Help desk
< January 18	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 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.

January 19[edit]

Adding two pictures to an article[edit]

Hello, I would like to add two pictures of the steamer SS Catala which was shipwrecked on the Washington coast in 1965. One picture is from a 40 year old postcard of the ship when it was new and the other is a picture that I took in the mid 70's of the wreck itself.

The mountain of leagaleze information Wikipedia has about how to add/authorize pictures is making my eyes glaze over and my head hurt. I've spent almost 2 hours trying to figure out just what Wiki wants to post photos and I still have not a clue what to do. It seems like too much work to even bother.

I figure the postcard picture, old as it may be, would probably violate Wiki's copyright guidelines. I could try to get an ok from the postcard maker (if it's still in business), but I wouldn't know how to do that. That would leave me with the picture that I took. Is there someone that knows how the Wiki system works that could do this for me? I'd like to make my ever so small contribution to history, but I don't want to spend any more time spinning my wheels trying to figure out the Wiki maze. Levriere52 (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The picture you took can be added to http://commons.wikimedia.org. For a picture where you can give full permission to use it, it's better to put it on commons, where it will be seen by editors from the wikipedias in all the various languages. There is a category system there that you can use to find any other pictures of the ship. There is a button right on the home page to upload an image. --Jc3s5h (talk) 05:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Username change[edit]

I would like to change my username. How can I do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattjherman (talk • contribs) 05:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can request a renaming for your account at Wikipedia:Changing username. Chamal ^talk _{stealth mode} 07:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The account only has two edits so it's easier just to abandon it and create a new one. – ukexpat (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

contact telephone numbers and email addresses[edit]

please provide me with all contact telephone numbers and email addresses of all traditional universities in south africa. you do not have a page giving this information.

Kind regards

Jo Demetriou <removed contact details> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.146.95.220 (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you wish for them to be permanently removed from the page history, email this address. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read List of universities in South Africa - that will give you links to the articles about the universities, which in turn will have a link to the official website for the university. On their official website there will be contact details. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that Wikipedia is not a directory, and thus there is no reason to expect "a page giving this information"! That is not what we do. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Willougby[edit]

What height is Holly Willougby???. Her waist is higher that P. Scofields, and he is not small. Sometimes she stands in front of him to seem same height. Always trying to compare her with Christopher Dean.... I think she is taller?? best regards Julie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.177.116 (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the answer is not in Holly Willoughby (which is unlikely as it's not a very encyclopaedic fact), you might want to try the Wikipedia:Reference desk. This help desk is just for questions about how to use and edit Wikipedia.--Beloved Freak 12:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External Links in article disappears[edit]

I had added external links to the subjects of Archaeology, Astrology, Acupuncture. All of them appeared as soon as i refreshed the page. but dis-appeared as soon as i tried viewing them after some amount of time.

Why does this happen? It has happened more than once with me. Is somebody deleting my entries or are they subject to approval from somewhere or someone?

Please reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patellokesh (talk • contribs) 12:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the edits that happen after yours by clicking "history" at the top of the article. For example, the history page of the Archaeology article shows that your addition of external links was reverted. Wikipedia is not a directory or a collection of links. Please also read Wikipedia:External links for more information on which links should be included. --Beloved Freak 12:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the messages and warnings on your talk page and heed them: User talk:Patellokesh -- Brangifer (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

move article into mainspace - for publication[edit]

Hallo everybody,

I uploaded an article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cipresso/European_Federation_of_Materials_Handling_-_FEM) and I created references as many as possible, but now how my article can be moved into the mainspace to be viewed? Do you know how long it will take?I double checked and the soure + the refernces make it reliable. Thanks Cipresso (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cipresso, you mentioned this draft article on the Help Desk in December and from what I can see, there hasn't been any changes to the refererences. If the FEM is notable, I would expect to find coverage in the mainstream media, not just in trade publications. (Incidently, the NIBS reference doesn't work any more - I can't find mention of FEM, F.E.M., European Federation of Materials Handling or Fédération Européenne de la Manutention' anywhere on their website). I'm not sure that it meets either Wikipedia's guidelines on the notability of companies and organisations or Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. It is important that the organisation is shown to meet the notability guidelines before moving it to article space - if it does not, it is liable to be deleted. While it is in your user space, you can work on it with less chance of it being deleted (basically, as long as it is not copyrighted material, and it is not overtly promotional, it should be OK there). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear PhantomSteve,

