Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2021 March 25

Help desk
< March 24	<< Feb | March | Apr >>	March 26 >

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.

March 25

I am Matthew Berdyck and I have been targeted by Wikipedia editors for years

Hi,

I am not a Wikipedian. Please excuse me if I am posting this is the wrong place but I am at a loss at what to do about a situation that has been going on for many years.

I am a controversial filmmaker, activist, journalist and founder of ToxicWasteSites.org. In my career, I’ve faced a virtual media black out of my work in no less than a thousand communities. Even though, I’ve been suppressed, my name pops up in the media from time to time, which of course gets added to Wikipedia articles.

Every time someone enters my name into this site madness ensues. Editors start accusing me of self promotion - I certainly don’t need it - but as the person blowing the whistle on these scandals, often years ahead of the controversy, my name placed into these articles changes the timeline; if this timeline changes it has the effect of changing history and creating inaccurate articles. Furthermore, I’ve never made these edits, nor have I been an editor. It’s not me making the changes so it’s not self promotion.

Examples:

SPECIFIC ARTICLE —-> Warren County, Virginia - an editor claimed that the use of my name in the article and naming my organization was “promotional” and accused me of “aggressive self promotion.” Yet, the news article clearly credits both me and my .org for exposing the scandal. This is relevant because two years later, when it hit national media, my name was erased by the Washington Post and 400 other media outlets. In reality, the word “aggressive” was applied to two edits on the entire site, which I only noticed after the talk pages appeared in my search results.

SPECIFIC ARTICLE —-> Morris Operation - I spent close to $10,000 investigating and exposing the Morris Operation for my former newspaper. Once I created the article, someone came along and expanded the Wikipedia entry, adding a link to my media outlet. Later, an editor can be seen claiming my newspaper was “fake news.” They then took all of my research and sourcing that I worked to create, removed my newspaper link and resourced the article with the very sourcing I created in the first place.

Impersonation: In my career, I been the subject of intense public controversy, and subject to political retaliation. At one point, someone came here, posing as me, created a massive flame war with editors, which resulted in volumes of defamatory content being created; it readily entered my search results and I was left with years of SEO work to remove the bad links. At that time, an editor stated “The name Matthew Berdyck will never appear on Wikipedia” and since then, it never has, even when it’s included in places like ABC News, Yahoo News, Roanoke Times, Royal Examiner, and Creators.com.

I’m at a loss here. At no time have I ever used Wikipedia for self promotion, nor would I even benefit from it, nor would I even care, other than every time an editor targets my name, it creates negative search results that damage my career and in the interest of preserving history.

At least once a year, someone comes here and starts a flame war using my name even though I have no connection to this site. It seems like a few editors have been involved in this. I’ve noted that anyone who criticizes these people who stand up for my inclusion are immediately accused of “attacking” them and are banned.

I’m sorry for the drama but as Wikipedians, all of you should be aware of how corrosive it could be to a public figure’s life to be the subject of media suppression. For if the media says I do not exist, via suppression, then my life doesn’t exist.

I’m Shroedinger’s Matt.

I would like to know what I can do to stop these constant attacks against my name and somehow make peace with people I’ve literally never dealt with in my life. I have enough problems at it is, and dealing with Wikipedia drama is something I’m tired of having to deal with over and over again.

Matthew Berdyck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.251.172.128 (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Matt, we at the help desk cannot respond to such a general set of accusations. We can however tell you how to respond to each specific problem when it occurs. When you have an issue with any edit, respond on the talk page for the relevant article. If that fails, come here and tell us the name of the affected article, and we can try to tell you how to proceed. Although it is not mandatory, I suggest you create an account and use it. This makes uit a lot easier to communicate with you, and it is actually more private than editing without logging in. -Arch dude (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Why does it say wall of text with no examples? There’s two articles and distinct examples and those aren’t “walls of text.” I’d also like to point out these are very specific allegations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.251.172.128 (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

