Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 December 10

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.

December 10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokyu : hyperlink to WRONG PERSON

The wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokyu correctly indicates me, Eric Golub, a performing artist and ethnomusicologist in northern California, as the American musician who is a performer on that Japanese instrument. However, recently the place where my name is mentioned is hyperlinked to a different Eric Golub, a noted political blogger in southern California. I would appreciate it if this could be corrected! If my name can be hyperlinked, I would request it be linked to my most current music webpage http://myspace.com/ericgolub. Please note, at the bottom of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokyu page, I am correctly referenced with my blog http://ericgolub.blogspot.com, and this should help confirm that indeed I am a different individual entirely from political blogger Eric Golub. Thanks very much, Eric Golub Sirqitous (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the link to the wrong person's article. I also removed a link to your blog; Wikipedia links to blogs and myspace pages only in very special circumstances. Sorry —teb728 t c 01:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

'google' what defines an english person

Do you know that if you google 'what defines an english person' the 1st google answer is the wikipedia definition of the word cunt.

this should definitely be rectified.

Cheers,

Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.130.119 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 10 December 2011‎

Heh; looks like someone has been googlebombing. But I don't see it's anything Wikipedia can - or should - do anything about. If you are concerned about it, you should contact Google; not Wikipedia.  Chzz  ►  03:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Cunt; it's probably not a googlebomb, but rather an anomaly in Google's keyword ranking. Doesn't seem to be much if anything we can do... Shimgray | talk | 20:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Contact Randy Meisner

My name Philip Davis and I am trying to find out how to get in contact with Randy Meisner, He was a good friend of my Dad's in the 80's, my dad use to drive for him back then. My dad has past away sense then, I was just hoping to say hi, or write a message to him.I hope you can help, my e-mail is <email removed>. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.72.203 (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.randymeisneronline.com/ is his web page. Take it to the limit, one more time, my friend! --Jayron32 06:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Question about rejected DYK

An article I created was nominated on DYK on November 18. An editor claimed there was a copyright issue a few days later but never clarified what that issue was. My question remained unanswered until today when the hook was rejected. There was no reason given by the closing editor. Is there anyway to appeal this decision? 72.74.206.103 (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The user who left the note was User talk:Sturmvogel 66. You should ask them directly. --Jayron32 06:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I could but what would be the point if the decision is final? Afterall, Sturmvogel didn't respond to my question after three weeks. 72.74.206.103 (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you ask them at their talk page? If you aren't interested in why they left their note, why did you even start the discussion here. I certainly don't know why they did what they did. But they might. --Jayron32 06:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

First, I was specifically requested to respond on the nomination page. The point of my question was to ask if there was anyway to appeal a rejected DYK nomination. The hook is supported by at least four news articles. If there was a statement that was taken word-for-word (with the exception of an attributed quote) from any of these sources, it could easily have been rewritten. 72.74.206.103 (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

My concerns were with The event was intended to have been a class project and school fundraiser for marketing students at Chantilly High and after receiving a promotional flier from a parent at the school. Versus The event was to have been a class project and fund-raiser for marketing students at Chantilly and after receiving a promotional flier from a parent at the school from the article. I'll grant that both could have been rewritten without much issue, but I didn't specifically watchlist the nomination page as I thought it would be automatically watchlisted because I created it. So I had no idea that the editor responded.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleting an unwanted page about me

A marketing firm just created a Wikipedia page about me, much to my dismay. I am not a celebrity, there is nothing interesting about me, I am not associated with any events or important people....and I value my privacy. I have edited the page to fix the inaccuracies, but would really prefer to delete it. Is this possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miriam123 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The criterion for whether Wikipedia has a page about you is whether or not you are notable - whether other reliable sources have written about you. If they have, then anybody can create an article about you; if they have not, then anybody - including you - may nominate the article for deletion.

