Help desk
< September 21	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 23 >

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.

September 22

Editing Photos

Could someone explain how I edit a photo to remove an incorrect photo and replace it with the correct photo please? Brando1882 (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brando1882, you just replace the file URL. See WP:EIS. Sungodtemple (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Brando1882 (talk) 01:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this relates to your recent edit of the Texas Jack Vermillion Article? If so, we really need to determine for sure that we've got the right 'Jack' before worrying about photos. There seems to have been prior discussion of this question on the talk page, but sadly it got nowhere. It might be worth asking around to see if anyone has more knowledge on the topic area - Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities would possibly be the place to start, since Wikipedia:WikiProject United States History seems to be rather inactive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for wanting the information to be accurate. I have the correct details, as I wrote biographies of both men, John Oberland Vermillion and John Wilson Vermillion. I personally visited and interviewed both families. I obtained the correct photos from the correct family. In 2010 I wrote the biography of John Wilson Vermillion and it was awarded the Wild West History Association's award for excellence. It is full of primary source material that proves beyond all doubt that John Wilson Vermillion never set foot in Arizona in his entire life and was NOT Texas Jack. In 2012 I published the full biography of both men in the book, "Wyatt Earp's Vendetta Posse Rider - The Story of Texas Jack Vermillion. It is available for purchase at tombstonevendetta.com I don't think there is another researcher alive who knows more about these men, and this has been acknowledged by other well known authors such as Gary Roberts and Casey Tefertiller and John Boesenecker. The information is fully verified. Brando1882 (talk) 01:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In which case there are a couple of issues that need addressing. Firstly, per theWikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines, you should probably make a statement on your talk page stating that you are the author of the work. And secondly, we need to address whether your book (which appears to be self-published?) meets the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines, which really needs to be demonstrated through independent published sources - i.e. evidence that you are recognised expert in the field, or that the work itself has been reviewed and/or cited in independent reliable sources. We can't just take peoples' word that they have the necessary expertise. This may be rather discouraging for someone who has put a great deal of effort into research on an esoteric subject, and accordingly, I'd recommend not getting your hopes up too much about the changes you have made to the article sticking - at least, not without independent corroborative evidence from further published sources to back it up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never get my hopes up. I only want the information to be accurate and to be educational. The Vermillion families deserve nothing but the truth and nothing less. The Wild West History Association (WWHA) is the premier western history association in the USA. They do not give out awards lightly. Brando1882 (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brando1882. I've reverted the changes you made so that they can initaite a discussion on the article's talk page. When making a major change such a this, it's often better to WP:CAUTIOUS than WP:BOLD and seek a WP:CONSENSUS on the relevant article's talk page instead. The changes you made are still there in the page's history and others will be able to see them in order to assess whether they meet relevant Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I do understand your desire to get things right and your concerns about the Vermillion families, but Wikipedia article content really should only be based on what can be reliably sourced and not what we may know to be true. Moreover, Wikipedia articles shouldn't be used as a means for setting the record straight or righting some great wrong. I've posted some notifications about this on the talk pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia:WikiProject American Old West to let the members of those WikIProjects know that there may be potential problems with the Texas Jack Vermillion article. Your more than welcome to start about a discussion about the changes you think should be made on the article's talk page and explain why you think the changes are needed. As AndyTheGrump posted above, your expertise on the subject is certainly welcome, but it doesn't give you any special type of editorial control over the article's content; in other words, you will still need to establish that the changes you feel are needed are in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Some Wikipedia things that you might want to take a look at are WP:CITESELF, WP:SPS and WP:EXPERT; those sections contain some general information that you might found helpful. Please don't get discourage by being reverted. Wikipedia sometimes can seem to move slowly as it tries to make sure the content in its articles is correct. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this was not so sad, it would be funny. Tom Clavin recently published the wrong information about Texas Jack in his Tombstone book, by relying on the incorrect Wikipedia data on Texas Jack. You are now telling me that the guy who actually did the research and wrote the book correcting all the mistakes cannot make changes to benefit history and bring relief to the Vermillion families. If I was trying to promote my book I would have done this 10 years ago when it was published. May I ask what your particular interest is in Texas Jack Vermillion? Brando1882 (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just went to the "Talk" page and Jeff Smith has already brought this topic to the attention of all concerned and supported everything I had written. He did this several years ago. Read his comments please. Brando1882 (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My particular interest is in Wikipedia, not Texas Jack Vermillion. Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources in and of themselves as explained in Wikipedia:General Disclaimer, but the sources cited to support the content contained in articles might be reliable. If there's incorrect information in the article, then it can and should be fixed; such a thing, however, should be done in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines as explained in Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute. I added a template {{Disputed}} to the top of the article's page, which in turn added the article to Category:Accuracy disputes. The changes you made to the article were completely unsupported by any citations to any reliable sources which is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Even if the changes are things you know to be true, Wikipedia policy still requires that they be verifiable. If I hadn't reverted them, another editor or even perhaps a WP:BOT would've eventually done so. The best thing for you to do would be to discuss the changes you want to make on the article's talk page and provide links to or information about reliable sources that support them. That is how matters like this are most often resolved on Wikipedia. My revert was not intended to be an affront to either you or the Vermillion families. Wikipedia has lots of policies and guidelines that can be hard to understand when you're just starting out, but all users are expected to edit in accordance with these policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added some of the full primary sources to the Talk page. Jeff Smith also has pointed out the error of this Wikipedia page years ago and nothing happened. I have now done the same. Brando1882 (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