IP, if the problem were that a person was being included in troublesome ways, we would have to move with urgency per the biography of living persons policy. What you're saying it seems is rather that a person is being left out. That makes it a run of the mill content dispute. What I would suggest you do is create an account (a static IP might do too) and declare your conflicts of interest as instructed at WP:DISCLOSE, and then make specific requests for changes to the article as instructed at WP:COIREQ. Then, when you encounter editors that disagree with your position, you enter dialog with them and follow the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution until they are resolved. It may sound like a lot, I think it's doable taking it one step at a time. At any rate, that's the best advice I got. If you have specific editors who you think are acting in bad faith and deliberately trying to erase you out of spite, you could report them to WP:ANI, but you'd need some evidence backing up your allegations to take it up with the admins in that way. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

You’re speaking Latin, to me. The evidence backing up my allegations can be found on the talk pages for the editors who are editing the articles. Also, I don’t learn of these things until they show up in my search results. By then, the damage is done. As far as I’m aware, and I’m aware of very little about this site, I’m not allowed to edit content associated with me, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewBerdyck (talk • contribs) 02:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

You can still edit relevant talk pages and in fact are encouraged to do so. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 03:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

It’s a precarious situation because in many instances, I’m the person who spent years and a lot of money conducting the original research that led to any given scandal and all of the resulting media that ends up creating an article. Because I’m so closely involved, I then get to sit back and watch careless journalists muck up the series of events. The end result is an article that is way off from history but is sourced. A good example is the “Aliso Canyon Gas Leak” article, next to the “Four Corners Methane Hot Spot” article. Both attempt to claim that they are the worst methane spills in US history, but only one of them is. This is because a certain activist, let’s call her Karen Schlockovich, was paid to go on TV and lie about Porter Ranch to generate lawsuit litigants. Yet, after fighting with a dozen national media outlets, to correct her false statements, they won’t, so now we have two worst gas leaks in US history, sourced by media. Reading Wikipedia makes me angry that people actually trust journalists and consider them to be credible when they should all be banned from reality. This is why I stay off of the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewBerdyck (talk • contribs) 03:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. Oddly enough, we are not interested in your reports of your research. Those are called "primary sources": See WP:OR. We are only interested in what independent reliable secondary sources say: See WP:RS. If you disagree with this philosophy, then indeed you should not use Wikipedia or associate yourself with it in any way. You should probably avoid using any encyclopedia or news source, either. If your work has been misrepresented in a news source, then you must take this up with the news source, not with us. Alternatively, you may tell your story to a second news source, and if they publish it, we can include that material here. -Arch dude (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

As I stated in my original post, this site, in relation to my work, does not exist other than interfering with my work and being used to create defamatory online content. In general, if I want to know the history of a pencil, I’ll read Wikipedia. Anything else more complex, like an event that has political overtones, nothing on this site is credible, especially if journalists are the source. My point from my post is someone needs to investigate my allegations and others need to leave me alone. I don’t want want anything to do with falsely rewriting history based on arbitrary rules about what is credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewBerdyck (talk • contribs) 04:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no scandal here, there is no madness. This probably concerns this edit (that lemonreport actually claims Berdyck is a violent and dangerous predator, so removing the link was a good idea), and these edits here. This, Draft:Summit Equipment & Supplies Superfund Site, seems to have been another attempt to use Wikipedia to generate some interest. But there was no scandal, no madness--just regular editing. No one was oppressed ("my name was erased by the Washington Post and 400 other media outlets"--well, even if that's true, it is not relevant here). Now-blocked involved accounts are Rightventracleleft (talk · contribs) and Welkinstan (talk · contribs). The last thing that Wikipedia needs is an invitation to this person to come and edit. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

This person appears be a little to familiar with the situation to be uninvolved. Also, I had to create a new account because according to Wikipedia, my name is too famous to be used as a username. I’ve been clear about my complaint and yes, there has been madness to the point that outside sources, off Wikipedia, have called the aggression towards me “internet mudslinging.” I’d like to request that this user no longer have contact with me and leave this conversation based on what appears to be an obvious bias and the call for me to not be included as an editor, on top of them intentionally referencing libelous material which has already been taken down by a court order. My name being erased is relevant because when it’s added to the articles it helps any astute person realize the other parts of the article are false. I was not aware that the Summit Equipment & Supplies article was created but if I had to guess, since there are at least 100 news articles, it appears the person who created it was attacked and banned by editors before it could be finished, which would explain why it’s only got two sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2Famous2UseMyName (talk • contribs) 23:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Christopher Hussey (died 1686)

there is a strange symbol between refs numbers 3 and 4 on this page. Thanks for removing if that's the right thing todo. 115.70.23.77 (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Just some stray markup, I fixed it. Thanks for the report! Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 04:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Trial of the Chicago 7

Trial of the Chicago 7 is missing its nomination from the Producer’s Guild of America for Best Picture. Please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:9303:67AE:C53E:605B:8ED4:A409 (talk) 05:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Confirming that The Trial of the Chicago 7 is duly listed in the article Producers Guild of America Award for Best Theatrical Motion Picture#2020s (along with the other 9 nominees – it did not win), but that the nomination is not mentioned in the above-linked article about the film.