If the consensus is that an article is appropriate, then Wikipedia is very concerned that it should contain only reliably sourced material, according to the policy on WP:Biographies of living persons, and you will be welcome to help us achieve that, but subject to the concerns in WP:conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. As the only reference is to my university's website, I am going to assume that confirms my non-notability and nominate the article for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miriam123 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

A deletion request from the subject does not guarantee deletion but is taken into account per Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Biographies of living people. I have added your concern to the request.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

For reference, the original author tagged the article as a G7 Author Request speedy deletion, and Fastily went ahead and deleted. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

OSVAH

I want to know about the Meaning of Arabic Word OSVAH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.223.161 (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I have moved your question to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#OSVAH.

Here, on the help-desk, we can only help with questions about using Wikipedia. However, the reference desk is able to answer a wide variety of questions; please check back there for responses.  Chzz  ►  12:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

MEP external links

The external links "template" for an MEP (example) seems to be outdated. The link which should normally point to the personal page of the MEP, now redirects to a search page. Druzhnik (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I have attempted a fix: [2]. It works on the pages I tested. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Tired of fighting battles over images

The_Epoch_Times had several non-free, full-color, full-sized images on its page when I got around to making two images of parts of its front page: one for a U.S. edition and one for a Malaysian edition. The latter was deleted. I had no time to fight the battle, but I thought, silly as the reasoning for its removal, I'll live with just one. Now someone is trying to replace the remaining image with an content-free corporate logo that doesn't even represent the paper in most people's minds. I don't know how to deal with situations like this effectively, so I'm seeking help here. The New York Times article, you will see, carries an image of the paper, too. It's much more famous than The Epoch Times, so if any image doesn't belong, the Times image should go first, no? Imagine Reason (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There does seem to be a pattern of using covers in newspaper infoboxes, I'm not sure this is backed up by any consensus (I'd be unsure where to look for such a thing) although Template:Infobox_newspaper does state "image (front page or other)" and has a separate field for a logo (although in this case putting the logo in the logo field just looks ugly). The logo in question (is that really their actual logo?) however, does not seem to pass the threshold of originality and could be considers public domain, see Wikipedia:Public_domain#Non-creative_works. Based on that, I see no reason not to use both images in the article. Either way, it's unhealthy to think of these as "battles", it's a collaborative environment and minor disagreements like this are common, just having a polite discussion with these editors is nothing to be weary of. Яehevkor ✉ 16:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

So far as the cover image on New York Times is concerned, that issue is in the public domain, having been published in 1914. —teb728 t c 23:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

How to Display Image on Wk Page/ Could Image Be Blocked?

A while back, I created a stub on artist Mary McCleary. It's my first article and I'm still new and learning. I wanted to display an image of her work for the infobox titled "The Falcon Cannot Hear the Falconer." A copy of this image can be found here:

http://img.artknowledgenews.com/files2011nov/Mary-McCleary-Falcon-Cannot-Hear.jpg

I was able to save the image to my PC, but using the same jpeg address, the image does not show up on the Wk page. I read through the image copyright rules, and because the image has been reproduced online, the actual work of art is now in a public collection, the image on the Wk page would not be to scale nor high-resolution, I believe I would not be infringing on copyright per Wk's guidelines. Additionally, I credit the image on the Wk page. Is it possible the gallery (Moody Gallery) who owns this image has blocked Wikipedia from displaying it? Is there any way I can test to see or know if this is the case? Have they perhaps blocked the image from any website displaying it (even though I was able to copy it to my PC), and how would I know if this might be the case? Or perhaps, am I coding it wrong? This is doubtful, since I tested an image by another artist and it showed up fine.

I wrote to Moody Gallery about the Wk page I created, requesting their permission to use the image, and I never heard back. Because I did write them, I obviously tipped someone off that the Wk page exists and that I wanted to use a particular image from the artist. Again, after reading over the copyright rules, I believe I would not infringe on copyright by displaying it. Thanks for any advice or info. The page would be greatly enhanced by displaying this image of the artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norlns22 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The first problem is that in order for images to be displayed on Wikipedia they either have to be uploaded here or to the commons. The second problem is that the rules on wikipedia state that any picture of a living person must be a free image. Just because it has been published on the web in one place, that does not mean that the image is a free image or that the copyright has been released. GB fan 18:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

GB fan is right that to be used this would have to be uploaded to Wikipedia and that just because it has been shown on the web does not make it OK for use. But a work of visual art could be used for sourced critical discussion on, for example, a particular technique or school if the use would significantly increase reader understanding. It would be used, however, opposite the sourced discussion not in the infobox. —teb728 t c 19:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy responses! I seem to recall that if a work of art belongs to a public collection, and if that institution allows patrons to photograph works of art belonging to them (which Crystal Bridges does), and the image I include is both not to scale and not high resolution, that it would be permissible to include it in the infobox. Indeed, most Wk art pages have images of the artists' works (usually highly representative works) in the infobox. I do discuss the work in the article, so perhaps I will use it there as opposed to the infobox. Thanks for the responses. I appreciate your patience w/ a new user.Norlns22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC).

