 as having been reviewed by a template for a clock tower. I'd like to fix that, and I'd also like to add the fact that I did the review to the article that I wrote and nominated for a DYK Template:Did you know nominations/La Saline Natural Area, but I haven't been able to figure out how and get it all to work right. Help please.Georgialh (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Did you know is probably a better place to ask for DYK help, it is regularly monitored by the DYK folks. MB

Thanks!Georgialh (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SHAMBHAJI BHOSALE name Correction

I have searched on wikipedia SAMBHAJI BHOSALE bhu there is same wrong type is his last name as BHONSALE Please correct it

Regards, CHANDRAKANT CHAVAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.33.131.24 (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our article is Sambhaji, and it uses "Bhonsle". But our article Bhonsle shows that there are several variant latin-character spellings including "Bhosale", "Bhonsale", and "Bhonsle". I see no reason to change the article unless we arrive at some sort of consensus to do so on the talk page of the article. Please start a discussion there, and cite references to show that there is a preferred spelling.-Arch dude (talk) 07:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page of the article is Talk:Sambhaji. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update details

22Cans

Simon Phillips is no longer the CEO at 22cans, please could you remove his name from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.22.65 (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please make your request at the article talk page. Use the code {{request edit}} and give precise details of the changes requested. Further information about how to use the 'request edit' function can be found here. Please be sure to include a source. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to create instant article creation?

How can I create an instant Wikipedia page if I am autoconfirmed user.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Supermind (talk • contribs) 14:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Supermind I would strongly suggest that you first see the result of the draft that you have awaiting review before attempting to directly create an article yourself. It is usually more challenging than most people think it is, and it is good to have some feedback and advice on it for awhile until you are completely comfortable in doing so and are well aware of how article should be structured and cited. It is a very good idea to use Articles for Creation even if you get one or two drafts passed. The more eyes that are on it, the better the article will be. If you still want to directly create an article, you can first create it in your sandbox and then just move it to the proper title(using the Move function under the 'More' tab if using a computer), or you can create a link to the nonexistent article you want to create and then edit that link. Again, I advise you against doing so. 331dot (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The Supermind, we'd still recommend you create an article in draft space if you are new. Once it is done you can move it yourself, see Help:How to move a page, however, a bad article moved this way will simply be deleted, rather than having the feedback an AFC reviewer provides.

To create a new page, in any namespace, type the title into the searchbar, and there is a link to {[tq|Create the page "text" on this wiki!}}. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the article exists in my sandbox and draft. However the draft pending takes more 3 months, meanwhile I need it for now. I completed the article and I wanna move to article space. The Supermind (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you "need" it now, but Wikipedia doesn't. As others have said above, you can move it into mainspace now, but it's likely to be deleted if you do. Maproom (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say "I need it for now"? There is no deadline. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be confused with

I believe there is some sort of hat-note that says something to the effect not to be confused with... and an editor can distinguish one name from another. My example needed for this is on the long time existing article of George H. Barbour, where I just created an article on George Harrison Barbour - note Harrison. I need a hat-note described above that distinguishes my man "Harrison" from just George H. Can an experienced editor put in such a hat-note. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The template's canonical name is {{Distinguish}}, but it has a nice and intuitive redirect {{Confused}} which is what I mostly use. Either work, as well as all these guessable redirects. – Ammarpad (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ammarpad: thanks!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT noteworthy

Syed Moiz Balkhi

I'm not sure how/why this page exists, but it isn't noteworthy at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Akister01 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Akister01 I'm not sure of the exact issue you see in what seems to me to be a well cited article, but if you feel that individual does not meet Wikipedia's definition of a notable person, you are welcome to propose the deletion of the article at Articles for Deletion. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it is truethat he is popularising cricket in US then it must be notable, but is this mere self-promotion/ I don't know because I have not been to US recently. Spinney Hill (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Webfleet Solutions entry

I'm writing to kindly ask for your help in regards to a Wikipedia entry I submitted two months ago.

I created a Wikipedia entry for my client, "Webfleet Solutions" and submitted it two months ago. At the time I received timely feedback from reviewer Robert McClenon, I quickly made all the arrangements he suggested on his feedback but I have not received any news or update or feedback from him or another reviewer.

I wanted to ask you if you knew a way of knowing when will I receive new feedback or to know if my entry is approved or rejected?

If I edit the draft version and submit it again, will the days start counting again until a reviewer can see my entry? I mean, if I edit it again, will I have to wait two more months?

On the other hand, before submitting this entry I had not previously been active on Wikipedia and had no Wiki authority, does this affect the review of my entry?

