Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 October 5

= October 5 =

COI template
If an IP editor appears to possibly have a close connection to a BLP subject whose article they are editing, can the this COI template be placed at the top of the article? This is based on an IP's editing at Venus Palermo combined with their geolocate info via the link at the bottom of their contributions page, which matches the subject's residence. I'll be signing off soon, so if that template is appropriate can someone please add it. Czoal (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * See this thread at AN/I about IP 146, where admin NeilH said that IP 146 is also Maggie.7537, whom he blocked. And Maggie.7537 said in this edit summary from August 2013 that she is Venus Palermo's mother. Czoal (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yishai Fleisher
Hello, can somebody move this image to commons? thx Queryzo (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Spiritual Warrior (indigenous)
The above article is of course an apparent essay and easily violates WP:NOT as it is not encyclopedic. The so-called "sources" were repeated three times from an unpublished source. I once proposed this for deletion, but the tag was deleted by the creator of the page. Clearly he/she could do the same thing should I propose it for deletion again. What's the next thing I should do? Propose deletion again? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I started an AFD on it, since AFDs cannot be removed until they are discussed or CSDd as opposed to PRODs which can be removed and can't be re-added once removed. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 07:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Account has not been confirmed after 10 edits + 4 Days
I have done 10 edits and more than 4 days have passed since I created my account. However, my account is not confirmed yet.

Can someone help me? Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkway Digital (talk • contribs) 08:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That is rather odd, Parkway Digital. I would recommend filing a request at Requests for permissions/Confirmed and having someone look into it there as to why you haven't been autoconfirmed yet. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 08:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * you are autoconfirmed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.195.193.182 (talk) 08:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, you had only made 9 edits before posting on this page, so your question here was your 10th edit, which triggered the auto-confirmation - Arjayay (talk) 08:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Page(article) Bharat Ratna and B. R. Ambedkar
Dear Sir/mam,

I have reguler user of wiki i thanking you for giving us this kind of tool on internet.

while visiting page Bharat Ratna i found the Person Dr Babasaheb R Ambedkar missing name from second paragraph of summery, who make indian constitution whole india is running their rules regulations on the basis of contitution of india.

while you had shown a creketor and the vice presedents and prime ministers in the same paragraph. kindly add a Greatpersonality Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar in to the same.

sir kindly accept the addition of the such an great personality in the page on second paragraph (para) (line no 13aprox.) which i added.

also Requesting that he was the only person who has the various Doctorates, Degrees and Masters in so many fields and sectors,

kindly take his name Respectfully Starting with Doctor not just B R Ambedkar.

make some changes he is ""DOCTOR B. R. AMBEDKAR"". NOT JUST " B. R. Ambedkar"

Thanks a lot in advance ....Hope you will do the needful for this.

Yours Faithfully, user and follower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.54.171.180 (talk) 11:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia Manual of Style discourages adding honorifics to article titles. His name is "B. R. Ambedkar", "Doctor" is not part of his name. J I P  &#124; Talk 12:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * For further details, read WP:HONORIFICS. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  14:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

arlene francis
Arlene Francis didnt have cancer,according to her son Peter Gabel,needs to be fixed-source peter gabel71.186.162.95 (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)vincent callea
 * I have removed it since The New York Times article that was cited for this says nothing of the sort.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Linking of an article
I have created a new page on a movie but I do not know how to make the link of this page appear when someone searches about the movie on Google...?? Could you please guide me on this...? Baankey Ki Crazy Baraat --Prabhat 9 (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Prabhat 9. You do nothing. In a few days or hours the page will be spidered by Google and thus appear in its results.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much...!! Looking forward to creating more articles...!! --Prabhat 9 (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Not that it should matter. We are here to build an encyclopedia not garner Ghits...--ukexpat (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Mass rollback
I apologize for being an idiot, but in fairness to myself I'm on an unfamiliar browser right now and not exactly operating under ideal conditions. For the life of me I can't seem to properly install the mass rollback script, and given that I need to clean up after yet another Tobias Conradi sock it's kinda important to have. Anyone out there who knows what they're doing who can help me out? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 16:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to have installed the script correctly, so I'm guessing that there's a mistake in one of the scripts you're using. (Sadly, I can't debug for myself because I dropped all my permissions a while back because I wasn't using them, and it seems a little ridiculous to request rollbacker rights just to debug one script.)
 * First off, bypass your cache again just to make sure (you need to do that with every change to scripts), and as you're using an unfamiliar browser, I'd recommend reading the instructions on the page again as a refresher. It may well be that your muscle memory is doing a bypass sequence that doesn't work on whatever browser you're using.
 * If that doesn't work, I'd recommend temporarily uninstalling every other script you're using in case the problem is a bad interaction between scripts; that's been known to happen on occasion. (Then bypass your cache again.)
 * Finally, it may be that there's a problem in the script you're trying to install. I noticed that the script is adding portlet links in a way that wouldn't have worked when I learned MediaWiki scripting, but there have been a lot of internals changes since, so most likely it works now and I'm just out of the loop. That said, if all else fails, that's the first bit I'd be looking at and trying to correct. --ais523 22:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * All right, it seems to be working; I think it was the unfamiliar browser throwing me off, I thought I was bypassing my cache but I was just reloading the page. Thanks a ton for your help! The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 00:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Tamar Braxton "Calling All Lovers"
This is on behalf of Mr Dashawn White, in Album credits that are printed in physical copy to purchased that he's a co producer as adding additional drum programming. Please add and keep Mr Whites information on this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.49.55.118 (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Convenience link: Calling All Lovers
 * Well I had to revert you since there isn't any source I could find that says Deshawn White was a producer on that album. I did find a listing of producers for each song here and White is not included on it.  If you can provide a source that says he was part of that album/song I can put it back for you (with the correct formatting).  In addition, please read Wikipedia's guidelines on conflicts of interest as it appears you have one.  Thank you. --Stabila711 (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Whitestone image
How can I change the main image on our page? I just tried doing it, but I need more info??

