Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 December 18

= December 18 =

PHILIPP PLEIN Urgent
Dear,

I´m Ludivine Pont, Marketing manager at PHILIPP PLEIN, our page has to be totally modified. As soon as I make modifications it automatically cancel.

Philipp Plein

Would you be so kind to help me?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludivineplein (talk • contribs) 09:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're their marketing manager then you should avoid editing that article, as you have a conflict of interest. Content such as "PHILIPP PLEIN.  A brand.  A way of being.  A strong identity.  Luxury beyond all convention for a brand..." fails Wikipedia's core policy of neutrality and does not belong in an encyclopedia.  You are welcome to suggest additions at Talk:Philipp Plein for review by other contributors.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 10:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You may find FAQ/Organizations helpful. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 10:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I added a COI, welcome, and note to the user's talk page. Jim1138 (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * When I (and, I suspect most readers) see "PHILIPP PLEIN. A brand. A way of being. A strong identity. Luxury beyond all convention for a brand", I think "what a load of drivel, this whole article is worthless advertising and should be deleted". You should be grateful that an editor has been kind enough to revert it to something sensible and positive. Maproom (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Revised article submitted but not showing
URL: User:Gerry Cranham

I have recently re-submitted an article on the above photographer 'Gerry Cranham'. It was removed the first time it was posted because of 'unambiguous self-promotion'. This has now been revised and updated but the article is still not showing when I search for it on Wikipedia. Any help would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerry Cranham (talk • contribs) 10:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It is a Wikipedia editor's 'private' page now. If you intended to create a Wikipedia article, it should be moved from the User space to the global article space: User:Gerry Cranham → Gerry Cranham. CiaPan (talk) 11:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is still located in your userspace, rather than in article space. It is still grossly self-promotional, laden with peacock terms, and lacking any reliable sources. It is completely unsuitable for Wikipedia.
 * Because of your clear conflict of interest (I take it from your username that you are Gerry Cranham) you should not be the person to create this article - we have a guideline that strongly discourages autobiographies. If you believe that you are genuinely notable enough for an article on Wikipedia, I suggest you add a listing to the Requested Articles board so that another, unbiased editor can have a go at creating the page. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  11:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Remove that page
i did do that page please remove that page with my name, someone else do this under my name  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.125.199.234 (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please give some more detail, such as the name or URL of the page you are referring to. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi john,can you please remove Michael Tawiah page as he did not give premission to write about him there?--Ananenkova (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't have the right to delete pages myself, and the page looks well-sourced to me. In any case, the existence of a Wikipedia article does not depend on permission from the article subject. I've had a look through the discussion, now closed, at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, and the advice there is that you should post at Talk:Michael Tawiah if the article still contains anything you disagree with. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

john how many time i need to explian to you guys? i told u wat was writing about him was false, giving you guys the main reason.--Ananenkova (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted link
I have been updating the information for Newcastle Benfield FC

I am trying to update the link for our Official webpage if I put the http stuf at the start it won't even post here!

benfieldfc.servebeer.com/Benfield/

This keeps coming up as blacklisted but I cant see it or any reason in the Local or Global lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKlaService (talk • contribs) 14:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's caught by the global blacklist through  so you'll need to ask for this article to be exempted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist.  BencherliteTalk 14:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm confused, the website at that link says "Newcastles Premier Non-League Football Club" upon seeing that, I decided to check the article for notability, and it indicates the club is part of the "Northern League Division One." Seems odd... Monty  845  17:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See Northern Football League. "Non-League", by convention, means "not in the Premier League or the Football League". --ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Amend Editing Rule to Defend Dignity of An Identifiable Individual
My movement to erase a string of text including a reference to an identifiable individual disrobing and using a restroom has been countermanded. Would like administrative enforcement to interpret edit rules to justify and complete the removal.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.8.146.163 (talk • contribs)


 * I have just reverted your deletion. That statement is cited and there is absolutely no policy reason why it should be deleted. And please don't make legal threats (even veiled ones, as per your edit summary).--ukexpat (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Its a text description and was provided in an interview by the subject herself. Honestly not seeing how there is even an issue. Monty  845  17:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to offer to buy the IP a copy of Everyone Poops! -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  21:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that definitely made me laugh. Good one. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Normally, an individual disrobing and using a restroom would be *much* more likely to hit a relevance issue than a dignity issue, but this seems directly relevant to the article's discussion of the costume.Naraht (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Resizing images in an Infobox
I added an Infobox to the article on Elizabeth Willoughby, 3rd Baroness Willoughby de Broke, and wanted to put the image which an earlier editor had placed on the page into the Infobox. The image is at 200px, and shows up in the right proportion in the text of the article, but when I insert it into the Infobox it becomes much larger. I don't know how to resize an image in an Infobox. Any help would be much appreciated. NinaGreen (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You had a missing field. I think i fixed it but please check. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 18:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed the duplicated image from the body of the article and added its caption to the ibox.--ukexpat (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you! NinaGreen (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome!--ukexpat (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Question about closing a talk page discussion
Is an editor who has actively participated in a talk page discussion allowed to archive/close it? This was an edit request and the discussion was only open for one hour. IP 213 archived it. I read a guideline somehwere that said a participating editor should never close a discussion; that only a neutral editor should do it. But I can't find it. But I just want to know if the IP who closed it was allowed to. Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I boldly closed the second discussion started by 76.189.123.142, after the first one yielded a clearcut consensus. Also note this parallel request started by the same editor. It's simply time for 76.189.123.142 to accept consensus and move on. --213.196.212.146 (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This isn't ANI. This is the help desk, and I am asking a very basic policy question. So a response from an administrator or other experienced editor would be appreciated. Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ANI or not, you're asking for a boomerang. --213.196.212.146 (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am asking a question at the help desk. Please act in a civil manner. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You have been telling that to almost everyone you've been in contact with. Playing games like that is not the way forward. --213.196.212.146 (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, I will ask that you stop your aggression and hostility. I am here to ask a policy question on the help desk. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you're not. You're playing games. Good luck. --213.196.212.146 (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