baned

trying to fined out what i did to get my account banned 2600:6C5E:4C3F:29BC:F0A9:7620:84D6:5AD (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on which account you're referring to

— TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 02:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Talk Page of the account in question should have a section explaining the block and how to go about getting it lifted. See User talk:Qmfineart for an example from an earlier entry on the Help Desk recently. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hello, I received a lot of emails with plenty of questions from you. Yes, i do confirm that all pictures have been made by myself JonathanV123 (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JonathanV123: you should reply to the user talk page of the user you're trying to talk to. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 10:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those pictures of you certainly don't look like selfies. Any you realise that you have irrevocably licensed those picutres (including the song artwork) so that anybody in the world may reuse or alter them, for any purpose, commercial or not, as long as they attribute them? Is that what you intended to do? ColinFine (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Error Message

I am receiving an error message in which I am having issues removing the error from the article. here is the error message

{{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Gwen chandler (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gwen chandler. If you use dates of the form YYYY-MM-DD you must include the DD values. You can switch your date style to "month day, year" which lets you use dates like September 2020 without the day. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do you update that information I made an attempt but was unable to do so Gwen chandler (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwen chandler You just need to use |date=September 2020 instead of what you have at present. Also, you don't need to give a URL for an citation with a DOI, since the software creates the link automaticallly. A bigger problem is that you are creating an article on your own User Page, which is the wrong place to do that. Please use the WP:AFC process instead, as explained at that link. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To get |doi= to automatically link |title= in {{cite journal}} templates, you must set |doi-access=free.

{{cite journal |title=The effect of exposure to long working hours on ischaemic heart disease |journal=Environment International | doi=10.1016/j.envint.2020.105739}}

"The effect of exposure to long working hours on ischaemic heart disease". Environment International. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2020.105739.

{{cite journal |title=The effect of exposure to long working hours on ischaemic heart disease |journal=Environment International | doi=10.1016/j.envint.2020.105739 |doi-access=free}}

"The effect of exposure to long working hours on ischaemic heart disease". Environment International. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2020.105739.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Self Published Sources on BLP pages

Question. WP:SPS says that self-published sources are not allowed as sources of information about living persons, even if the source is a subject matter expert. Does that mean they should not be used on BLP pages at all? Or is it acceptable to use them for comments that aren't directly about the subject of the page?

The specific source at issue is the John McWhorter quote on the page for Philip Ewell. McWhorter does meet the bar as a subject matter expert, even if he isn't a music theorist. The quote in question is about McWhorter's reaction to Ewell's research, not about Ewell himself.

Does that matter? Is a citation to a self-published source acceptable on a BLP page if it is not used as a source about the topic of the article, or should even these be avoided? PianoDan (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To put this in context please see the lengthy discussion in which consensus was built to include the quote at Talk:Philip Ewell#Inclusion of a criticism section and the later discussion at Talk:Philip Ewell#McWhorter Quote from Substack. There has been a concerted effort to remove all criticism from the article on Ewell’s research, and, rightfully in many cases, several of the criticisms were removed. However, this particular quote seemed cogent and community consensus was to keep it. My main concern is that removing the quote essentially leaves an unbalanced POV on Ewell’s research, which is controversial. I suggested that we perhaps should move the content to its own article at Music Theory's White Racial Frame (currently a redirect) where criticism could be more easily housed.4meter4 (talk) 06:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to relitigate discussions from the talk page, nor is it the right place to discuss a proposed split. I am looking for an answer to a single question on Wikipedia policy. PianoDan (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are unlikely to get "an answer to a single question on Wikipedia policy" here - people at the Help Desk tend to have an aversion to answering policy questions in the abstract, partly because people who ask such questions are often Wikilawyering. If you want to pursue this as a general question, I suggest WT:V or WP:VPP. --ColinFine (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to Add Page In Wikipedia