Incidentally, the article Producers Guild of America itself seems to be a couple of years out of date by comparison to the '. . . Award for Best Theatrical Motion Picture' article (its several other awards do not have their own articles). It could do with the attention of a knowlegeable film buff (which I am decidedly not). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.219.35.136 (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Olympic rings

Hello, I am a fellow designer I am asking permission to use you Olympic Rings logo? Sincerely Tam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.233.41.82 (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we are the ones you need to ask, probably the IOC. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

If you mean File:Olympic rings without rims.svg you just need to follow the licencing restrictions as mentioned on that page in Wikimedia Commons. (Click on the filename here and you'll be taken to the relevant page.) Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The public domain claim seems very problematic in view of https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/220506. I don't know whether we are actually allowed to use the logo anywhere. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Clindberg: That isn't copyright is it? Copyright is Title 17 of the United States Code and what's linked is title 36. Though I am surprised that some U.S. code even exists specifically for the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee. At any rate, @PrimeHunter: it seems more like trademark-like restriction. That doesn't stop anyone from writing an article about it. Printing the five interlocking rings on your product and selling that without permission may result in some unpleasant business. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Note btw that they also claim "the words “Olympic”, “Olympiad”, “Citius Altius Fortius”, “Paralympic”, “Paralympiad”, “Pan-American”, “Parapan American”, “America Espirito Sport Fraternite”, or any combination of those words". They claim exclusive rights to.. Pan-American.. because.. wow — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Probably not copyrightable, but you might argue that the specific SVG code could be copyrighted as a computer program. A vectorization of a PD map has been ruled copyrightable in a U.S. case. However, the Olympic logo is generally protected by special insignia laws that tend to go beyond trademark -- a "free" license here does not cover those, so be careful how you use it unless you get separate permission. The term "public domain" as used on Wikipedia/Wikimedia is generally meant only in a copyright context, and does not imply any rights around other types of intellectual property. The IOC requires those laws in any country which hosts an Olympics. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Clindberg: That's pretty disturbing. I just have to ask, if a wireless service provider or roadside assistance provider were to offer a "Pan-American" plan, would they really need permission from the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee? And what context am I missing from the link Primehunter gave, because reading that literally, I need permission just to say "Pan-American" and Wikipedia would need permission to have an article named Olympic Games because it the word "Olympic" is right there in the title. This can't be right. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

For those words, the law there pretty much invokes trademark rights on those for any activity surrounding the games -- so I guess that law is effectively an automatic, non-expiring trademark. You can't use those words in a way tending to cause confusion or mistake, to deceive, or to falsely suggest a connection with the corporation or any Olympic, Paralympic, Pan-American, or Parapan American Games activity, per section (c)(3) of that article. I don't see that it gives any right to sue for uses outside of those activities. The remedies would be the same as any other trademark violation, it would seem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Oh my, that's so confusing, I think I see it now. I'm still not sure though: (a) clearly claims exclusive rights to (among the other stuff) "Pan-American". This is limited by "Except as provided in subsection (d)", however, (d) contains nothing of much relevance for most of us. So that's pretty clear cut. (c) describes possibilities of "Civil Action for Unauthorized Use" (read: punishment) and this is indeed based on trademark law. So it would seem to me that United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee has (in general!) the exclusive right (exceptions in (d) apply but aren't relevant for most of us) to use the word "Pan-American". (and the other stuff) I guess lucky for humanity this "exclusive right to use" is effectively undefined, so it's basically calling dibs. Only punishable under (c), but they do seem to have called dibs on those words and symbols just in general. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Section (a) does say exclusive use, but the only possible penalties are for misleading uses in relation to the games themselves, not unrelated topics. If a law says something is illegal, but does not specify any penalty for breaking it, it's not much of a law really. So, I think the limitations in section (c) effectively limit the scope of the "exclusive right". Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Unable to login and password reset email not receiving

