Help desk
< January 19	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 21 >

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.

January 20[edit]

Creating a page[edit]

Hello, I am looking for someone who is experienced in creating pages to create one for "Jessie Bee," a person I know. I don't know much about Wikipedia, so I would create it myself but I don't know how. I also don't know how to ask people to create a page so I am writing this in hope that someone helps me. Thank you, Aaronairout — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronairout (talk • contribs) 00:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's Wikipedia:Requested articles, but I wouldn't count on that actually resulting in an article being written. Tips on doing it yourself can be found at Help:Your first article. The standard advice is that if the person is truly notable someone will write an article on them eventually. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Since you know Jessie Bee, please also read the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. GoingBatty (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aaronairout Has anyone written anything about Jessie Bee before? A quick google search turns up a YouTube channel, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, etc. It looks like she considers herself an influencer/content creator, however, I can't find anywhere where any reliable source has independently written about her (that doesn't mean such sources don't exist, just that I didn't find them in the 5 or so minutes I was willing to spend googling her right now). The gist of all our "notability" guidelines is that a topic is notable if it has "received significant coverage in multiple published^[1] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,^[2] and independent of the subject.^[3]" If such sources exist in substantial numbers, then an article could be written here for her. If such sources do not exist, do not attempt to write an article, do not attempt to pay someone else to write an article, down that road lies only heartbreak. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.
^ Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing their notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.
^ Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not contribute toward notability, nor do web pages about an organization's own staff or members.

33 images added as war propaganda[edit]

I'm not sure where to go with this spaghetti mess. I did the research, have the evidence and conclusions, but don't know how to get these deleted.

While trying to research 33 images that were added by two users, two edits, into a single article — Mekelle, an Ethiopian town (see the gallery of 33) — I realized that these images were not of the town. These images had been uploaded by four Wikimedia users, each with similar usernames, naming the files in the same pattern as each other. I think the 4 Wikimedia accounts and the 2 Wikipedia accounts were being operated by the same person. However, they are old enough (2020) to be too stale for a checkuser, and these are the only edits these users made.

The filenames do not match the subject of the images, and the first users (1 uploading 11 files, and 1 who added them to the article) wouldn't clarify the content/caption of the images, though they were asked back then, in July 2020. Three other Wikimedia accounts uploaded 22 more similarly-named images over a two-day period in November 2020, [1] [2] [3] and a second Wikipedia account added them 5 hours later to the Mekelle article.

I have identified most of the 33 images and removed the entire gallery from the article. Very few of the images are from the town of Mekelle (they come from all over Ethiopia). Many are vintage photographs taken by the Italians documenting their WWII occupation using their own photography agency, some are more current tourist agency photos, and some are just undescribed though many of them appear in Facebook and other places online. Most have no attribution, or false attribution. For example, some of the WWII images were uploaded saying their photography date was 1956 and they were published in Ethiopia, when in fact the photos were taken in 1935 & 1936 and published in Italy. The copyright rules in those two countries are different.

A few have 'sources' which are wrong; listing 5 sources for each of several images — 1 is a medical center (completely irrelevant), 3 lead to a professor in Japan who did research on Ethiopian architecture, and 1 to a 2018 book which I have no access to. I contacted the professor and though they recognized some of the vintage images and the subjects of some of the newer images, they said they weren't theirs and didn't use these in their works. In other words, the source given by the Wikimedia user is false.

At least one of these images has already been taken from Commons and published online while thinking [wrongly] that its [false] filename represented a town called "Woyane" (it does not). This article uses the phrase "The image above is the historic center of Woyane, the town where Tigrayan peasants rebelled against their oppression under the Shoan elite in 1943," which is untrue. The image (Commons:File:ታሪካዊ መህል ወያነ ፮ ሽድሽተ Historic Center of Woyane.jpg) is of Gunda Gunde Monastery in a remote hard-to-reach mountain location, and there is no town named "Woyane". "Woyane" is used for pro-Tigray advocacy, and several of the images have a pro-Tigray "battle cry" written into them, including the one I just linked to right above. The uploading account lists the date as "4 November 2020", which is the start date of the Tigray War, and was uploaded a mere 6 days after the start of the war.

In other words, the user used these uploads as war propaganda for their viewpoints related to a current ongoing military conflict!