The image has been tagged for deletion from Commons as it is not a free image. In some cases, non-free works can be uploaded to English Wikipedia but not to Commons. Rmhermen (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Rmhermen or anyone else,

Based on the fairly specific criteria I outlined above regarding the image in question, would it be worth my while to attempt to upload the image to English Wk, or should I just not bother since it will be removed from there as well? What's your opinion? Also, I am finding images on other Wk artist pages that seem to fit the same criteria as mine... images of art works currently displayed in public museums that are readily available elsewhere and not shown to scale. Is there any way to trace or backtrack a particular image being used on one of these pages so that I can see exactly where and how it was uploaded? The images I am referring of have been there for quite a while, so obviously they are not glaringly infringing on copyright, or they would have been discovered and removed by now. Perhaps these users used English Wk and/ or a different license tag. On the other hand, the artist I have written about is still living, and I have not found any Wk pages of living artists with any images of actual works. But I am finding *numerous* pages of artists recently deceased (in the past 10 to 15 years) with images of their works in the infobox. The copyright rule about an artist having been for 70 years aside, do copyright rules automatically soften for artists who are no longer living? I have not come across any rule yet where this might be the case, but again, I am finding numerous pages with examples of (recently) deceased artists' works in the infobox, so it seems likely something along these lines is possible. Thanks. Update: I found a picture of the artist herself on her university's website...pics of artists seems fairly common on other living artists' Wk pages. Hopefully this will be okay. :D

Please do not upload any iamges without explicit permission from the copyright-holder. See Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial. Thanks.  Chzz  ►  09:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Seeking clarification on copying text from a commercial site without permission

Hi I am a bit confused about what is okay and not okay regarding copying verbatim from a commercial site. The feature on Wiki entitled Kamamalu features a picture of an oil color copying an earlier litho done in 1824. The oil painting, although not a faithful copy in term of medium, size or colors, seems to fit the criteria Wiki has chosen for acceptable use an public domain. The oil painting, locked away for 70 years, made its first appearance on my web site where we sell antiques.(to make money, buy food, pay employees) Portions of the description of the picture, including the provenance, and other information of commercial value was taken verbatim from my site www.aaawt.com or specifically http://www.aaawt.com/html/gallery18.html without permission or even a courtesy request. Information and some sentences, are exact without variation. Details and provenance would be otherwise unknown, and as the oil painting, despite being in the likeness of an earlier rendition of the same person (Kamamalu) is unique. Was it okay for the writer to lift my item description with permission or giving any credit or a link? As the use significantly diminishes the value of the unique item, is there any precendence on Wiki on how things like this are handled. I have read, re-read, searched, etc, and am only going in circles. I am unable to determine the person who lifted the content, and don't know who or how to approach. To keep this in perspective, when we first secured the painting, we contacted the Iolani Palace to see if there may be interest in adding the painting or information about the painting to their collection. We rarely refuse any public request for the use of pictures or information, yet in this case, we feel violated. If the answer is "too bad", that's okay, but it certainly doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy towards the Wiki spirit or process. Where is the trade off between the right of the public and common courtesy or decency, or even commercial rights for sale of unique items? The picture has now been copied on another site The Dreamstress.com http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&sa=N&biw=1440&bih=698&tbm=isch&tbnid=FsIbwCR2coVa8M:&imgrefurl=http://thedreamstress.com/tag/hawaii/&docid=VT87DMug-5tfCM&imgurl=http://thedreamstress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Portrait_of_Queen_Kamamalu_c._1824%2525E2%252580%2525931830_by_an_anonymous_artist-368x500.jpg&w=368&h=500&ei=yqnjTsfVCun10gG3odXtBQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=499&vpy=298&dur=9657&hovh=262&hovw=193&tx=123&ty=292&sig=118340225070172660647&page=1&tbnh=146&tbnw=91&start=0&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:18,s:0 by permission of Wiki. Please help me out. Thanks RobMorin — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobMorin (talk • contribs) 19:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