Hi, After receiving several "please donate again" emails, I deceided to login at Wikipedia. I hadn't logged in for some time and wasn't sure about my username and password. There is always the reset button, so I filled in my current E-mail address and waited. I received no email though. Did I fill in the wrong email? That would be strange because te email that I recently received was addressed at [redacted] (it even stated that I "have been a donor since 2017 and had unlocked 3 badges (whatever that means)). Can you please help me retrieving my login?

My email = [redacted] I live in Sweden and in case that helps: there is only one john Benjamin Kerkhoven in this country.

All the best and keep up the good work,

John K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.0.10 (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The email you gave as donor can be different from your user account so you could try other email addresses. Many user accounts haven't given an email address. It's optional. If you forgot your password and cannot receive emails then you cannot gain access to the account even if you know the username. You can create a new account. If you have edited a page then you can click the "View history" tab to look for your username. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Order of Information in Infoboxes

Hope this is the right place to be asking. Tried finding an answer in the FAQ/MOS pages about them, couldn't find what I was looking for (not that I doubt it's there).

In an infobox describing a real person (in this case a politician), is there a particular sequence that should be followed in how things are laid out?

Should the positions held by a person more recently be put at the bottom? Should incumbent/current roles be placed higher, or is there a stricter date order?

Occo5903 (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if there's an official policy, but the I suspect the answer would be to list positions in descending order of significance. That will usually, but not always, mean most recent first. For example William Howard Taft has his details as US President higher in the sidebar than those for Chief Justice, even though he held the latter post later in his life. People tend to be interested in Taft (if at all) as a President, so that's what comes first. If in doubt, though, revert to reverse chronological order. Chuntuk (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

BritAsia TV page

Hello, i am from BritAsia TV. Someone has created a britasia tv page with no relation to the company. I had contacted them through 'talk' however was unable to reach an understanding. Is there a way to get the page taken down or report the user?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broadstreet158 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Broadstreet158 This has been explained at User talk:Muhandes#BritAsia TV page. Companies don't get to control Wikipedia articles about them, as per WP:OWN, and you'll also need to make a WP:Paid editing disclosure before editing further. And stop trying to change an article about the Brit Asia TV Music Awards to be about the company, it's hijacking. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Broadstreet158 (edit conflict) A subject's permission is not required for there to be a Wikipedia article about them, as Wikipedia articles summarize what publicly available independent reliable sources say about the subject. As the user you asked told you, you have a clear conflict of interest, and are also a paid editor; you must make the formal declaration required by that policy, which is a Terms of Use requirement. If you have specific changes you would like to see, you may make a formal edit request on the article talk page, Talk:Brit Asia TV Music Awards. Note that the article will not necessarily say what you or your organization want it to say, as it is not yours to exclusively control. However, if there are errors, we want to know what they are along with any independent reliable sources to support them. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources to support errors? I wish. :) MinorProphet (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Here you go: Brit Asia TV. @Broadstreet158: Please declare your COI/payment as asked above and request any changes/improvements on Talk:Brit Asia TV. (create the page if needed) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there a checklist somewhere of how to assess a source for reliability?

Hi all

I'm looking for something and I'm not sure if it exists. Is there a checklist, flowchart or some other framework for assessing if a source is reliable? I know about Wikipedia:Reliable sources checklist but this is an essay and not policy. The reason I'm asking is I'd like to assess some Youtube channels to see if they're reliable sources, e.g Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, Full Frontal with Samantha Bee and The Daily Show (I don't want to get into a discussion here about if these specific sources are reliable, I'm just using them as examples). Whilst they use a satirical style they have teams of professional journalist researchers writing the stories. I've seen these used on Wikipedia as references before and others have flagged them as unreliable but without explaining why, having jokes alongside well referenced factual information doesn't seem like a good reason. Would it be possible to request sources are assessed by Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources by starting an RFC?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@John Cummings: I think a lot of it is the context of what you’re trying to source. If something is controversial and received coverage on one of those shows, that is a notable event and the coverage could be added on the subject’s article, in a “Popular culture” or similar section. As far as using something one of those shows says as a fact to source a related topic, that’s a little more challenging because some of those shows have satirical points of view to make points, and aren’t always meant to be taken as fact. So it depends on the context of what you’re trying to source. Sorry there’s no firmer guideline. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