Thank you in advance for your answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suarezmartell (talk • contribs) 15:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Suarezmartell: Hello, before you edit any further, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the necessary declarations. The latter page is mandatory under Wikipedia's terms and conditions. Please note that reviews can currently take up to four months. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But in answer to your specific questions, Suarezmartell: there is no queue or schedule for reviewing. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and people work on what they choose to work on. (This is just one of the ways in which Wikipedia may be seen to be utterly unlike any kind of publicity outlet). When a reviewer chooses to review it, their review should depend only on the content of the article and its sources (and possibly the availability of other sources): it should not be relevant who created the draft - though some reviewers may be more finicky where there is a conflict of interest, looking more critically for promotional content. You may certainly improve the draft at any time. --ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your answers and information. I will read the information regarding conflict of interests and paid contribution disclosure. Although I am not sure if this is relevant since Webfleet Solutions is not my company and I am not an employee either. I am also not using Wikipedia for public relations and marketing purposes. In accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, I have disclosed that I have been paid by International Policy Group SL on behalf of Webfleet Solutions NV for the contributions to Wikipedia. In the meantime, I will continue to improve the submission by editing normally. Suarezmartell (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Suarezmartell - Since User:ColinFine has replied here, I will keep the discussion here. I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. As was noted, the amount of time that a draft waits for review or re-review can be a few days or a few months. An editor who is paid by a third-party marketing firm is a paid editor, just as if they were paid by the company. I see that the submitter has now made the required disclosure. Based on a cursory review of the revised draft, it still appears to be written from the company's viewpoint, and not from the viewpoint of the third parties whose attention is needed to provide corporate notability. The concept of third-party notability is a hard idea for corporate authors to understand, but it is critical to maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia. If I were to re-review the draft, I am almost certain that I would decline it again. I don't whether the company is notable; this is probably a case where no amount of editing by a paid editor will establish notability. If the company is notable, a neutral editor will at some point come along and either improve this draft or write a new draft. Those are my thoughts for now. Thank you, User:ColinFine. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Suarezmartell. Above, you say "I created a Wikipedia entry for my client". Later you say "I am also not using Wikipedia for public relations and marketing purposes". Those two statements are directly contradictory. Wikipedia articles are for the benefit of Wikipedia. Creating one for the benefit of anybody or anything else is promotion. --ColinFine (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:ColinFine - They aren't consciously contradicting themselves. As I explain below, commercial editors don't understand how we use terminology in Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon Thank you for your answer. I would like to add that after your first feedback, I focused on adding information from third-part companies and media. However, Webfleet Solutions is a company established in October 2019. Before that, it was known as "TomTom Telematics" a business unit of TomTom, that is the main reason why it has been difficult to find information from other relevant websites to support all the information in the entry, but vertical media that have written stories about the company. User:ColinFine Also thank you for your comments. I have already made a disclosure as a paid author and I believe this is not promotion. It is not a publicity entry but an entry about the company written from an objective point of view and after reading the Wikipedia guides for article writing. Any advice should you recommend will be very much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suarezmartell (talk • contribs) 17:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Suarezmartell: At this point, you need to focus on notability. If it is "difficult to find information", then is is even more difficult to establish notability of this subject that is independent of the notability of its former parent. See WP:NCORP for the criteria for references that establish notability. If you can establish the notability of "TomTom Telematics" that is separate from the notability of TomTom, then you are OK. If you cannot establish notability under either name, then Wikipedia does not want and will delete any article on the subject. All other issues can be dealt with by editing. See Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. -Arch dude (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Suarezmartell: Note also that IMO "vertical media" (i.e., industry-specific publications) are often not reliable sources, and that individual stories in even the more reliable such "media" are very often not independent of the subject. -Arch dude (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arch dude: Thank you for your comments. I have edited it again and removed all the information that seemed to be advertising. Thank you for noticing on the notability. I hope the draft to be reviewed soon againSuarezmartell (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Few More Comments

I will point out, both for the benefit of the paid editor and any other paid editors, and for any other volunteer editors, that in Wikipedia we have an expansive concept of what is "using Wikipedia for public relations and marketing purposes". I realize that paid editors think that they are trying to help the public by making the public aware that their company exists. Whether that helps the public is not important; if it is also meant to help the company, we consider it to be using Wikipedia for public relations and marketing purposes. If it will benefit your company, it is, by our standards, marketing. If it weren't intended to benefit your company, why would your company be paying you to do it? So paid editors can honestly believe that they are not using Wikipedia for marketing or public relations purposes. That doesn't change Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which define marketing expansively, and require that all paid editors, regardless of whether they are being paid by the company or by an agency for the company, must disclose.

