Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2021 August 6

= August 6 =

Usage of user account
Hi Help desk participants, Can I use this account on another mobile or laptop where as there has been already logged another account?Damak15 (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes you can. Accounts are not tied to specific IP addresses or physical devices. If the other account has logged out, you can log in to Wikipedia on the same device using your own account. J I P  &#124; Talk 01:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. When you bring up the browser and then bring up any Wikipedia page, look at the upper right corner. If it says "log out", then your device is already logged in. log out by clicking that "log out", and then log in using your own user name. When your are done you should again log our, since you are obviously using a shared device ans you do not want somebody else using your account after you leave. You can log in on ad many different devices as your wish. -Arch dude (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Some devices (e.g., Linux computers) support multiple users. In this case you log onto the computer, and then bring up a browser. In this situation, there is no need to log out of Wikipedia, just log off of the computer, and the next time you log onto the computer you will already be logged onto Wikipedia. The computer will keep its various users separate. -Arch dude (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , Is any possibility of block from editing of first user account which is logged in that particular device, before i could log in my account.Damak15 (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't block accounts simply because someone wants to use another user account. Simply make sure the other account is logged out before you log in to your own account from the device. J I P  &#124; Talk 03:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Windows computers also keep track of multiple users, not just Linux! 73.127.147.187 (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

i can't find my post 鷹傑之友
hi, i have been posted a comment of 鷹傑之友 yesterday. but how can i go to my page to editing. because i can't find my comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericylc (talk • contribs) 03:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello are you sure that your edit has been made? I took a look at your Contributions and I don't see any contributions.  SunDawn  talk  03:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * , you have edited on Commons. You need to look there for your file. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Editing
I use to know how to make edits on Wikipedia pages, but it has been a very long time and it seems like some things changed. How may I go about editing information? When I go to edit, it does not show the content where I can add info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martialartsboy (talk • contribs) 07:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * , you have just edited this page, in order to ask the question immediately above. I infer that you can edit, and so your question is rather mystifying. But does Help:Editing address the problems that you have? If it doesn't, please ask again. -- Hoary (talk) 07:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please always be specific in your question rather than general and link to any page or article your question involves. It appears you are trying to add a name to Category:Shōrin-ryū practitioners. Only articles can be added to categories, and it's done by editing the article. See Help:Category or Help:VisualEditor. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Editor bugs
I'm still using the old low-level edit application and see no reason to change. Recently it's become smarter, turning the text within the brackets and blue. No problem with that but several bugs that affect the editing experience (Ins key toggles overtype mode, lower slider button inactive for two). Are other users affected? I've seen no comments or am I looking in the wrong forums? Doug butler (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not seen any such improvement to editing the source. The text doesn't turn blue for me. Are you using some kind of extension? J I P  &#124; Talk 13:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The only extension I have added is a patch that highlights differences between "before" and "after" edits in Revision History. Very useful for detecting tiny differences, but yes, the highlight is the same pale blue. I didn't understand the code, just followed the instructions from an experienced user and it's worked fine for over 5 years. I haven't changed any options, not deliberately anyhow. The "lower slider button" quirk is really weird — it won't move the slider, and hover over it and the mouse pointer turns to a diagonal arrow and you can move the whole slider bar sideways. Another weird effect is a reduction of functionality of [Ctrl+F] — the number of found instances is correct, but the search arrow buttons won't take you to them. Doug butler (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If source text has different colors then you have enabled one of Syntax highlighting, probably the highlighter marker mentioned first. Maybe it interacts poorly with your browser. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Mev Dinc
Someone wrote quite a good draft about Draft:Mev Dinc, a famous video game programmer in the 1990s. Dinc is worth mentioning on Wikipedia as there are articles about quite many of his games already. The problem however is that part of the "Games" section is in Turkish, which I can't translate because I don't understand the language. Otherwise, if it can be translated, can I just click on "Submit" and have the draft submitted for review? J I P &#124; Talk 16:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think, for something relatively simple like these isolated terms, Google Translate is probably sufficient. It translates, for instance, "Yarış" as "Race" and "Sürüş" as "Drive", so "Yarış/Sürüş" would presumably be "Racing/Driving" in English as a designation of a game genre. Deor (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Belated ping. Deor (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I translated the Turkish terms into English using Google Translate and clicked on "Submit". Let's see what happens next. J I P  &#124; Talk 17:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparently the submission was rejected because of lack of sources and reading like an advertisement. The original creator can now see these messages too, I'll let them work on the draft first. J I P  &#124; Talk 18:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Book copyright violations?
Hi,

Oh dear God, I might have just totally invalidated two days and too many hours worth of my own research work.

I have made a page on the Dennis Rapier fire engine, heavily edited the Dennis Sabre article and just recently inserted an infobox and context for the Dennis DS series. I have done so with the use of a Google Books copy of Andy Goundry's 'Dennis Buses and Other Vehicles' that I have - admittedly - skipped through the limited pages with a trick in the URL, doing so with the rationale that what I was doing was fair use. Only in retrospect following my edit on the DS Series have I just realised Google's 'Copyrighted material' notice meant something important.