For specific advice you might be better to ask this at WP:RSN as I know the folk who answer there are very experienced. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much Timtempleton and Michael D. Turnbull, I'll ask there. John Cummings (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@John Cummings: Some of these television shows display reliable sources (e.g. newspaper articles or journals) while the host is talking, and you could definitely use the details of those sources as Wikipedia references. GoingBatty (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Siege of Bunratty

Header added by ColinFine (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

hi I have been trying for ages to get my page Siege of Bunratty up I spent a long time writing that article and I can't see why it shouldn't be put up on wiki lately somebody deleted it saying I infringed copyright because I wrote the same article on politics.ie how can I infringe something i wrote myself? can someone please help as I have tried several times to use different pages to apply for help on getting that article put up thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen Blackpool (talk • contribs) 14:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Stephen Blackpool. I note that your request to undelete the article has been refused, so I can't look at it. There are two obvious problems. First, the politics.ie article was credited to "galteeman" and there is no simple way of confirming that you wrote it. More importantly, the article there has no sources, so will be an instant fail here: there have to be reliable, WP:SECONDARY sources confirming this was a notable event. So my advice would be to find those sources and re-draft a very short article giving the basic information about the siege using different wording to that used before. Once accepted, the article can be expanded in the usual way. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Stephen Blackpool. The answer is that https://politics.ie says at the bottom "© Politics.ie. All rights reserved". So as far as Wikipedia is concerned, everything on it is copyright, and may not be used anywhere in Wikipedia (apart from short attributed quotations). If you indeed hold the copyright to some material published there, then you have the power to license it in a way that Wikipedia will accept; but you need to do that explicitly, by going through the procedure in donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, ColinFine the T&C on the website say "Members retain the copyright to their original content. However, all members, by posting on this forum, agree that they have conveyed a license in perpetuity to Politics.ie to display that content here on this forum. but I still think that's not relevant to creating a decent draft for Wikipedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I assume that's to get around the event that someone decides to quote that post, but that only appears to extend display rights throughout the forum but not beyond it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Kano Brand Page Deleted - Need Help

Hey,

I work for Kano Computing and wanted to see about getting our Wikipedia page reinstalled and didn't know who to talk to. [redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.137.31 (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, User:86.4.137.31, and thank you for your question. First, I want to make it clear that Wikipedia is not for advertising, but to inform. This page may have been deleted because it may have not passed a notability assessment. If you want to get this page back, I suggest going to Wikipedia:Refund and asking the people there. Dswitz10734 (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

You may want to look again a the deletion discussion at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_April_17#Kano_(company). There's not much point in re-starting an article based on that one, I believe. You could try a totally new draft if you can find about four reliable, WP:SECONDARY sources to show the company is (now) notable in Wikipedia's somewhat strict sense. If you put these sources here, Teahouse hosts will soon advise if they think a new article is now viable. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

take a look at WP:CSMN prior to your search for source to support notability, to see how easy it is to mess this up. -Arch dude (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Change name of individual on Wiki

Hello!

I'm contacting you about this page which needs to be updated: Michelle Brooke-Marciniak

The name is now Michelle M. Marciniak

Thank you for any help you can provide. Linda Thomas LThomas2k (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

LThomas2k A page move can be requested at Requested Moves. Before you do so, you may wish to discuss the issue with other editors at Talk:Michelle Brooke-Marciniak. Wikipedia does not necessarily use official or legal names as article titles, we use whatever the most commonly used name by independent reliable sources is. For example, Bill Clinton, not William Jefferson Clinton(which is a redirect). 331dot (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Page help

Dear Wikipedia Help:

I am a professor at Northeastern University in Boston, MA. As part of a class I teach, I have an assignment where the students have to edit a wikipedia page. Last semester, one of the students in the class (unbeknownst to me) created a wikipedia page for me at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tina_Eliassi-Rad.

I noticed that a Russian organization (which I did an interview with in 2018) is using a frame of that video as my photo and promoting their organization. In particular the caption makes it sound like I am affiliated with that organization, which I am not. I have removed that photo and would like to make sure that it is not added again.

