Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 January 25

= January 25 =

Biased Decision
I've used Wikipedia on and off for years but will no longer be doing so. Your decision in the Gamergate controversy and choosing to silence women's voices and ignore women's concerns and issues that are a central part of GamerGate (sorry, but the ethics in journalism cover was bullshit, and anyone with half a brain can see that) has made it clear that Wikipedia can not be trusted to give a complete and open account of events and issues.

As I noted above, I've used Wikipedia for years, but have always wondered if that was wise, even when footnotes became required. This decision has answered that question and made my decision of whether or not to continue using and supporting it an any easy choice: No.

2602:30A:2C1D:910:89D4:8F89:EAAD:F2E9 (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you're unhappy with Wikipedia. But this is the Help Desk, which, as stated at the top of the page, is for questions about how to use and edit Wikipedia. We give some leeway on that, but I'm not sure that goes as far as parting shots at the project. I'm not certain enough to do it myself, but I wouldn't object if someone more experienced elected to remove this thread. Best of luck to you. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The page is covered by Arbcom general sanctions, another 5 editors were blocked/banned last week. - X201 (talk) 10:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete/remove or correct inaccurate pages
How do we remove inaccurate pages there's no such thing as Debolt, Nebraska and id like to remove the page and there's a page on Facebook that's generated by Wikipedia says its a city in Alberta Canada but the location on the Facebook page is showing in Omaha Nebraska making our posts show inaccurate location that it's posted or fix it cause it shouldn't be showing in Omaha Nebraska or remove any pages generated by Wikipedia that's on Facebook you need to do www.facebook.com/pages/Debolt/115546631792342 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous72530 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * USGS shows there is such a place Feature Detail Report for: Debolt  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 04:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And Wikipedia has many small articles about places that are too small to appear in online mapping tools such as Google Maps, or even no longer exist. So it's inaccurate to say that the page is inaccurate. The geo coordinates given on the page are correct per the above-linked GNIS page, pointing to the area that is now North Omaha. There is a Debolt, Alberta, there is also a Wikipedia article about it, and that article's coordinates are also correct. It appears that Facebook is confusing the two articles or something, and Wikipedia has no control over what Facebook does with the information in its articles. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Facebook page you linked is for Debolt, Nebraska, not Debolt, Alberta. It says Location Nebraska at the top. Therefore it would logically have a map showing the location of Debolt, Nebraska, not Debolt, Alberta. Under "Places in Debolt" on that page is a link to "Debolt, Ab" - along with places that are in the Omaha area. Apparently that entry should not be there, and again we have no control over Facebook content. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair Partisans?
Now, I've been editing Wikipedia for a long time, but I've always wondered this:

What is Wikipedia's stance on partisans?

I've read WP:REP in the past, but I've always wondered what the general community thinks of this.

(Note that the partisans that I speak of are the ones that follow the rules for the most part, but do still obfuscate information that they find unfavourable from their own edits.)

If a partisan were to edit Wikipedia within the general rules, but yet obfuscate some information or otherwise "shadow" an article, and then in the long term the information that they added ended up being reworked by future editors so that the page turned out quite well balanced, could the presence of such a person truly be seen as a problem? If the partisan added legitimate information, and then the pages were later improved upon by others to add the information that they had left out, then wouldn't "the (first-version-writing) partisan" just be another step in the life of the general creation and improvement of an article? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * My take is that you're outside the scope of Help Desk, which is pretty much just for how-to type things. I would suggest Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, or perhaps one of the other noticeboards listed at Noticeboards. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Can people with a point-of-view edit wikipedia? Yes, definitely. Is it helpful if people pointedly break the neutral point of view guidelines? Not really. If you really want to contribute but you feel that you are so partisan that it will get in the way of creating a balanced article, then one thing you can to is suggest changes on the Talk page for an article and see what the group of contributors thinks of those suggestions. —  Noah  07:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Automation Techniques Incorporated, Tulsa, Oklahoma
I used to work at Automation Techniques Incorporated in 1982 while attending Spartan School Of Aeronautics. I believe the factory was off Pine street just down the street from Spartan School of Aeronautics. Automation Techniques Inc. manufactured C band television receivers which came with large dish shaped antennas that were usually 8 feet wide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.86.227 (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm unable to tell what you are asking, or asking for. In any case, Wikipedia content is not created from people's personal knowledge posted at the Help Desk. Have a read at Introduction. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The Netaji
who was the Netaji? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.97.148.203 (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibly Subhas Chandra Bose. Incidentally, the opening paragraph of that article is a mess – more of a mess than I feel competent to fix. Maproom (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Mess now fixed by NeilN's edit. Maproom (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Problem with uploading information
Good evening!

