Help desk
< June 18	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 20 >

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.

June 19

Updating Copywrite of image

I have uploaded the following image. But I get a copywrite violation notice. I have taken written permission from the author of the image. So how can I delete the copy-write violation notice from the image. I mean which kind of copy-write shall I use? Please help.

File:Snapshot3-2-.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unatnas1986 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a software screenshot so you need to look at WP:SCREENSHOT.--ukexpat (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the word you want is copyright (the right to copy), not copywrite. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Fashion Designers

Hi, I was just researching Canadian Fashion Designers and you have a great list but Marilyn Brooks is not on it. How do we go about adding her to the list? thanks Nikki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.190.26 (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're referring to Category:Canadian fashion designers? That's not an article in its own right, but a "Category", a collection of pages with a common theme. The only way to add to it is to create the page Marilyn Brooks and add it to the category. On a quick search she seems notable enough to have an article, so, if you've no conflict of interest, why don't you consider writing it? Rojomoke (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kaʻihikapumahana o Kaʻahumanu Walters

Please correct typos in the following names: Kapumahana Kaʻahumanu Walters and Ronald Walters are correctly spelt here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.8.231 (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I use the name Mahana Walters for everyday use but my whole name is Kaʻihikapumahana o Kaʻahumanu Walters. Mahalo (Thank you) for your attention to correcting this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.8.231 (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please give a link to the page with the problem. I tried searching but couldn't guess where it is. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Usually we name articles after the common name of a topic. If a potential article is warranted and so the red link in Miss Hawaii Teen USA should not be unlinked entirely, your everyday use name looks like the right target, so I have removed the piping to your misspelled birth/formal name.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

biographical entries

I submitted a draft for a biographical entry. It was rejected and no reason given, except that the entry is about myself. I am a scholar and a leading expert in my field, author of over 20 books published by major publishing houses. The proposed entry contains biographical information about my career. This information can only be provided by myself.

How would you suggest I proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunterberghaus (talk • contribs) 08:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Günter Berghaus was rejected for the reasons given on that page, not solely because of your conflict of interest. Click the links in the decline reason given to learn more about Wikipedia's requirements.

If the only source for information about the topic is yourself, and there are no published independent reliable sources that discuss the topic at all, then Wikipedia would not normally have an article about the topic. This is because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, thus contains a summary of information that has already been published elsewhere. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the requirements. "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Google scholar lists 404 citations in which my books are discussed. http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ee2cPKIAAAAJ I have received 72 reviews of my books published in scholarly journals, and 30 of these are available on the internet through JSTOR, MUSE, EBSCO and similar databases. Some of these could be linked to the entry in the References or External links sections.

"8. The person is or has been head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area." I am editor of International Yearbook of Futurism Studies, currently the only periodical dedicated to Futurism Studies. This is a scholarly periodical of some 550-650 pages per annum published by De Gruyter, a leading science publisher. See http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/futur?rskey=S064VT&result=5&q=futurism

The draft submitted is what you may call a stub, to which citations, footnotes, and external links are to be added. I was going to leave this to a later date after receiving feedback on the draft of the main section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunterberghaus (talk • contribs) 15:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1.7.2014 No response received to the above commentary. According to Wikipedia criteria, the requirements WP:NACADEMICS (Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable) are met. Is there going to be any follow-up?91.0.95.161 (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

verification

I am trying to add small items of factual information to the opera pages of Virginia Zeani, Aureliano Pertile and Ailyn Perez but my edits are being deleted as the verification is not considered acceptable.

Is it only possible to add information from an already printed source? Is personal knowledge and experience unacceptable in all cases?

How can I get copyright approval for a photograph when I know who took it but that person is now dead and I know that it was taken over 60 years ago? The subject of the photograph is still alive but elderly and is not sufficiently computer literate to respond to Wikipedia's policy requests. I do not understand how publishing this photograph could cause a copyright violation, when it is now freely available elsewhere via the official website of the artist portrayed concerned,

I would like to make helpful and interesting contributions to Wikipedia and never wish to violate your policies, but it is not always easy to understand exactly what you need. I did begin from scratch the new page on soprano Oda Slobodskaya. The information I placed there was not contested but simply rearranged, by one of your more practised team, into a much better order, for which I was very grateful

I would therefore much appreciate your help and advice and am sorry to have been the recipient of a strict "telling off" by User:Bbb23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlotteinWeimar (talk • contribs) 11:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to sources: they need to be verifiable so personal knowledge and recollections are nor reliable because they cannot be verified. Sources do not need to be printed, on line sources are acceptable, but all sources must meet our definition of reliability, WP:RS. Also note that per WP:EL, links to Facebook fan sites and other fan sites are not permitted. --ukexpat (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to the copyright: it is likely that the copyright in the photograph now belongs to the photographer's heir. You could try to identify the heir, and then persuade them to release the copyright so that the image can be used on Wikipedia. By "freely available elsewhere", I assume you mean it has been published. This does not mean that the publisher has relinquished copyright. The publisher may be publishing it illegally, or may be publishing it legally but retaining copyright. Maproom (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to do with these