I checked the note you suggested, and I found the following: On Notability Non-commercial organizations Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: 1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. 2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. (In other words, they must satisfy the primary criterion for all organizations as described above.) And also: reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both

We meet the first criterion. As regards the second, the fact that FEM does not appear in the mainstream press has little to do with notability but rather with the specific scope of the association. In addition, references to FEM appear on the European Commission’s website and I dare qualify the European Commission as a ‘reliable source’. I am afraid we have made every possible effort so now the question is simple: is it sufficient or not for the publication? Thanks Cipresso (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said above, I do not feel that it does meet the criteria for notability. All the references to the FEM that I could find were basically in lists of "Standards organisations" - I didn't find any significant coverage of them in any of the places where they were mentioned. In your references, the CEN just lists them on List of trade federations with liaison status - it confirms they exist, but nothing further than this. The first reference (lomag-man.org) again confirms their existance, and has a list of the FEM standards - but again there is not significant coverage about the organisation itself. Other editors may disagree - in which case they are welcome to comment here. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Phantomsteve - if this organisation is notable, there must be the significant coverage in reliable sources required by WP:N and the additional guidelines at WP:CORP. If there is no such coverage, it's not notable. – ukexpat (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Fire In The World[edit]

Dear sir, Fire is the part of worship for so many religions, but nobody knows when fire was invented.In the Bible mosses saw the fire in the bushes then he thought about God and he got message from the God.It might be continued in the worships all over the world.One who practiced this model of worship in his life that means he is still in that century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.138.185 (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

წინასწარ მადლობთ, თუ მიუთითებთ ქრისტიანული ძეგლების ადგილმდებარეობებს ეგვიპტეში. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.43.141.115 (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that thought. Unfortunately, this is the Help Desk for Wikipedia (the encyclopedia that anyone can edit), and so this is not the place for a discussion on Fire, as our job is to try to help people who have problems using Wikipedia. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, humans did not invent fire, as fire occurs regularly in nature. Rather, humans are the first animal species who were able to control fire, and then begin coevolving with it. After our hominid ancestors learned to cook meat with fire (over one million years ago), they had less need for powerful jaws and teeth to rip through raw meat. Natural selection took care of the rest. --Teratornis (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to change the title line of an article[edit]

How would I change the title line of an article that is generated by the article name. For example, I created Palinurus (barge) and had to use the "(barge)" as an extension to distinguish it from another article of the same name. But, I don't care for the way "(barge)" shows so prominently on the display. picky, picky, picky, For example, I could just use the name Palinurus. Or, I could use "Palinurus, the first hotel barge". GloverEpp (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, there is already a Palinurus article, so you can't use that name. The Palinurus in Roman mythology is the primary topic. Unfortunately, you'll need to keep with Palinurus (barge) as the title, as that is the way in which page titles are made. However, the fact about it being the first hotel barge is in the lead section, so it is one of the first things that people reading the article find out. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was not clear. I don't mind and understand why I must use Palinurus (barge). What I object to (esthetically) is having (barge) be shown on the first line of the article. GloverEpp (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying! The first line on the page is the title, and is always the same as the article name. It's a way of making it clear to the reader what the article is (especially as a reader may reach the page through a redirect. Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Article title format gives information about the format that the article title can take, while Wikipedia:MOS#Article_titles shows the Manual of Style guidance on article titles, which includes Titles should match the article contents, and should not be too narrow or too broad - your proposed title would be too narrow. I hope this explains the reason for the title being Palinurus (barge). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Save as PDF[edit]