Thanks, Jennifer — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Municipality Of Whitestone (talk • contribs) 19:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well lets start with which Whitestone? We have four different Whitestones with their own Wikipedia page. --Stabila711 (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And as a point of reference, it is not "your" page but rather a Wikipedia encyclopedia article about a town. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a bit hard to advise you without more information; but you do realise that you can only use images that have already been uploaded to Wikimedia commons or to Wikipedia, so if your new image is not on one of these, you need to upload it first (use the upload wizard)? And that with very limited exceptions the images must be in the public domain, or have been explicitly licensed by the copyright holder in a way that allows anybody to reuse them for any purpose?
 * And I'm sorry to hit you with yet another thing that might seem unwelcoming, but I'm afraid your username is not acceptable: Wikipedia accounts must be indivdual, not shared, and must not have a name which implies that they are editing on behalf of any organisation. Since you have yet to make any edits apart from this one, it's probably easiest if you just abandon that account, and create a new one. You don't have to use your real name (I do, but many users don't) but it must be an account used only by you, and not appearing to be 'official'. One more thing: it sounds as if you are employed by the Municipality. If you are, you have a Conflict of interest, and should generally avoid editing articles about the place; though adding a good picture is normally OK. --ColinFine (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Leeds General Infirmary
What is wrong with the dates in ref. number 6 on the above page. Please helpSrbernadette (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The comma was missing in "October 6, 2015". I added the comma but it should probably say "6 October 2015" for consistency within the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help - but I realized - too late! - that the URL was wrong and I have tried to replace it with no luck please help (again0 Srbernadette (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You removed the url= parameter. I replaced it. --Stabila711 (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem was bigger. The given url is on all search results pages. The reference has to either give a link to the right search result or explain how to get there. I couldn't find a direct link to the search result so I did the latter in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leeds_General_Infirmary&diff=prev&oldid=684326910]. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

File:A Game of Thrones Novel Covers.png
Dear administrators

I've uploaded the new image of File:A Game of Thrones Novel Covers.png because I assumed the initial image violates WP:NFCC. Please tell me of what I assumed is correct or not?--NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * From how I read Non-free book cover books covers, even multiple ones, fall under fair use. A Song of Ice and Fire covers the entire series, not individual books, so it would be appropriate to show all the covers as one picture as long as a fair-use rational is used. --Stabila711 (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I just thought I would mention that I am not an admin. That is just my view of the situation.  If you want a broader discussion on the matter I suggest posting at Copyright problems. However, I do believe that it falls under fair-use. --Stabila711 (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF notwithstanding, but Harry Potter contains an image of the spines of all books, and that's taken from commons, so I'd agree with the assessment that multiple books in one image is acceptable, and falls under fair use. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's apples and oranges, Chaheel. The Game of Thrones image is a claim of fair use of a copyrighted work. The Harry Potter image at the Commons is a claim of copyright owner release under a suitable free license. And it's also pretty clearly a copyright violation and needs to be nominated for deletion. (The issue is that the person who took the photograph only owns the photograph's copyright but what it captures has its own copyright, which the person cannot release. See derivative work. I don't think the artwork shown at the top of the spines meets a de minimis exception, and certainly does meet the threshold of originality for protection).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC) I've nominated it for deletion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Since the image has been changed back again to the box set image it seems like this needs to be revisited.  could you explain why you changed the image back?   (who is an admin) did say that it was a claim of fair use.  Also, Fuhghettaboutit, could you make a clear designation on whether or not the images of the covers of the books qualifies for fair use so we can solve this question once and for all?  Thanks! --Stabila711 (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not that you were necessarily implying this, but the fact I'm admin, while it probably means I am quite experienced, gives my opinion in a discussion no more weight. I think the original image does qualify for fair use in the article on the book series (and no where else but there; fair use is always location-specific). It is unreplaceable with a free equivalent, has contextual significance as a depiction of the books covers in an article on the books and is used in the infobox; is low resolution. I also think the prior image as opposed to the current image, actually conveyed something of educational significance that a depiction of a bunch of books with spines with something indistinct on them does not. In other words, the prior image meets WP:NFCC, and I think the replacement image arguably does not. This may seem counterintuitive because often what we are thinking about is minimal use, so spines show less right? Well, yes, but a necessary condition for fair use is: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic", and book covers do that. The spines barely convey anything. You could probably swap it for some other image of spines and nothing would be lost, which means it added little.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you and no I wasn't implying that your opinion gives more weight.  The original question asked for an admin's opinion.  My first response resulted in  putting the book covers back.  However, after I mentioned that I was not an admin the spines were put back.  Assuming the revert to the spines was a result of my mentioning that I was not an admin.  Therefore, my mention of your adminship was in regards to the original question and the revert to the spines.  As you have confirmed my original assumption of fair use I have reverted the image to the book covers.  Since the other versions now fail WP:NFCC is there a way to mark the page for admin attention?  Or has that already been done automatically? --Stabila711 (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Stabila711 It was not done automatically. However, Neobatfreak added  to the article a while back, so it is marked for prior versions to be deleted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not actually sure why you felt it necessary to point out that you were an admin? Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Chaheel, the first person to mention that Fuhghettabout is an admin was Stabila711. BencherliteTalk 08:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)