How to Add Page In Wikipedia Priyanshukailashpatle (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Priyanshukailashpatle: read up on help:your first article. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 10:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And especially read about notability. On a glance, few of the sources in Draft:Priyanshu Patle seem to meet the triple requirement of being reliable, indepenent and containing significant coverage of Pate. Also read why writing about yourself is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Submission

Dear Team,

I have created a page for my client, but unable to submit it for approval as I am not getting any option to do so, could you kindly help? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rakanya

Regards, Rakesh Rakanya (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page is at Advanced research technical council, looks like Onel5969 reviewed it a few minutes ago. Primefac (talk) 11:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But in light of your admission above, I'm moving it to draft. Please read WP:UPE, and follow the process there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The mainspace article has been recreated (perhaps inadvertently). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that as a paid editor you are required to make a formal declaration of your status: not just that you are editing for clients, but identifying who those clients are. Please also note that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New user accidentally granted adminship?

Hi. Not sure where to mention this. Our conversation here. User seems to have done nothing wrong. Am I mistaken? -- Doktor Züm (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When 24GT created their user page, they added themselves to Category:Administrators. Possibly they were copying and pasting an admin's user page. I will remove them from the category. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I beat you to it, and left a message on the talk page. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! Thanks -- Doktor Züm (talk) 12:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BoD - Books on Demand GmbH

Courtesy link: de:Books on Demand (in German)

704+ citations refer to Books on Demand GmbH. If Lulu.com citations are not WP:RS, should BoD citations be removed? (P.S.: 3,141 filmreference) .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 0mtwb9gd5wx. While it is true that a large majority of books issued by self-publishing platforms are not reliable sources, there is a significant exception. Verifiability is a core content policy and it has a subsection that can be found at WP:SELFPUBLISH. That says Self- published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Accordingly, you need to evaluate the expertise of the author before concluding that a book is an unreliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

filmreference.com

3,141 filmreference.com citations need to be removed. .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@0mtwb9gd5wx: The site looks weak, but can you link to a discussion of the site's merits (or lack thereof) on the reliable sources noticeboard? And like IMDB, YouTube and Crunchbase, there are exceptions sometimes for including info. For example, it could source something routine and uncontroversial without showing notability. In any case, if you have consensus, you can start removing the sources yourself. If anyone disagrees, they'll let you know and probably revert you. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The site is currently BLOCKED. You cannot ADD citations. These citations are prior to BLOCK. The site, copies iMdb and Wikipedia, to get advertisement revenue. .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The site is on the MediaWiki:Spamblacklist since April 2019, it seems. See MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April_2019#Advameg_sites_(city-data.com,_filmreference.com,_etc.). From a quick view the site appears to be generally unreliable. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitting a page

Hi. Earlier this year I submitted a page for my organization and it was denied because I did not have enough citations. I've since gone back and reworked the page, following the suggestions of the user who denied my submission. I'm having trouble figuring out what the next step is - I've edited the page but cannot find a way to resubmit it for review. Nicolefuturenow (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicolefuturenow, your edits removed the "Declined" notice which has the button to press for resubmission. I've restored it. Note the line which says, "Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted." 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-archive of Talk page seems broken

Talk:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel claims to be set up to auto-archive every six months. The only archives actually displayed, however, are those that were done manually. I looked at WP:AUTOARCHIVE, but the problem is not obvious to me. I'm concerned that I might lose data or break something if I just start playing with the source.

If the page has, in fact, been auto-archiving, it would be nice to have those archives available. If not, it would be great if it could be set up to start auto-archiving following the sequential format of the manual archives.

Is there any chance this is an easy fix? If not, advice?

Thanks— Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PatrickJWelsh: Archiving is working as requested as far as I can see. It says:

|minthreadsleft = 7
|algo = old(183d)

minthreadstoarchive is not specified so the default value 2 is used per User:MiszaBot/config#Parameters explained. This all means: Only archive if there are at least 2 sections with no posts in 183 days, and at least 7 sections are left after archiving. If you think there is a time the bot should have archived and it didn't then please say when. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Thanks for explaining. I was confused by the text "Auto-archiving period: 6 months," which did not sync up with the number of archives. Makes sense now!

Thanks for your help — Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I write about a Facebook group on Wikipedia ?

Can I write about a Facebook group on Wikipedia geared towards entertainment and nearly all inclusive topics under the sun ? 2400:ADCC:114:5200:D567:C5CD:56AC:D261 (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: No. Long answer: Most likely not. Unless they're proven to be notable based on Wikipedia's General notability guidelines then they won't get an article about them, and if one is created with the intent on promoting the Facebook group it will be deleted. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we do have a few articles about notable Facebook groups. One example is Secret London. Other articles can be found at Category: Facebook groups. I feel confident in saying that the vast majority of Facebook groups are not notable. Cullen328 (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]