Flicking through WP:COPYVIO and WP:NOTFREE, I think I've now realised I've made a grave mistake. In essence, what I should've done is bought a physical copy of Goundry's book. Even then, though, I don't think that would've helped either, as for the DS article, I think I've violated point 2 of WP:NFCCP: "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material."

What I've now realised is that nobody needs to read the DS section of Goundry's Dennis book anymore, as it's all there instead on the Wikipedia page. On balance, though, it seems Goundry's book is only the current accessible, encyclopæedic-type source I can find on older Dennis fire engine specifications, and without that, it is only unsourced or inaccessible sources. This leaves me in a bit of a pickle. I am ready, but not so much willing to make an emergency revert of the violating content, so to be sure, are my previous edits certain violations of US copyright law? What is fair use, and what is not? And where on earth do I cite this information?

Please help, I really should've considered the implications of these edits earlier. Hullian111 (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you summarize information from Goundry's book in your own words ? If so, you should be in the clear; every article on Wikipedia is a summary of sources about the article's subject. Facts are generally not copyrighted; for example, the fact that the Dennis Rapier stopped production in the early 2000s is just basic information. On the other hand, the specific text that Goundry wrote about the Rapier is protected by copyright, so you would not be able to directly copy (or closely paraphrase) his words into a Wikipedia article. For all intents and purposes, it doesn't matter whether you obtained the information from a hard copy of the book or through Google Books, and no one would be able to tell anyway. DanCherek (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry if this is a bit long, haven’t figured out paragraphing replies: Reviewing my past edits using Goundry's book, I think the bulk of the problem might lie in the Dennis DS infobox edit. These are statistics and info on the dimensions and engineering on the fire appliances, and while I can easily pull stats from the archived Dennis Fire website for the Dennis Rapier and Sabre, there are no credible online sources for the DS, RS and SS besides enthusiast sites/forums, and I'm not sure whether I can use those as good references. That would essentially knock out a big bulk of potential edits for the RS, SS and redlinked Dennis appliances. And by my "own words", would the extract on the Rapier article (compare with the source: "and a parts shortage as a result of the discontinuation of the Renault Midliner, which sourced the Rapier's front suspension and brakes") be fine as a benchmark? I’ve realised that copy-pasting is a no-no, but I’m not so sure on this form of paraphrasing. Hullian111 (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The infobox at Dennis DS series seems like a perfectly fine use of the Goundry source, because the fact that the Dennis DS is 6,136 mm long is not copyrightable — it's just a basic fact, kind of like the Empire State Building being 1,454 ft tall. I would agree that the book you cited is a far better source than internet forums. For your question about the Dennis Rapier article, I compared it to the source (I think you referenced the paragraph starting with Towards the end of the Rapier's production run...) and your wording seems sufficiently different, so I don't believe there are copyright concerns. DanCherek (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Whew, thanks for the aid, looks like I might be in the clear - let me know if I'm not yet totally. Guess I'll hold off on my "Emergency Revert per WP:COPYVIO", then - hopefully this self-styled bad press doesn't get the attention of the author. If anything, I'll make sure to buy a physical copy of the book before I consider adding new fire appliance pages, and I will take better notice of copyrighted source regulations. Hullian111 (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work on the articles. Google Books is a fine and legitimate resource for writing Wikipedia articles, and if you ever want to refer to a source that you don't have access to, feel free to ask at WP:RX to see if someone else can provide it to you. DanCherek (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Our rules are intended to prevent you or anyone else from introducing copyrighted material into Wikipedia. You have (apparently) not done that: you have read copyrighted material and extracted (non-copyrightable) information and then written or enhanced our articles in your own words, which is exactly what we editors are supposed to do. Neither Google nor the original author can require us to remove your work from Wikipedia. As an entirely separate issue, you appear to believe that you may have violated the terms of service of the Google Books site: this has nothing to do with Wikipedia or Wikipedia's rules, and is between you and Google. Many authors believe that Google was sailing awfully close to copyright violation when they digitized those books in the first place, and Wikipedia does try to avoid encouraging or abetting copyright infringement. If this bothers you, you might try to see if the book is available in a library. It may be available for electronic checkout via the Internet Archive, which lets you borrow the same book over and over for free, usually in 30-minute increments. -Arch dude (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging since I'm guessing the above message was meant for them, not me. DanCherek (talk) 03:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional clarification, and sorry for the very late reply, I got a little caught up. Think that answers my initial concerns very plainly, and I might keep that Internet Archive library cite idea in mind - besides, I’ve got the book on order from a bookshop chain now, so I shouldn’t be needing to use Google Books anymore.
 * Interesting what you say about Google Books - I’ve always seen it as an incentive for readers to buy the full book, but I can understand the copyright concerns. With the book due soon, I think I might soon be in the clear using it. With that, I think that might be it for this, thanks all - hope to get back to Dennis fire engine editing soon. Hullian111 (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, you are not citing Google Books currently, and if you use the Internet Archive you will not be citing it, either. In all cases, you are citing the book and not the method you used to read the book. The Google Books or Internet Archive URL that you place in your citation is what we call a "convenience link", and is not mandatory (although it is appreciated) even if that happened to be the link you used to read the book. By analogy, you would not give the address of your local library if you borrowed the book there. You should leave your convenience link in your citation even if you do eventually use the physical book. -Arch dude (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