Why did Wikipedia allow me to save a page as a pdf two days ago, and now it's not giving me the option to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.245.195 (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, the Download as PDF is only available if you are logged in, whereas you were not signed in when you left this question. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be signed in for the link to appear in the sidebar, anyway. Going directly to the appropriate url should work when logged out, as should going via Special:Book. Algebraist 16:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

my profile taken by sombody else[edit]

search for dowson click david dowson british artist born 1959 and you get a profile of a footballer with the same name. how do I get it linked to my own profile. David Dowson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.189.251 (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I assume you're talking about this page, where a link to David Dowson leads to the footballer. I've now altered the Dowson page so that the link points to David Dowson (artist). However, there's no corresponding article there. Do you mean that there is an article somewhere in Wikipedia on yourself? I can't find it. Or do you mean that you want an article to be created on yourself?--212.183.140.18 (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're wanting to create an article on yourself in Wikipedia, there are two problems:

- Generally, people are not allowed to create articles on themselves because of the conflict of interest.
- I've been Googling your name but can't find any good indication that you're especially notable, which is a requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. I'd expect things like books and newspaper reviews about you.--212.183.140.18 (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What happened was that in August 2008 Daraarts (talk · contribs) replaced the text in the footballer's article with text about an artist. This was later, correctly, reverted. I can't see that being a certified Wet-on-Wet instructor is enough to be in the surname article either. Please, neither of you take this personally, see WP:ARTIST for guidance on notability for artists. Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've realised my earlier comments sound a bit abrupt. Wasn't meaning to - was simultaneously having a fight with something else off-wiki!--212.183.140.18 (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may just have been looking for your userpage at User:David Dowson and the associated talk page at User talk:David Dowson, as opposed to an article in the mainspace about David Dowson. In either case, WP:COI applies, although there is more leeway on a user talk page. Before putting too much effort into writing about yourself, it is advisable to read WP:UPG and WP:COI first. It's possible to do in some notable cases, but rarely worth the trouble, as considerable care is needed to stay within the rules. Usually for notable individuals, it is better to simply add to WP:Requested articles and let others tackle it.LeadSongDog come howl 18:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rights[edit]

Dear Help Desk,

I've asked Marek69 a question on the rights of using certain paintings in your site and he/she told me to ask you.

Section of my original question: One more question, I've found 4 paintings in your Chateau de Chantilly site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C3%A2teau_de_Chantilly

And they are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Le_Tre_Grazie.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ingres,_Self-portrait.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Margot_001.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Piero_di_Cosimo_043.jpg

Does that mean I can use these images? But I found out that a stock photo house carries these 4 images and is the direct representative for Chateau de Chantilly. How does that work? Stock photo house: http://www.imaginechina.com/

From my knowledge no one can really claim the rights to these paintings since they are all over 100 years old, the only way to claim its rights is if I go there and took a picture then I own the rights to that certain picture.

Would like your opinion on this. Again Thank you!!! mal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.232.169.69 (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Marek69's answer: Hi Mal, the first picture appears to be Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which is one of the type we discussed above. The other three [2], [3], [4] all appear to be Public domain and more information on that license can be found here. I'm not sure how this relates to the stock photo house. You could ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Somebody more familiar with copyrights and licensing may be able to help you on that one.

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 talk 17:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help!!! malMalvinrem (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The paintings are all old enough to not be in copyright; they are in the public domain worldwide. However, what you're dealing with here is not the paintings themselves, but photographic reproductions of them, and here the situation is more complicated. In the United States, faithful reproductions of public domain works are also public domain, so you can use all these photos freely. It is the position of the Wikimedia Foundation (which hosts Wikipedia) that this is the case worldwide, and on this basis Wikipedia treats such photos as being in the public domain. However, the Foundation's position is the subject of serious dispute in many jurisdictions (I believe there's a test case ongoing in the UK at present), and there are many places where making unlicensed copies of such photos may leave you open to legal action by the photographer (or whoever they have assigned their rights to). For future reference, questions like this are better asked at WP:MCQ than here. Algebraist 18:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Help Desk, One more question based on your answer. So if I got the right from a photographer say on flickr who has shot one of the paintings then using that image from that particular photographer won't get me into trouble, correct? Thank you, malMalvinrem (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should provide evidence of the photographer's permission to the OTRS folks by following the process set out at WP:IOWN. Note that permission to use only on Wikipedia is not sufficient. – ukexpat (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't there a bot to welcome new users?[edit]

Why isn't there a bot to welcome new users at this page with a welcome template? Samwb123^{Please read} 20:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well...

