Help desk
< September 1	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 3 >

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.

September 2[edit]

Assistance with article[edit]

Hi, I need help with a deleted article. What do I need to do to get the article approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhedai19 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jhedai19. I assume you're referring to Deo's Closet? I suggest that you go to requests for undeletion, where you can ask for the article to be userfied, that is, moved outside the "main" article space.

After you do that, I suggest that you work on it and then submit it for review (add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top when you're ready). Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Policy/warnings on swearing[edit]

Is there a warning template for users who swear at you? Someone swore at me for proposing his article for speedy deletion (User talk:JoeKnuckley), and while I'm not traumatized by this, it seems like there aren't many resources regarding what to do when dealing with minor misconduct. Upjav (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{uw-npa1}} - it doesn't really address the swearing but the nature of the message. Hack (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hack. Looks like that's appropriate. Upjav (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

skitzo (which is me) got erased?[edit]

hello to whom it may comcern

please revive this page

Skitzo

i am a living, breathing producer, and all descriptions about this page is true

any questions please hit me up at <email redacted>

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.242.27 (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skitzo. Basically they can't find reliable sources to show that you are important enough for an encyclopedia article. The threshold for inclusion is not just truth but also notability. —teb728 t c 08:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the notability guidelines at: WP:BIO.--ukexpat (talk) 12:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion discussion concluded with WP:SOFTDELETE which means that it can be restored on request. The request should be made at WP:REFUND. SpinningSpark 12:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my edit removed, though I provided proper sources?[edit]

I'm a new user and was very delighted to know that I too can contribute to Wikipedia. Upon my first edit itself, my addition was removed and I got a message saying, "...it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder..." I thought it was caused because I had not provided the source. So I edited it again by providing proper sources. But then I received another message which said, "There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you."

What does this mean? Is there anything I'm unaware of? Please help me regarding this issue, as I'm confused. I want to sure if I'm abiding by your rules. I'll be very grateful to contribute to Wikipedia for the welfare of all. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Wesley (talk • contribs) 08:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for the copyright complaint, it has to do with this edit and possibly more where you directly copied right from the source. Selected quotes can be used but they should in quotation marks. Otherwise, the bulk of an article should be written in your own words with the references used as verification of what you've written.

As for the ANI notice, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Copyright violations by Samuel Wesley. In my opinion, the other editor could have waited longer for you to reply to the copyright issue concerns that were pointed out to you before taking it to the noticeboard. But like I say, that's my opinion. And they could have helped you out, as the new editor that you are, by directing you to the specific discussion thread instead of directing you to the page with you having to figure out what it's all about. Dismas|^(talk) 09:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) You were reverted because you have copied material without permission, not because it was not referenced. See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. You were reported to the Administrators notice board because you repeatedly reinserted the material without discussion. Administrators have the power to block you from editing, and will do if they believe you are going to continue with the same actions. I recommend that you follow the link to that discussion on your talk page and explain that you are not going to continue. Besisdes that issue, I think the material you inserted should be removed anyway. It is not from a scholarly source, and is riddled with neutrality isssues by expressing views in Wikipedia's voice rather than simply presenting encyclopaedic facts. SpinningSpark 09:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Cure Parkinson's Trust[edit]

I have included what I had hoped was a correct citation to a medical journal - I used the Cite reference to 'journal' and entered all relevant details. The small text appears by the side of the report referred to in the text as the correct medical journal name but when clicked does not redirect the user to the said journal - please can you tell me what i am doing wrong?

Also, I have included special characters for URL's in my text but these appear in the saved article as the full URL - is there a way of this appearing as a smaller icon in the text - again what am I doing wrong here please :( BaileyBoo (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made this change - [1] to your draft. Is this what you were looking for? Secondly, you should put the link to the external websites in a separate section at the bottom of the article, see WP:EL for more information. CaptRik (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some courtesy clean up per the manual of style.--ukexpat (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BaileyBoo, I see in your draft you've un-done some of UKexpat's manual of style changes and put links to external sites in the main text of the article. Please note that this is not allowed, those links should be specific citations of content, a single link in an external links section, or not in the article at all. I would recommend addressing this when possible before submitting. Regards, CaptRik (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Profile picture[edit]

How do I post a profile picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennyboyjamin (talk • contribs) 13:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't facebook, so you don't need to post a profile picture. If it's social networking you're after, I'm afraid you'll be disappointed here. However, you can add an image to your userpage by following the tutorials at Wikipedia:Images. You need to upload an image to Commons, and then embed it on your own userpage. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about an image to use in an article, there are a number of useful links at Wikipedia:Images. In particular you need to be careful to specify the copyright status of the image (which you did not do when you uploaded File:DannyW.jpeg). --David Biddulph (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in several languages missing in English Wikipedia[edit]

Is there any tool or page by which I can get the list of topics having pages in several other Wikipedias but not in English.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading Wikipedia:Translation (and in particular Wikipedia:Translation#Articles needing translation) and Category:Articles needing translation from foreign-language Wikipedias. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Devotion Band[edit]

Hello,

Your page on the band No Devotion is incorrect. They are not a Welsh based band. There are 4 Welshmen (Lee Gaze, Stu Richardson, Jamie Oliver & Mike Lewis) 1 Englishman Luke Johnson who is from Ridditch, Birmingham - England & Geoff Rickly who is from New Brunswick, NJ - USA.