User keeps reverting draft to incorrect version
User:Anahitataaa is writing a draft Draft:Mohammad Ali Tasdighi. However, he insists on making every wikilink into an external link back to Wikipedia instead of an internal link. He has been repeatedly told to stop this, yet he ignores the messages and reverts the draft back to an incorrectly formatted version every time. What should be done here? J I P &#124; Talk 19:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I wonder if he's doing it as part of the stipulations of a contract or if he's just lazily plagiarising from somewhere. In either case, the article is noncompliant with WP:BLP due to want of inline citations. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 20:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

William Appling
Hello,

I am a new user and have recently been creating an article for the american composer William Appling. It was deleted as it apparently fell under the category of unambiguous advertising/promotion (G11). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:William_Appling_(conductor,_pianist,_educator)

There is still clearly a lot for me to learn about Wikipedia, and I believe the main issue was with innapropriate use of external websites as references. It was not my intention to promote or advertise anything or anyone.

Could anyone here clear up what the issue was? Is my best bet contacting the user that originally deleted the draft?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesVictorDudley (talk • contribs)


 * User:CharlesVictorDudley, clicking on the link to the deleted page produces a message that the page was deleted for reason WP:G11: the page consisted of unambiguous advertising or promotion. The link explains G11 further. You can contact the deleting admin who may be willing to supply a copy of the page. Your user page says you are a paid editor and it is best practice for paid editors to mention the fact on talk pages. TSventon (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:YFA to get some guidance. The only absolute requirement for a article is that its subject must be notable by our definition: see WP:NARTIST and WP:N. Do not do any further work on your article until you have found acceptable references to establish notability: look at WP:CSMN. Nothing can substitute for acceptable references: see WP:AMOUNT. We can help you with anything else. -Arch dude (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am an administrator and so I was able to read your deleted draft. I would not have deleted your draft under G11 although it did contain some promotional language that could have been easily corrected. I believe that Appling is probably notable and that Wikipedia should have an article about him. You are correct that your draft completely misused external links, which have an important but circumscribed use on Wikipedia. A larger problem is that vast swathes of the article are entirely unreferenced, which raises concerns about verifiability and the prohibition on original research. The fact that you are a disclosed paid editor may also be a factor. As a paid editor, you are expected to be fully conversant with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and comply with them, and should not expect experienced unpaid volunteer editors and administrators to have much patience with substandard work. Simply by answering your question, I am helping you to get a paycheck and will not get a nickel out of it. But in the spirit of improving the encyclopedia, I will provide you with a copy of your draft by email if you contact me on my talk page. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  01:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Criminal Partners - how to create individual articles when significant overlap
I'm interested in creating an article about Sal Magluta and Willie Falcon who were recently chronicled in Cocaine Cowboys: The Kings of Miami. They def. are deserving of an article beyond the brief mention on Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute.

However it's unclear to me given the overlap in much of their crimes and background, if there should be two separate articles about the two of them or one single article. I'm not exactly sure if even a shared article is something that exists.

I'm wondering what the best way to approach it is.

Any advice appreciated.

Thanks! &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  22:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * See Bonnie and Clyde for an example of a "shared article". Maproom (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Talk page HELP????
1  Can  someone help?

2 == Heading text == Big text

THIS IS CONFUSING. I am wondering if someone can help. I'd like to write on an article something like this:

I am hoping to widen this article. Here is a reference for a perspective that is yet to be Mentioned.

Treepose1   PS  IS  THIS MESSAGE GOING TO BE ANSWERED? Where at email? Treepose1 (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Treepose1: Please refrain from using big text. If the concern is that the text is too small, please use your browser settings to magnify text. Otherwise, please rephrase your question. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You could use the template on the article's talk page, or just create a new section on the article's talk page with the information and your suggestion.  Happy editing!  GoingBatty (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate articles
Someone created an Olympian stub, Darnya Pikuleva, with the athlete's first name spelled incorrectly. A few minutes later someone created the same article with the correct spelling (Daryna Pikuleva). Not sure what to do here and I was hoping someone with more exp might. Thank you. JTtheOG (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As the two versions had roughly the same content, I went ahead and converted the Darnya article to a redirect to the Daryna article. If "Darnya" is not considered to be a "likely misspelling" (per WP:R), then it can easily be deleted later.  --Finngall talk  22:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)