Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2010 October 2

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.

October 2

Resubmission of a first time article

Hi,

I have been reaching out to have my first rewritten article reviewed but no one responded initially so I thought I'd chance it and just resubmit it. How long does it take to have it re-reviewed? Thanks in advance. Kenwaditty (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The best place to ask for feedback is Wikipedia:Requests for feedback. Make sure you let everyone know where to find your draft article so it can be reviewed. --Jayron32 02:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Jayron's suggestion is exactly right, however, assuming you are talking about From_Brush_and_Stone the article is being considered for deletion. A number of problems have already been identified, as someone who hels out regularly at Feedback, it is unlikely you will get much more specific advice than is already on the page. Make sure to visit this page so you can participate int he discussion. Don't hesitate to contact Orange Mike at his talk page if you want to get his specific views on what is needed.--SPhilbrickT 02:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As said above, your article has been nominated for deletion. Please don't take it personally, although I know it's hard not to since it's your hard work that's being judged. The primary issue that I can see with the article is the lack of sources which provide proof of notability of the subject(s). Your article only has one reference, and that only mentions the album in passing. It is however, a good start, since it's about Mr. Giltrap and also mentions Wakeman, albeit in passing. So don't get discouraged. So, if I may, I think your best bet is to gather as many sources as you can, of as good or better quality than the one reference you currently have, and then go the article's nomination for deletion discussion and list those references. That being said, remember that the decision as to what is notable and what isn't hinges on the quality of the verifiable sources you provide, not the quantity. If you can pass the notablity hurdle, then the matter of a neutral POV rewrite becomes trivial. Mtiffany71 (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Signatures

Hi, how do I change my signature? I changed it before, however the internal link to my user page dissapeared. All I did was add color, however in that process I took out the link to my user page. I'm not very experienced with HTML, but there has to be a simple way to change my colors without destroying the link. Thanks! Flightx52 (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing_your_signature and Wikipedia:How to fix your signature has some basic guidelines on how to customize your sig, User:Athaenara/Gallery has some examples for you to use. --Jayron32 02:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Thanks for those examples, much easier to take already made HTML than create my own. I'm Flightx52 and I approve this message 03:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding Official Social Networking Sites

I would like to add the "Official" Twitter and Facebook of a celebrity which I have written a Wiki for. However, someone has deleted them off of the external links and now there is a bot that auto removes them. According, to the rules as long as they are official and run by the article's subject they should be allowed. How can I add these links and remove the bot which keeps deleting them. I've seen so many celebrities link to their official networking sites, so I should be able to as well, right? Am I misunderstanding the rules? Gollymolly1010 (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)GollyMolly1010

Generally, "static" social networking pages, like MySpace, or a subjects official website are allowed, but we usually don't link to their Twitter or Facebook accounts. Posting a link to someones Twitter feed is functionally equivalent to posting their email address or IM handle. That is usually not done. Oh, and as a side note, don't use the word "Wiki" to refer to "Wikipedia" or "Wikipedia articles". Wiki is the type of software that runs Wikipedia. It also runs thousands of other internet sites. The correct term for what you write at Wikipedia is an "article", just like any other encyclopedia. --Jayron32 03:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks! I just wonder how all the other celebrities on Wikipedia got away with it?Gollymolly1010 (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)GollyMolly1010

If you mean "Why are there other articles at Wikipedia which don't abide by Wikipedia guideliens for good writing", then the answer is that there are 6,818,546 articles at Wikipedia, and its not possible for everyone to get checked regularly. Still, the fact that some stuff gets missed doesn't mean we shouldn't abide by guidelines once we know about them. By the by, if you are looking for the guidelines on using external links, see WP:EL. --Jayron32 03:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, one more question then I'm done (thanks for the help btw). The link you provided says "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject" So, if the Twitter and Facebook are actual pages run by the celebrity himself (thereby not making it like posting their email) would it be considered "official" enough to post? The links provide good information for anyone who wants to keep up with said celebrity and definitely could add to the informative quality of the article as they are directly related to the current projects in which he is involved. Also, what makes MySpace different from the other two sites i.e why was it acceptable to post and not the other two? The article on external links doesn't go into too much detail, so I'm still sort of gray. Thanks again for your time!Gollymolly1010 (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)GollyMolly1010