I am also not sure that I should have a Wikipedia page. But I will leave that to you to decide.

Sincerely, Tina Eliassi-Rad Professor Northeastern University — Preceding unsigned comment added by TinaEliassi (talk • contribs) 15:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @TinaEliassi, and thanks for reaching out! About the promotion of the organization, advertising is not welcome here on Wikipedia, we'll make short work of the ad and it will be down within the week. We don't take kindly to organizations using our encyclopedia to promote themselves. Thank you for reporting this. About your personal article, I can nominate it for deletion and then other editors will share their opinion about if this page should be deleted. First, we'll have to examine the criteria over at WP:Notability. If this is a personal matter and you feel uncomfortable about having an article, I can mention that and that may expedite the deletion of this article, if that's what you want. I hope to hear fom you soon, Dswitz10734 (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@TinaEliassi: The caption in the article was the neutral "Eliassi-Rad in 2018".[1] Is it only the file name of File:Tina Eliassi-Rad for Women Data Leaders in Russia project.jpg and the description "Interview with Tina Eliassi-Rad | Women Data Leaders in Russia project" you are unhappy with? The file could be renamed to e.g. "Tina Eliassi-Rad". The description could be changed to make it clear they were just interviewing you. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi and thank you for your help. When I visit https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tina_Eliassi-Rad_for_Women_Data_Leaders_in_Russia_project.jpg#/media/File:Tina_Eliassi-Rad_for_Women_Data_Leaders_in_Russia_project.jpg, it says "More details Interview with Tina Eliassi-Rad | Women Data Leaders in Russia project Associate Professor of Computer Science & Network Science, Northeastern University. http://eliassi.org/ Interested in the project? Follow us on twitter: @wdl_hse and visit our website: wdl-hse.ru". What caught my eye was "Interested in the project? Follow us on twitter: @wdl_hse and visit our website: wdl-hse.ru". I am not sure if they are using my photo both as part of my Wikipedia page and their Wikipedia page. Anyway, it is not a big deal but I figured I mention it. Thanks again! Tina — Preceding unsigned comment added by TinaEliassi (talk • contribs) 23:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:TinaEliassi. I removed that advert text from the image description. (I also requested to change the file name to just your name alone, but that can't be done immediately.) The file was uploaded (and, apparently, the text written) by User:GRuban, who is active here. Hopefully he will come here and explain. It was probably just a mistake. (It is necessary for us to credit the source, WDL HSE, but not to include any further text.)

As to the photo itself, if you object to it's existence here altogether, I'm afraid there's probably nothing we can do. The copyright belongs to whomever took it, they apparently released it under a license whereby anybody can use it, and it was placed on Wikimedia Commons which is a separate project and which we don't control. I could go there and ask them to delete it, but they will not. They never delete images which are free to use.

If you like I could put a note in the article about you to not include that photo or any photo. Or does removing the advert text from the photo's description (as has now been done) render it acceptable to use here? Herostratus (talk) 04:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Ms. Eliassi-Rad. Apologies for using the word "for", you're right that it implies an endorsement, and I probably should have used "by" or something, we don't have to say that. I do think it's going too far to do as User:Herostratus did, and remove the name of the Women Data Leaders in Russia project from the file entirely, it is in fact a violation of the Attribution license that the file is released under, so I had to revert that. (And the license the whole Wikipedia is released under, while we're at it. Saying who created which piece of information is kind of a big deal.) We don't have to mention them in the file name, but we do absolutely have to say that the image comes from their organization; that won't be directly visible on your page. --GRuban (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, I'm afraid you're wrong about the origin of the page, it was not created by one of your students, but by Jess Wade, who makes a page for a woman or minority scientist basically every day. She's rather famous for it, see our article about her. I try to do my part by finding illustrations for them. --GRuban (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:GRuban, thanks for coming by. As to file name, I can't see that, at all. First of all, a file name is supposed to be a succinct description of the file -- as succinct as possible. The subject is included of course, possibly the date, possibly the location, possibly the type of image... these are helpful to understanding what the file is about to someone reading just the name. The person or entity that took it? Not really, most cases. If it's by Margaret Bourke White, maybe that's key info. But that's rare, and it's not the case here.