We are fierce around here about respecting copyright. Where precisely is the material which is a copyright violation? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I assumed from your post that the copyright infringement was at the Kamāmalu article. After getting eyestrain looking for it, I finally found and removed it from File:Portrait of Queen Kamamalu (c. 1824–1830) by an anonymous artist.jpg. Thank you for calling our attention to the problem. Have I got everything? As for finding the person “who lifted the content”: starting from the article, click on the image, then click on the Wikimedia Commons “description page there” link, then click on the “View history” tab at the top of the page. It seem that one person copied all of your provenance, and another removed part of it but left too much. Good luck with your sale. —teb728 t c 04:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Unicode subscripts and superscripts needs to be restored to the article namespace

... but it looks like no one short of an administrator has the ability to restore it. Can someone who's a WP admin fix this? Thanks. — ¾-10 20:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The redirect in article space has only one version; so you or any autoconfirmed user could move it back. —teb728 t c 22:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I moved it back. Rmhermen (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Basic Citation Questions

If three sentences in a row draw from the same reference, and no direct quotes are used in any of them, is it allowable or even preferable to cite only the last of the three sentences, or should you cite all three? Also, why do some Wk articles have entire pps w/ no citations, and then a reviewer/ editor will stick a "needs citation" label on a sentence (literally one pp further down from a pp w/ zero citations) that already has three or four citations in it? I guess what I'm curious about, and I realize it's not always black and white, is what criteria do reviewers/ editors go by when deciding to label a sentence with a "needs citation" tag? And how can any pp on Wk fly high w/out a single citation? Is this ever conceivable in a properly cited and referenced article? Thanks. Norlns22 (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Our verifiability policy requires all quotations and anything that is "challenged or likely to be challenged" to have an inline citation. That's the practical application of it, although really everything in an article should be sourced and cited. If you have three consecutive sentences without quotes or material that you expect will be challenged, just put a citation at the end of them, if it's the same source. Wikipedia articles that have entire paragraphs with no citations are a problem that should be fixed, but unfortunately there's a backlog in dealing with those. The reason for why we focus on "needs citation" labels is because those are used on material that is likely to be challenged, and that's the most important thing for sourcing. Anything questionable without a citation gets a "needs citation" tag and can be removed. Every article, and paragraph, in Wikipedia should have citations, but unfortunately that's just not the case.--Slon02 (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Material does not need a citation if it

• is common knowledge and unlikely to be challenged,
• is not a direct quote, and
• is not a paraphrase.

How likely it is that an entire paragraph can be written without triggering one of the conditions that requires a citation depends on the nature of the article. The more esoteric or controversial subject matter is, the less likely a paragraph will not need a citation. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norlns22 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Link to template in article

On Asia Song Festival, under "languages", there's a link to a template on ms-wiki that shouldn't be there (this one). I have tried to remove it, but I can't find any link when I click on "edit this page". I would therefore appreciate it if someone could look into this, because my home wiki is nl-wiki and I'm not really familiar with the technical aspects of en-wiki. Thank you. --ErikvanB (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've noticed there's also a link to a template on Mnet Asian Music Awards, again under "languages". No idea what this is all about. --ErikvanB (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed - Best regards, Taketa (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh, I see. Thanks! --ErikvanB (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

References to exterior pages

Resolved

I am editing an article on Joss-Ink. There are references included in the article that should link to exterior pages (eg. BBC or Guardian newspaper). For some reason the reference link does not work correctly but when I copy the URL and paste it to my browser then it finds the correct page. Please can you assist. A kind soul (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You had a pipe-symbol | on the end of the URL. I've fixed that reference with this edit. I've also done some tidying-up. See WP:CHEATSHEET for formatting help.  Chzz  ►  02:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)