The clue is further down in the external links guideline. "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. Instead, provide only the main page of the official website in this situation." Wikipedia's purpose is to provide encyclopaedia articles about subjects, supported by citations from reliable sources. Long lists of external links that aren't associated with specific statements in the article text can end up falling foul of WP:NOTLINKFARM. Karenjc 17:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Long lists of external links that aren't associated with specific statements in the article text can end up falling foul of WP:NOTLINKFARM." Shorter Karenjc "We're not Yahoo." XD Mtiffany71 (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help guys! 98.214.102.58 (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)GollyMolly1010

Is the movie true?

Hey guys I just want to tell that is it true that there's a movie starring Robert Downey jr. where in he is reincarnate and his Mother is her wife??? if so can anybody tell me what's the name of the movie.....super thanks!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.55.162.245 (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The movie you are thinking of is Chances Are. Please note for future reference that this page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Knowledge questions may be asked at the reference desk.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Photo tag

I took a commons file and chopped it down to isolate on the retired numbers portion at Target Field: File:Target Field retired numbers.JPG. I used PD-self because that's the only tag I ever use, but that's not really right as I did not create the big picture. So what's the right tag to use? Thank you. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You could browse through Wikipedia:File copyright tags/All and see if you can find something more appropriate. --Jayron32 04:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

IP warning

Is there a template to add a warning on to a user talk page for vandalism specifically for IP addresses? Regards-Shahab (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I found {{Ip-warning}}, but I've never seen it used before. Goodvac (talk) 08:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

New Article Creation (to find information easier on a specific possible non-notable topic)

I was in search for information on a painter by the name 'Westal' (as signed on a few prints I own). I spent hours searching for the painter, and finally came up with the name Walter E. Brightwell Jr. I wanted to know more about the artist (other than all of his paintings). I came across a discussion board that gave a quick synopsis of his life: . How can we make this information more easily accessible? I went through the Article Wizard, and since I do not have access to reliable sources, was directed away from creating an article for this artist. If you view the discussion board, you will see there are others searching for information regarding him (from the previous 5 years). Please help make this information more easily accessible.

Thank you,

--Chicaloca331 (talk) 08:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I just located a Wikipedia article that mentions Brightwell a few times; would this information assist in creating an article for him?

--Chicaloca331 (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Based on what you have been able to find and what my search revealed, I don't think there is enough internet sources to write an article on him. There might be paper sources that would support an article but at this point I don't know. The Foy Wallace article does mention him but that article can not be used as a source for another article and the information about him in that article is not enough to support an article. ~~ GB fan ~~ 11:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a link [1]...Modernist (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Cheated by sales of Royal Jordanian

I'm usually travelling on RJ , business class , my wife and sons are doing same.

For me and after flying with many airlines, RJ was (and let say still the best). I’m encouraging my company staff to choose RJ. With my wife , we have fly to Chicago from Amman, upon my return to Amman I have to make some medical checkups that need delay my trip to Khartoum for two days, usually for such a case I have to pay 30 USD. This time the sale department in Amman asked me to pay 200 USD with invoice and 100 USD without invoice. It was a surprise for me since this is RJ.

During my flight from Amman to KTM ( 10th Sep. 2010, RJ 710, seat 2A) , I have written a note to RJ general manager and on the envelope I wrote (( urgent , kindly reply on my e-mail), unfortunately , I received no reply up to date 2nd Oct. 2010.

If you send me a contact means for RJ GM , it will be great

Thank you

MUWAFAQ ISMAEL IBRAHIM

PLS REPLY ME ON <emails removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.29.161.82 (talk) 10:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

(I have removed your email addresses to protect your privacy)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Offers

Please could you help.

When the Elvis Presley offer was on, I collected all the tokens for both offers and sent them off with my cheques. I have heard nothing. Is there a problem? please could you let me know, or tell me who I should contact .