~~Draft:Chloe Lukasiak - month-old AFC (sort of)~~ never mind, has 5 months before G13
Draft:Collage - fork?
Draft:Sophia Lucia - no idea what this is

I understand they are drafts but I do not believe they belong where they are in the condition they are in. I cannot figure out what to tag them with (move? userfy? delete?). Could someone take a look, please and thank you? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why does anything need to be done now? They are recently created drafts in the draft space. Presumably their creators will return to them to work on them further. If they don't the drafts can be deleted under G13 as stale drafts after 6 months.--ukexpat (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of them (the one I struck out) is an AFC. The other two do not have categories or links, and they are not subpages to any article or editor. I found them via editor history; the only other way of finding them requires typing their title in the search box exactly. This seems to me a difficult way to locate non-AFC drafts. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They don't need to be in the AFC process or display an AFC template to be valid works in progress. They are in draft space and are doing no harm, so leave them be until their creators either ask for them to be deleted, they are sumbitted for review or they are stale for 6 months.--ukexpat (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jezebel Page

Hi, under the popular culture section of this page I tried adding the song by Sade. I don;t know how to format the hyperlinks to not have the URLs show up and to have the words properly link. If someone could address this for me it would be appreciated. I'm computer literate enough to be dangerous but not proficient, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmmahhhh (talk • contribs) 14:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Referencing for beginners. It's a minor pain, but worth learning, as it is needed so often.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

submittals

I asked on the FAQ line how one goes about making a new listing for Wikipedia. There is a local musician Gordon Stone of Vermont who wants a listing in Wikipedia. We have all the info ready for submittal ...just can't figure out how to do it.

I asked FAQ how to make a new page? how to submit new information? etc. ..... nothing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otislake24 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For new article I recommend the page Wikipedia:Articles for creation. RJFJR (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oh, you've already found that. I left a welcome message on your user talk page that has links that may be useful. RJFJR (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

user unfriendly websites

why is the page for submitting an article so hard to find on this site?

you would think Wikipedia:RA would be one of the first pages some sees

why is it not listed on your main page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otislake24 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most people come here to read, not to write. We give prominence to things that will help people read an encyclopedia. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Organisation

Hello,

I am part of a religious organisation and find that members of a "rival" organisation from a different denomination keep editing the page of my organisation almost daily with highly contentious conclusions based on their own interpretation of scripture etc.

I was wondering if there's any protection that could be put in place against this sort of thing.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslamh1 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you discussed on the article talk pages? If they don't respond to discussion on the article talk page, the next step should be dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is Kanz ul Huda, and there has been no attempt by either the original poster or the other editors to discuss at Talk:Kanz ul Huda There does appear to be a slow-motion edit war. Please discuss changes to the article on the article talk page. If that fails, try dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the ten months that the article has existed, nobody has added a single reference, thus I have tagged it for speedy deletion per criterion G7 - non-notable organization. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

mas 90 page links

Hello!

Can we be added as a link on the bottom of the page that talks about the Sage 100 Software? (page: MAS 90 We are a Sage 100 Consultant directory, and it will be beneficial for us to be listed on this page. It will help those searching for more information about the software, and will direct them to an experienced consultant who can help them with the software. See our website here: www.sage100consultants.com

Thank you!

68.198.28.125 (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have a conflict of interest. Also, the link that you want to put on the page sounds as though it is promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Archive index bot

Is there an active archive index bot any more ? User:HBC Archive Indexerbot is no longer active in this job, I've tried to follow the "this bot is now doing this for Xbot......Xbot is no longer doing it, now it's Ybot..... which is now handled by Zbot, breadcrumb trail, I'm totally lost. Is there a bot that will continue where HBC left off ? </rant> Thank you in advance. (I feel better now :P ) Mlpearc (open channel) 18:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. Looking through the archive bot category, I can't find any that currently perform the tasks originally handled by HBC Archive Indexerbot. The most recent I could identify was Legobot (Task #15, to be more specific); it no longer does this. I've dropped Legoktm a line — he might know what became of that particular function. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to archive selected talk page entries?

I would like to archive selected talk page entries, could someone point out to me which command is required and what i need to comply with? Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your own user talk page that you want to archive selectively? You can open an instance of Notepad, edit the talk page, and selectively cut the threads from your talk page and copy them to the Notepad. When you save the reduced talk page, use an edit summary such as "selectively moving to archive". Then create a new subpage of your talk page, copy the contents of the Notepad to the subpage, and save the subpage with an edit summary such as "creating new archive". If there is a tool for the purpose, I don't know of it, but the manual approach does work. If you want to archive an article talk page, you should get consensus on the talk page for the parameters for bot archival. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a user script that helps User:Equazcion/OneClickArchiver Mlpearc (open channel) 18:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Robert, i managed to do it manually. prokaryotes (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of uploaded photo