Currently half of them live in Los Angeles, CA (Luke Johnson, Jamie Oliver & Mike Lewis) Stu Richardson lives in Florida, Geoff Rickly lives in New York City, NY & Lee Gaze lives in London, England.

I spoke with Lee about this via twitter. You can view the conversation at this twitter link https://twitter.com/NoDevotionFans/status/492293580527263744. He feels the band is more international but if a simpler label is needed for the origin of the band then please mark it as British American as it covers all six of the band members.

Thank you, Alicia Founder - @NoDevotionFans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.131.131.253 (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed "Welsh-based" from the article, as the references do not support this. Twitter is not regarded as a reliable source, so I have not added anything in its place. --ColinFine (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done

You can reference Wikipedia for points or reference. Luke Johnson Geoff Rickly& the remaining members at lostprophets

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.131.131.253 (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Careful: you can, and are encouraged to, wikilink appropriate names and terms to other Wikipedia articles; but these are not regarded as references, which must be to reliable sources. (Wikipedia is not a reliable source, because anybody may edit it). --ColinFine (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Captcha Error[edit]

Hi,

I am asked to enter the words below (captcha) before publishing my article. The problem is that I cannot visualize the captcha and therefore I will lose the whole article because I can't submit the captcha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepinkdame (talk • contribs) 19:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can do copy/paste into any text editor like notepad and save the wikitext as a file. Ruslik_Zero 19:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you get a captcha because there are external links. Try removing the colon from "http:" to disable the links and post again here so somebody else can make them link. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend Article Creation[edit]

Is there a place on Wikipedia where a user can recommend that an article be created? The reason I'm asking is that I don't have the knowledge (or time) to do it myself, but there are some people/topics that should have an article on Wikipedia who currently do not. Emivam (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requested articles. SpinningSpark 21:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image use[edit]

I know that this is spelled out clearly somewhere on Wikipedia, but I've been looking around for a while and can't seem to find the exact page. Could someone explain to me which licenses are acceptable for a photograph to be released under, in order for them to be uploaded to the Commons. I'm pretty sure that the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License is the ideal one, but are others acceptable? Thanks. --Jpcase (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpcase: Hey Jpcase. Please see Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses. There's also Commons:Choosing a license and Commons:Copyright tags. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit. I found an image on Flickr that I want to use, but it has been released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic license. So I couldn't use it unless I could get the photographer to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License, right? --Jpcase (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the only possibility, Jpcase, but it does have to be one that allows commercial use. --ColinFine (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as Colin says, that or under another compatible license but it can't be non-commercial (you can eliminate any license with the letters "NC" in it). Many free images with a compatible license at Flickr are under CC BY-SA 2.0. You can use any of CC-By-SA 1.0, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 CC-By 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 and CC-By-US 3.0 and of course, PD (public domain which under creative commons is CC0 1.0 Universal)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Fuhghettaboutit and ColinFine! This is starting to make a little more sense to me. I have a few more questions though:

In "CC BY-SA" for example, the "CC" stands for "Creative Commons", right? And the "SA" stands for "ShareAlike"? What does the "BY" stand for though? All of the Creative Commons licenses have it in their abbreviated names, but none of them seems to have words that start with "B" or "Y" in their formal names.

What is "CC-By-US"? I don't see it listed on this page [2]

The GNU Free Documentation License; GNU General Public License; and Free Art License/Licence Art Libre would all be acceptable too, right? Are there multiple versions of these licenses that I should be aware of? --Jpcase (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpcase: Apparently By stands for attribution. See here As for CC-By-US 3.0, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/ Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: Thank you again. But the other three licenses that I mentioned (which are all listed at Commons:Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses) - there aren't multiple versions of these licenses, are there? If I were to tell a photographer that they could release their photo under, say, The GNU Free Documentation License, would that be specific enough? Or would I have to say, (as a made up example), the GNU Free Documentation ShareAlike 2.0 License? --Jpcase (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I just realized that none of the GNU licenses are actually acceptable. But why were they listed in the first place then? --Jpcase (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one has mentioned the {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} license, which is probably the preferred choice now. It is the default if you upload to Commons, and accept the default. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 21:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh. Isn't there a clear, easy to use page listing out all of the licenses that are acceptable for the Commons? This seems far too complicated. Thanks for all of the help though. --Jpcase (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpcase: The page I linked previously, Commons:Copyright tags contains a fairly complete list. For just CC, see its subsection on Free Creative Commons licenses. It will also tell you about just licensing under the GFDL (yes, but shouldn't be done). It also has a section on the Free Art License.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]