Thank you R williams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.114.114 (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over three million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Locating a particular diff

Is there a good way to locate the edit which added a particular block of text? Sometimes I want to view the actual diff where some puzzling content was introduced; that way I can get a feel for what the editor intended, both via the context in which the edit was made and via the edit summary. My current strategy is to locate the diff by doing iteratitive history searches and page viewings in order to successively narrow down the year, month, week, day, and eventually find the actual diff. This is time consuming. Surely there's a better way? Riick (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I use WikiBlame for this. There are two other tools for this listed at Wikipedia:Tools#Page histories. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I use Wikiblame, which does the search almost exactly the way you describe, but it does it by itself, so you just let it run while it tracks down the originating diff. There's some options in the tool that I found non-intuitive, so please ask if you don't get it to work the way you think it should.--SPhilbrickT 14:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Advice on editing infobox templates

Hi. I'm just looking for some advice on editing infobox templates. Today, I realised that all of the articles on individual Ryder Cup tournaments since the 1979 Ryder Cup (when a European team took part for the first time) had infoboxes which listed the European team captain followed by the abbreviation "EU". Since the team represents the European Tour, not the European Union, I decided to change "EU" to "Europe" in all of the infoboxes. What I rather stupidly overlooked was that the European flag being displayed in the infobox was dependent on "EU" appearing in the team field of the template. My edits were reverted. When the problem that I had caused was pointed out to me following my question to the reverting editor here, I decided to first edit the infobox template so that the flag displayed if "Europe" was used rather than "EU", and then to re-edit all of the articles. My edit to the template was very quickly reverted, however, on the grounds that I'd "broken all the articles again". As a result of my edit, the articles would have stopped displaying the European flag until I'd edited them all individually, but I was in the process of doing that and it would only have taken a matter of a minute or so to edit them all. So, what I want to know is, was I in the wrong trying to edit the template and the articles? I realise that I messed up my original edits, but I don't see what was wrong in changing the template once it had been pointed out to me that that's what needed to happen. Of course, the articles would be "broken" for a minute or so as a result, but since it's only possible to edit one page at a time, I couldn't see a way around that. The incident has shaken my confidence a bit, particularly since the editor who reverted my edits is an adminstrator. While I've had run-ins before with inexperienced or POV editors, it's rare for me to clash with an admin. Comments are welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Template editing can carry some risk, as a mistake in a template can cause problems in many articles at once. A safer way to experiment with a template is to copy the template wikitext to a user sandbox page. You can then transclude your test copy of the template onto another user sandbox page to see the results of changing the template code in your first sandbox page. You can blow up your sandbox copy without having to worry about trashing many articles that use the real template. One you have your sandbox copy working the way you want, you can leave a note on the talk page of the real template asking other editors to look at what you did and tell you what they think. Many templates also have their own sandbox subpages, which you can create from the links at the bottom of any template page that uses the standard {{Documentation}} template (as does {{Infobox Ryder Cup}}). See Wikipedia:Template documentation#/sandbox and /testcases. As for having confidence on Wikipedia, in my experience the only way to be confident is when you are doing something you have done many times before, and you know you are following the accepted practice. When you are trying something you haven't done before, there's no telling what could go wrong. It's best to keep an open mind so you aren't surprised by all the gotchas. Everybody who edits on Wikipedia makes mistakes - and because Wikipedia is a wiki most mistakes are easy to fix. It's actually better to have your mistakes caught quickly than to have them sitting out there uncorrected for a year. --Teratornis (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I might add that testing templates is tricky because you may have to save your edits to a template before you can see how they look when you transclude the template into another page or an article. That is, sometimes the preview function isn't enough to show what your edit is going to do. For all but the most trivial changes to a template it's safest to test your changes with a sandbox copy. --Teratornis (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. The thing is though, I knew I'd got the edit to the template right. I just needed to change some parameters on the articles using it. But since I couldn't edit them all at once, that required a few minutes. My question is, was this unreasonable, and if so, how else was I supposed to proceed? Cordless Larry (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Your edit summary [2] gave no indication you were aware you broke something or was planning to fix it. Use edit summaries to explain what you do if you want to reduce the risk of being reverted, for example "temporarily breaks template uses but I will immediately fix the uses". And it's usually possible to edit templates without breaking things temporarily. The admin did that.[3] Being backwards compatible to a certain degree in template edits has other advantages. It doesn't badly break old revisions in the article histories, it doesn't break future uses of the template if other editors use the old parameter conventions they are used to, and it doesn't break things for longer than expected if your other edits are delayed or have problems. If you are unsure how to edit a template without breaking things then you can post a suggestion to the template talk page or ask for help, for example here. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