Second of all, it's not generally done. I looked at 20 random Commons files, and two had attribution. One was to the photographer, and one was "by J. Corner, 1791". Another one gave owner/source (Walters Art Museum) but not the creator (lost to history anyway). And this jibes with my experience.

So including the author in the file name seems an idiosyncracy of yours. Fine I suppose. But in this case the subject has asked for redaction to a more typical file name. I'd really like you to reconsider.

As to the attribution in the accompanying text, your call I guess as I'm not a Commons maven at all. As minimal as possible would be good under the circumstance, I think. Herostratus (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

As I wrote, no objection to the file name.--GRuban (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I have changed the file description to "Tina Eliassi-Rad in a 2018 interview by Women Data Leaders in Russia project".[2] That's hopefully an acceptable compromise which names the project without giving the impression she is affiliated with it. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thank you.--GRuban (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you everyone. --TinaEliassi — Preceding undated comment added 04:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Oops sorry GRuban, I misread what you had said about the file name. User:PrimeHunter, your edits re proper attribution, fine, but you also re-added "Interested in the project? Follow us on twitter: @wdl_hse and visit our website: wdl-hse.ru" which is highly unusual for a file description, hopefully this was just a mistake, and you won't mind that I removed it again. (Including a subject's web site in the file description is also something that I haven't seen before and don't really think is a great precedent (there's potential for abuse), but the subject hasn't objected to that I guess, so whatever). Herostratus (talk) 08:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It was GRuban who readded it. I don't know Commons policy on the issue but it did sound odd. It was copied from the "SHOW MORE" part of the YouTube description. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Returning user

Hello, I am an old/returning editor who last logged in around 2016. I was wondering if it was okay if I started over with a new username, but with my rollbacker rights still in tact. I had issues with mental health (got diagnosed with a couple things) and I would rather leave that behind as I am okay now. I wanted to see what my options are as far as that goes. --Kanashimi Hyoketsu 16:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

KorinoChikara Are you wanting to rename your existing account? Or have a fresh start with a new account? I reccomend reading the page on sockpuppetry, and especially the legitimate uses section. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

ONUnicorn I suppose fresh start. I didn't really do anything bad but I had mental health issues and don't want to be associated with that. I was just wondering if there was any way I could keep rollback privileges. --Kanashimi Hyoketsu 18:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

KorinoChikara You can create the new account, link the two accounts as described here, and then make a request for rollback at PERM. Chances are if you explain the situation it'll be granted. From what you've said here, if I were working the PERM queue I'd grant it, and most admins are reasonable. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Langauge

Afrikaans taal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.113.225.206 (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Afrikaans Wikipedia: [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Nobody wants to help me

In WT: FOOTY I asked for help numerous times to improve the List of Coppa Italia finals page without attracting a user's attention. What can I do to ensure that users are interested in improving this page? Dr Salvus 19:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Leave it alone for a while. You've done what you can. You've asked for help. Come back to it later - much later. Work on something else for a while. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no way to ensure. One can ask and hope for the best. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

How do you determine spam?

I maintain the most complete collection of written information on H J Whitley in the world. His collection is in the University of California Los Angeles special collections as well. I have referenced Los Angeles Times, Hollywood Citizen, Imperial Valley News articles all dated before 1935. They get deleted. I tried referencing Britannica Encyclopedia but Wiki blacklists it too. Why? Whitley Heights is on the Historic Registry. Please look at the site www.thefatherofhollywood.com. Look at the newspaper section. Why does wiki advertise for the Los Angeles Times on HJ Whitley site. Plus the books used are self published that new people have placed on his site. Some books listed do not include him. I know because I purchased them to see as I am a collector of that type of information. I have over 20 boxes of historical information on H J Whitley. Who is Mr. Ollie? You know who I am but who is he? Why is he attacking H J Whitley? What are his true motives. Beenaroundawhile said to leave me alone but he ignores this. Why can he do this? Why don't you check him out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlebirdie1 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

A website that's "spammed" is one to which links are vigorously added, seemingly intended less for the benefit of readers, more for the benefit of the linked-to website. By "Britannica Encyclopedia", do you mean Encyclopædia Britannica? (I hadn't realized that this was blacklisted.) [To others: See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keitrt.] -- Hoary (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)