I will add that, because Wikipedia requires that articles be strictly written from a neutral point of view, and because the neutral point of view is strictly defined, spending money on getting a Wikipedia article is seldom a good investment by a company that is trying to promote itself. A company would normally be better advised to spend its money improving its own web site, where it can be non-neutral and doesn't have those annoying volunteers editing down content. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Thank you. I have edited and submitted again. I have focused on removing all the information that was read as a promotion or advertising content and other information I realised it didn't read like an encyclopedia entry. I look forward to receiving feedback from a reviewer.Suarezmartell (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot in UTRS

Does the WP:UTRS allows a blocked user to share a screenshot of Wikipedia ? Please ping me when you reply. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: what is a UTRS? Since Wikipedia content is licensed under CC-BY-SA, anyone can put a screenshot anywhere if they attribute it. EXCEPTION 1: certain images are NOT CC-BY-SA and sharing a screenshot that includes such an image may violate the copyright of that image. EXCEPTION 2: if a screenshot is taken that includes content that violates copyright or other laws (e.g., because someone added and it has not yet been removed) then the screenshot remains illegal. None of this changes based on whether or not anyone is blocked. -Arch dude (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a quick point - I'm not sure what this is based on, but I'd also assume items that have been intentionally surpressed (only viewable by admins and beurocrats/Stewart's) would have some similar issues - such as revdels and copyvios. I'm pretty sure that isn't what this is referring to. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski:My reply was not based on any written Wikipedia policy or guideline. It was based only on my understanding of our copyright license. A screenshot of a copyvio is itself a copyvio (as in EXCEPTION 1). A screenshot of any other type of revdel is much murkier and I tried to cover it in EXCEPTION 2. (and I agree with you.) -Arch dude (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I hope I didn't say anything wrong - I think I was simply hypothesising. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UTRS is what I meant. Sorry I missed the WP link, in first line. --DBig Xrayᗙ 21:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: the WP:UTRS page recommends that you ask questions about UTRS on its talk page. -Arch dude (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) - probably best to ask there... But I didn't think blocks would particularly change the ability to see Wikipedia, so a screenshot wouldn't be covered. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about old wikipedia page

Hi there,

There was a wikipedia page published for a considerable amount of time but disappeared a few years ago. I found it by chance on 'Everipedia' and would like to re-write and publish it again on wikipedia.

Is anyone able to chat to me about this? I want to ensure I'm not violating any wikipedia rules by re-writing and re-publishing an old article.

Kind regards,

C — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConnorC96 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ConnorC96 Without knowing the article involved- it doesn't violate any rules to recreate an article that has been deleted, if you can address the reasons it was deleted. For example- if it was deleted due to a lack of notability, is the subject now notable? And can you demonstrate that with independent reliable sources? 331dot (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vfw Poppies

The VFW doesn’t sell poppies they ask for donations when handing out. Ty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1014:B011:FA47:B5B8:1511:76D7:EF1C (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to a certain article, please comment on that article's talk page. 331dot (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Ayia Napa rape allegation case

Not sure where to ask anymore. Does this subject not have an article, or am I missing it? Feel free to start deletion proceedings if you want. I don't want to do a ton of work if this subject is already covered, so I'm asking here. I haven't used wiki much for 10 years, so it's hard for me to find active pages to ask questions. So here I am. Probably breaking a bunch of guidelines and policies! Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest the incident isn't lastingly notable per WP:NOTNEWS Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valentina Ferrer Update

Hey Team,

my name is Valentina Ferrer and I would like to update my information, please advise me where is best to send my information. thank you. Valentina Ferrer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.33.230.71 (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please make suggestions for updates to the article on its talk page, which is at Talk:Valentina Ferrer. Please identify that you are the subject (see WP:COI). Please add {{request edit}} to attract the attention of an editor to make the changes. It is essential that you provide references to reliable sources (see WP:RS). I know this seems strange, but this is needed even though you are the subject, because we have no way (and no interest) to verify that you are who you say you are. -Arch dude (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And your article would benefit from a photo. You can use the article wizard ("upload file" link on the left) and upload a photo of yourself if you own the copyright and can assign the reproduction rights to Wikipedia. You can then add an edit request as detailed above to have someone help insert the photo, or just ping me by responding here with the text "{{u|Timtempleton}}" (without the quotes). (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input

Can you please remove the error sited?

Thank You John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlow58 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming this is about Armando Muñíz —

Done. Maproom (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]