I recently removed all 33 images from the Mekelle article and I recommend all 33 images be deleted. They appear in Commons and as a File in Wikipedia. I have spent 3 or 4 days identifying these photos, researching and documenting how they were uploaded/added, and the above is but a short summary of my findings/notes (tip of iceberg). I have no idea how to go about cleaning up this mess. I am familiar with WP:AFD (including bundled) and WP:SPI processes, but this is a lot more complicated than just that (and AFD doesn't apply to images or Commons). I've never before gotten involved in WP:IFD or anything related to images. The complexity of this case and the Wikipedia bureaucracy has me stumped on this one. Any ideas how I should proceed? Or is someone willing to communicate with me further about this and take over the "filing" (nomination) process to get this done? Platonk (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to this, the description of the "Historic Centre of Woyane" file noted above reads

Tegaru protect the TIGRAY your freedom and democracy from Eritrean and Ethiopian dictators from envious thieves and murderers protect the history of your ancestors who built the true history of Ethiopia over the centuries and drive away the who want a new genocide of the Tigrayans and the Tigrayans culture. protect the sacrifices of the Tigrayans martyrs

Very clearly a propaganda message Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Platonk: If your problem is about sending the files to deletion, WP:TWINKLE works very similarly between AfD and FfD (you have switched on Twinkle, right?). If your problem is that you think there is more to be digged but do not have the time/energy to do it, I suppose Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard would be a good place to start with a short summary. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tigraan: Twinkle doesn't work in Commons, and isn't useful for "bundled" deletion requests in 'Pedia. Platonk (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They will need to be deleted on Commons. Here is Commons' Deletion policy, it'll take you directly to the "how to" part of that page. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @ONUnicorn: I found the correct link (tricky interwikilink). Reading it now. Question: If the batch gets approved in Commons for delete-all, will the closer automatically delete the corresponding files from Wikipedia, too, or will I need to follow up with another bundle to WP:IFD? Platonk (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whoops! Interwikilinks are indeed tricky. As ColinFine said below, they files are not hosted here, there's some magic that lets images hosted on Commons be used on all Wikimedia projects. If you scroll down on the image description page here you'll see something that says, "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below." Once it's deleted there, it's deleted everywhere unless they uploaded a second copy locally somewhere. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Platonk, the ones I've looked at don't exist in Wikipedia: if you search for them in Wikipedia, you get a local copy of the Commons description page. So there is nothing to delete from Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine: So this is not a separate file, but a temporary 'copy' (like a 'mirror')? File:ታሪካዊ መህል ወያነ ፮ ሽድሽተ Historic Center of Woyane.jpg Platonk (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, Platonk, it's not a copy at all. The Wikipedia software does not embed media from anywhere external - except Wikimedia Commons. It can display pictures from there, and if you pick on the picture, or put a "File:" page in the search bar, it will display a Wikipedia page with the details rather than sending you out of Wikipedia into Commons. But none of the information on the image is held in Wikipedia as far as I know, and the image is certainly not copied. --ColinFine (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well here goes! I spent the day reading "how" to do it and putting together the argument, evidence, etc. I used VisualFileChange.js to submit the mass-deletion request at Commons. Looks like I did the process okay. We'll see how it goes. Platonk (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barilla new logo[edit]

In the main page (https://www.barilla.com/) there is new Barilla logo. How to extract from the page? --2001:B07:6442:8903:1D45:E702:F5AE:3FE6 (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article Barilla (company) covers the entire Barilla group, and not just the consumer pasta brand "Barilla". Therefore the article uses the Barilla Group logo which can be found also on their website https://www.barillagroup.com/en/. – NJD-DE (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is apparently on a mission to purge all Wikipedia languages of the company logo, also in articles which showed both the company logo and pasta brand logo.[4] I have reverted them here [5] but not edited other wikis. It isn't even their only pasta logo but one of many at https://www.barillagroup.com/en/brands/. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

undo an edit[edit]

I attempted to add a citation to the page "Richard Arbib" I only managed to mess it up. can someone undo my edits dated January 2022 for me. thanks 68.188.153.183 (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done --David Biddulph (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessing a deleted article[edit]

Suppose I recall something that interested me in an article that has recently been deleted. Is there a way I can access that article and/or ots history notwithstanding?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christofurio (talk • contribs) 20:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Christofurio: Hi there! Once an article has been deleted, user cannot view the article or its history (but admins can). You might be able to find a Wikipedia mirror site that still has a copy of the article. GoingBatty (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Christofurio You can try WP:REFUND. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christofurio You might also try Deletionpedia.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christofurio I seem to remember that there was an off-wiki website that archived deleted Wikipedia articles. Anyone know its name?--Quisqualis (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop my automated monthly deductions.[edit]

Please stop my automatic monthly donation. I did not make this selection. I will continue to make donation in the future. But I need to make them at my timing.. (Redacted).

Luther Burton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lutherburton (talk • contribs) 21:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lutherburton We editors have nothing to do with the donation process. Please email donate at Wikimedia dot org with any inquiries about donations. 331dot (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lutherburton: See more at donate:Cancel or change recurring giving. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[note2-1] What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.

[2] Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing their notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.

[3] Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not contribute toward notability, nor do web pages about an organization's own staff or members.

[1]

[2]

[3]