A new editor has uploaded a supposed criminal mugshot that likely is a violation of WP:BLP, possibly a "prank", or possibly a vanity edit. It should be evaluated immediately, and probably removed. I am unfamiliar with the procedure for this, and when I go tp Wikimedia Commons, I can't figure out how to flag the file for examination. Can somebody give a pointer for prompt action in this and other such cases? Thank you. Reify-tech (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP does not apply to the Commons. Ruslik_Zero 19:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I haven't quite figured out the subtle administrative nuances. Does Wikipedia Commons have a mechanism for speedy deletion (or a separate Helpdesk, for that matter)? Reify-tech (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The commons help desk is available at commons:commons:helpdesk. GB fan 19:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I hadn't realized the extent to which Wikimedia Commons is administered separately, including the Helpdesk. Reify-tech (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia and the Commons are very different. The English Wikipedia has a formal structure, and disciplinary procedures. I don't know much about the Commons, but I do know that it isn't really administered at all. If someone disagrees with me, please point me cross-Wiki to where we can discuss how Commons is administered. I think that it is nominally administered and has no real administration. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Commons most certainly is administered. It has a deletion policy, a speedy deletion policy and an administrators' noticeboard and a page for requesting deletions. It is true that the Commons rules can be different to Wikipedia (of necessity, it has a different function) but it does have rules and enough administrators to enforce them. Spinning Spark 12:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first three of the four links (deletion policy, speedy deletion criteria, and administrators' noticeboard) that you posted are blue links, but they say that the page does not exist. The fourth links, requests for deletion, does exist. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My lack of competence rather than Commons lack of administration. I've fixed the links (I got caught out by the Commons:Commons: thing yet again). Spinning Spark 16:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, advice to the OP would be to see if he or she can figure out how to tag the file for speedy deletion under any of the Commons criteria, and if necessary, get advice at the Commons Help Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really puzzled by the "Commons:Commons: thing"—could somebody explain what that's about? I found "Nominate for deletion" in the sidebar to the left of the Wikipedia Commons page. This process takes about a week, but I decided it wasn't worth the effort to pursue faster deletion in this instance.

Commons is definitely administered, just not very well. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts v. Articles for Creation

Now that there is a Draft space, do Articles for Creation still have a separate function, or are the two different versions of the same thing? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, the draft namespace is just a convenient alternative to user subpages in drafting articles for future integration into the encyclopedia — in other words, it's more of a technical feature than a community process. Articles for creation is a collaborative project where editors can submit potential articles to be reviewed for inclusion by experienced and impartial members of the Wikipedia community. AfC uses the draft namespace to facilitate this. Basically, one is a community-driven process, while the other is a namespace that helps it to function. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update the portrait on a Wikipedia bio page

Looking at a specific biographical page there's a very old photograph of the subject (that was uploaded without our consent) and would like to update it… how may I accomplish this? Here is the page: Edward Burtynsky

Marcus Schubert - Director of Media, Publications & Exhibits Office of Edward Burtynsky75.98.196.234 (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.98.196.234 (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 75.98.196.234 it's unclear what you mean when you say that the photo was uploaded with your consent. Are you claiming ownership of the photo? It appears to have been uploaded by a Flickr user under a Creative Commons (CC-SA) license. If you believe that a copyright violation is occurring, that's a different matter. However, if you're implying that Wikipedia requires Edward Burtynsky's consent to host a photo of him, that would not be an accurate assumption. That said, if you wanted to contribute a photo that you own, you should probably review Wikipedia:Image use policy, as you would be required to license the image freely, not only to Wikipedia, but to sites that use Wikipedia's content, including for commercial use and derivative works. Most of that info can be found at Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images and Wikipedia:Image use policy#Free licenses. In order to upload a photo, you have to be an autoconfirmed user, which means you'd need to create an account, wait four days, and make at least 10 edits. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, images that are freely licensed should be uploaded to commons, which may require you to create an account there, but doesn't have an autoconfirmation requirement. --ColinFine (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Mr. Schubert's question more directly:

If you have a good image of Mr. Burtynsky, and are willing to relinquish copyright of it, we encourage you to upload it to Wikimedia Commons. This will enable it to be used here and on all other Wikipedias (French, Portuguese, etc.). It will be for the community of editors to decide whether it is actually used; but as you have pointed out, the current image of him is not great. Maproom (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to set up properly citing templates at custom wikipedia

Dear wikipedists, I can't wrap my head around the possibility of setting up citing templates at my own wiki in a manner similar to the regular wikipedia. What I want to do is to just type in text <ref>{{cite doi | 10.doi}} </ref> and than in the references section </references> resulting in a nice formated citation used throughout the wikipedia. Which templates should I create and what should I fill them in with? I'm quite lost.

You might be happier, and easier to use {{Citation}} as the base template. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, It has helped me just partially, what I can seen right now instead of properly formated citation is ↑ Template:Cite doi 10.1093/bioinformatics/bth214 which template have I set wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.113.101.41 (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you still have this set {{cite doi| change it to {{citation| for starters. If you have further queries we should move this to one of our own talk page as this isn't a Wikimedia issue. Good luck, Mlpearc (open channel) 22:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this. It should be <references/>.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions •
21:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]