We occasionally have this thing called WP:SNOW close. I believe that is applicable in this case. Like any SNOW action, it has to be used carefully and anyone invoking it has to be accountable for it. In this case, it seemed like the proper course of action. Toddst1 (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for giving your thoughts on this matter. I appreciate it. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

deletion of article embronics
i dont understand why your are removing Embronics, it is the 1st R&D company from Rajahmundry city, and it was founded by enthusiastic students with and investment of knowledge and now they are hosting more than 25 websites and developed more than 40 embedded and software projects among those they also designed an software for INDIAN NAVY( for GOVT OF INDIA) i,e NETCOMM SERVICES, which displays the ships updated data related to GPS, GYRO, SONAR and other things. This software is first of its kind. and this all are done in span of 11 months. so how come this comes under an advertisement or publicity?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vihari05 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A valid answer for this editor is for a request to be made at Articles for Creation, something I will reiterate on the editor's talk page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Original Research?
Would this be considered "original research"? - I simply want to put a date on an illustration from an old newspaper; and can do so. However...

The newspaper was published during the siege of Paris, 1870-71, (under an alias, delivered by balloon). I found out that during a certain period of time when the illustration in question was published, the illustrations were an insert (Engraving of the News) for the Thursday editions, and that the illustration in question was in the 2nd insert, and therefore the date would be the 2nd Thursday of January 1871. I have a source with illustrations in sequence, but no specified date - and a source dating the period of publication. Once I figure out what date the 2nd Thursday, Jan 1871 was, I'll have the date the illustration was published. Original research? (Explaining this in the article would place undue emphasis on something with limited relevance, although the date is somewhat important - in other words, the explanation would be longer than the actual item: a caption.) ~Eric F:74.60.29.141 (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, I'm afraid that's original research and synthesis. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  21:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems, though, that it is alright to add such information to an image description in Wikimedia Commons if you want to. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks (more or less),, ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Btw, the date would be 12 January 1871


 * Update: having the date and the corresponding issue (La Gazette des Absents, numéro 26), I found a photocopy of the original: -and can source that, right?  ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Apteva (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

BLP on a talk page.
Is it appropriate to remove comments made by a user on their own talk page in the course of a discussion if you believe they violate BLP policy?

I had a look over at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, but that's for issues that have a definite concern, whereas I only have a theoretical question based on the above.

Given that fact that a conversation prompting such talk may not be entirely civil, and that you would almost certainly be involved in the discussion, would it not be antagonistic to do such a thing - but on the other hand, if you think a comment breaches BLP, should you not remove it anyway? Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Explain why you disagree - don't remove somebody else's comments on their own talk page (especially under heading Controversy). ~:74.60.29.141 (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that's just wrong. From the BLP policy: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" (emphasis in original), "[t]his policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages" (my emphasis) and "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (emphasis in original). If someone is violating the BLP policy on their own talkpage, even if you are already in a dispute with them, it is both acceptable and appropriate to remove their comments. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  23:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The "contentious material" was tangential in regard to a person - referring to: "made-up body core temperature bars shown with that footage - no temperature sensors are present" - etc. Talk:Richard Hammond: Difference between revisions ~:74.60.29.141 (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC) - (...in reference to a TV show on BBC) 74.60.29.141 (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, that absolutely comes under the heading of a BLP violation; Chaheel Riens was absolutely correct to revert it. Direct personal attacks are not in any way "tangential". Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  23:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever (They were discussing a TV show) -lol ~:74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Talkpages are not for discussing TV shows. You don't get to use Wikipedia as a venue for slagging off any celebrity you don't happen to like - there are countless websites that exist for that sole purpose, but this isn't one of them. Talkpages exist to discuss improvements to articles, and are not forums in which to vent your bile. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  08:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't actually the comments on Hammond's talk page that I was questioning - they were obviously BLP violations - but rather this edit which made me wonder about BLP issues on a users own talk page. It seems like a BLP issue, and personal attack - accusing me of being a sycophant - but I wondered what a non-confrontational resolution would be.  Not sure if it would be appropriate for me to respond, given that I'm now also the target.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've left the user a message. I agree that his statement is inappropriate - it may not violate BLP (statistically, most men are tossers, in a purely technical sense...) and "sycophant" is hardly the worst personal attack I've seen here, but the tone and attitude are deeply unconstructive. Best case scenario, he apologises and you can both go about your business, worst case scenario, we end up with DR or a block. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for the former. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  10:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)