I'm a new wikipedia's author and right now I write description about my University - [Gubkin Russian State University of Oil and Gas].

Till filling content I met some problems with adding images to university's pages. Every image (usually I download scan from photos and illustrations from books, which was printed more than 10 years ago and they haven't any licenses or I can give some accesses from University, because it's his decision to add information about scientists and history of university and oil and gas technologies).

Can you ask me how must I download images of this type to comlete ,y work without problems? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Чекмарёв Сергей (talk • contribs) 15:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As someone with a close connection to the subject of the article, please be aware of an follow the conflict of interest guidelines. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Здравствуйте, . Unless there is an explicit statement that the picture has been placed in the public domain, or licensed under a licence such WP:CC-BY-SA, a picture from a ten-year old book will be in copyright, and may not be used in English Wikipedia. (The rules may be different in ru.wikipedia, I don't know). If the University owns the copyright, then it could choose to license the pictures, but it is not enough for them to give permission to use them on Wikipedia, they must follow the procedure to license them appropriately (which will allow anybody to use them for any purpose): see donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * specifically with regards to your question about images, the rules are extremely tight and strict for good reason, to avoid legal issues with copyright. If you don't know the owner of the pictures and can't find a license then almost certainly it cannot be used on wikipedia.  See WP:IUP for much more detail about this.  CaptRik (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

unable to upload logo in the Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur
As a part of Rani Durgavati University, Jabalpur, M.P. India, I wish to change logo with correct one but unable to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akgjbp18 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You can request help here: WP:FFU.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 17:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Add a new Page
How do you add a new page to Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.193.219 (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You will need to first register an account, which has many benefits, including the ability to create articles. Once you have registered, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.


 * Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.


 * If you still think an article is appropriate, see Your first article and How to write a great article, and please consider taking a tour through the Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is available to walk you through creating an article, but you will need to create an account to use it. if you don't wish to do so, you can submit a proposal for an article at Articles for Creation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Mirrored Picture from unknown Uploader
I did not find any other location for posting this remark:

The user Gianaricci, who had uploaded the Image, seems not to be registered in Wikimedia any more.

I think, the picture has been mirrored before being uploaded (or the Brooklyn Museum had offered a mirrored image).

Tilman Kluge 20:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (Tilman Kluge) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tilman Kluge (talk • contribs)


 * Hello, . I'm afraid I'm not clear what you're saying. User:Gianaricci's home page says that they were an intern at the Brooklyn Museum, and then at the Guggenheim Museum. They don't seem to have edited since June 2014, that's true. But File:S03_06_01_020_image_2536.jpg says "This image was uploaded as a donation by the Brooklyn Museum, and is considered to have no known copyright restrictions by the institutions of the Brooklyn Museum.", so I don't know what you think is a problem. --ColinFine (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the issue is that the image has been mirrored - flipped left to right. This is apparent if you look at the label on the pedestal: the name of the sculptor (Jean Goujon) can be read if you look at the image after flipping it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Creating User talk:Chbtech
When I attempt to leave a Welcome message on a new user page, there is suddenly no WP:Twinkle choice on Creating User talk:Chbtech. Are welcome Twinkles gone?--DThomsen8 (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You have "Creating" in the link. Try User talk:Chbtech. --  Gadget850talk 22:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Adam Palmer
In Adam Palmer we have this situation: the BLP was created two years ago by, presumably the subject. A new user, now turns up and  with the edit summary "Unnecessary Bio, deleted entry". tagged the article with G7, but then reverted himself as the blanking editor is not identical to the creating editor. Adamppalmer has blanked again with the edit summary "This is my own bio. I dont think this contributes to Wikipedia and better to remove it. I am not famous or noteworthy. I have tried to delete the page." What's sensible to do here? Believe that Adamppalmer is the subject and the article creator and delete it under G7? Or send it to AfD as a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE? -- Sam Sing! 23:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless if the real Adam Palmer created the article I don't believe he can unilaterly ask for the article to be deleted (I'm assuming for arguments sake that the new Adam Palmer wiki account is also the real Adam Palmer). Now, if he can get consensus that he is indeed not a notable person then I'm certain he could probably get the article deleted on those grounds. Certainly an odd aspect of Wikipedia... you can't hide once you put yourself out there. Lastly, we do not know if the new account is telling the truth. FWIW, I have attempted to contact Adam Palmer on LinkedIn to see if we can establish if the new account his is or if it is just a troll trying to get the account article deleted. —  Noah  04:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks . I'm sending this to AfD unless other editors have other opinions. -- Sam Sing! 08:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I did indeed reach Mr. Palmer on LinkedIn and exchanged correspondance. He is the owner of both accounts mentioned above. I suggested to him that he let the Articles for Deletion process run its course. —  Noah  16:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)