There are a lot of new user accounts.
A lot of the new users are vandals.
A bot can't provide one-to-one assistance, if needed.
A bot message would need to be generic.
It would clutter up usertalk pages.
Welcome messages aren't essential. (I never recieved one, I was a little pissed off, but it hasn't done me any harm (note that a welcome message from a bot probably wouldn't have made me feel much better))
There isn't that much support for such a bot (in my limited experience)

All that said, there are some reasons why a welcome bot might be a positive thing, you could propose it at WP:VP/PROP, if you feel strongly. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) An interesting question! The answer (I think) is that many accounts are created which are never used, or which are quickly blocked for being against the User name policy, so it doesn't seem worthwhile greeting everyone! If someone applies for an account using the ACC tool, they will usually get a welcome message (although there are problems with that welcoming 'bot at the moment), or a personally typed welcome message from one of the ACC tool users. I think this has been asked before, but I can't find it in the archives! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What if the bot only greets users with at least one contribution, and have been around for, say, 5 minutes? Samwb123^{Please read} 21:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lot of discussions in the past about this, see for example Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee/Archive 2#WelcomeBot?, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Welcomebot, Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_7#WelcomeBot_2, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Xcbot, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TellyaddictBot, Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 12#WelcomeBot (there are a load more in the archives). Nanonic (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of the other projects employ such bots. – ukexpat (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spitfire,

Fixed! – ukexpat (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shon Brooks[edit]

I created a Shon Brooks page on January 18th and it was deleted. Can you please let me know what is needed so it will not be deleted once I recreate the page?

Thank you

22:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Habeebah (talk • contribs)

You will have to show how or why the person is notable per WP:BIO, with reliable sources and in compliance with WP:BLP. Suggest you create the article in a subpage first or use the Article wizard. – ukexpat (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protected Pages[edit]

How do certain pages (such as celebrity pages) become protected and unaccessible to edit?

If I want to make an alteration to a protected page, I understand I have to propose the change in the discussion section. Who is responding to my requests and why are they given that authority?

All info is appreciated,

Dunhamreg1 (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, a page is edit-protected after a history of vandalism and other non-useful edits. Those who do this kind of thing are called "admins" (short for "administrators"): volunteer editors like yourself whom the broader Wikipedia community, after a lengthy discussion, has decided to entrust with advanced powers of editing, blocking, and deletion. (Admins who abuse these powers can be stripped of them, again after a lengthy discussion.) --Orange Mike | Talk 22:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer. I work at a management firm for an artist who's page is protected. Is it possible to become an admin for that page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunhamreg1 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC) — Dunhamreg1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There is no such thing as 'an admin for that page': a Wikipedia editor either an admin or not an admin. Please read WP:OWN: nobody owns Wikipedia pages, and aside from the (comparatively rare) circumstance of page protection, anybody may edit any page. Also please read WP:COI: if you have a connection with the subject of a page you are strongly discouraged from editing that page --ColinFine (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors can become administrators after they've gained considerable experience editing Wikipedia (at least 4,000 edits), demonstrated that they understand and faithfully adhere to its policies, and have earned the respect and trust of the community. After someone is nominated, they go through a vetting process in which the community reviews their edit history and asks them questions that hopefully reveal whether they'd be a good admin. My nomination/voting page when I became an admin, for example, is here.

The reason I protected the Jeff Dunham article is because it was the target of persistent vandalism. This only means that new and unregistered editors cannot edit it, but registered editors who've being editing for some time (I don't know how much) most certainly can. I and others are also discussing Dunhamreg1's concerns about that article on its Talk Page. Nightscream (talk) 11:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation question[edit]

Resolved

Which is best? Co-Freemasonry or Co-freemasonry? MOS doesn't say anything about caps in hyphened words although it does refer to Great Black-backed Gull. Depending on what you think, I will either move the article or leave be, and either way assure that there is an appropriate redirect. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The former (the title as it stands now) is best, in my opinion, because "Freemasonry" is a proper noun in this context (a capitonym, in fact; see freemasonry and Freemasonry). Intelligentsium 00:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]