←I would say that a good rule of thumb when transitioning templates from one set of parameters to another is that you edit the template first to allow both parameters to be used, so that nothing is broken during the article update period (regardless of duration). Only after all affected articles are updated would you then go back and remove the now-extraneous original code. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I guess the lesson is that I need to investigate options for temporary half-way-house fixes to templates and learn how to use them. I still don't think it was a big problem in this case because only a relatively small number of articles use the template in question and I could fix things very quickly, but it clearly would be a problem with more widely used templates. Thanks all. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

campari

I was searching for Campari on Google - it gave me a link to this page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campari

I clicked on it and it redirects me to random search engines such as bonusmonster or http://aicse.com/ and more... it just redirects me.

If I click on "Cached" it gives me the proper Wiki page but I find it very odd that your link redirects users to a random webpage. Just for this topic in particular. I searched for other things and clicked on the wikipedia link and it was fine. Its just the Campari one.

Could you look into why it does this? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.201.65 (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any problem with Wikipedia's article on Campari, nor anything unusual in Google's search results. Perhaps you're seeing the effect of some kind of malicious code affecting your browser? Is your browser up-to-date, and are you running current anti-virus software? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 18:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

When I do a Google search it brings me to the Campari page. I vaguely recall a similar question, with a response that it was likely to be a virus at your end, but I cannot find the post at the moment.--SPhilbrickT 18:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The archive has a similar question at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2010_September_1#When_I_search_something_on_yahoo_or_google, but it did not reach a firm conclusion. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

False links like that on Google result pages is a known effect of malware on a computer although I think it's usually more or all links. There is nothing Wikipedia can do about it. Your browser never visits Wikipedia when the link is clicked. If you manually enter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campari in your browser address bar or click the link here then maybe your browser will visit the real Wikipedia page. If you hover the mouse over the link on the Google page or right click it and select the right option in your browser then maybe you can see the address your browser is actually taken to when the link is clicked. The Google search google results hijacked has many pages about the problem - but I don't know whether your browser will actually take you to those pages at the moment! PrimeHunter (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Google's Wikipededia search result for Campari gives me a working link back to WP entry for Campari. Problem's not here, it's on your box. Mtiffany71 (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You should download a 30 days free trial of AVG and then uninstall it.--141.155.156.196 (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

See the Pharming and Page hijacking articles for possible explanations of what may have happened. --Teratornis (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal Pages

This page is for a person not a public figure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebrahim_Moosa It does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability_(people), Notability,Your first article, Frequently Asked Questions/Organizations, Identifying reliable sources, and especially Conflict of interest. I hope these help. by Dr eng x (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It's best to raise those concerns on a talk page. Also, you can put {{notable|Academics|date=September 2010}} at the top of the article and put {{subst:uw-coi}} on the author's talk page. If it's blatantly non-notable try nominating it for deletion. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 20:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a whole range of template messages that can be placed at the top of an article if it has problems that need solving. A catalogue of sorts is located at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Cleanup‎. Hope this helps! --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 20:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Which cite style to use

If i'm trying to format this as a reference, since BNET is a completely online magazine, would I end up using Cite web because it is online or Cite journal because it's a magazine? Silverseren^C 20:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd use {{cite web}} because it is (I presume?) constantly updated, and save {{cite journal}} for periodicals. I suspect that's more personal preference, though, and your milage may vary! TFOWR 20:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Personally, I'd use Cite web or Cite news, since BNET isn't really a journal.

When I'm citing something like MSN news, I usually use cite web because it's all online. But if I were using something like Time magazine's website, I'd use cite news or cite magazine. In your case, I'd go with cite web. Or you could just use {{Citation}} --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 20:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The choice of citation template does not seem too critical, when more than one appears to be suitable for a given reference. Lots of articles have ugly bare references, so almost any citation template is an improvement. I just ported some of them to another wiki and saw that all the variants seem to call Template:Citation/core, which means you're basically using almost the same citation template anyway. The different citation templates share a lot of common code and parameters. You would use a particular citation template if you needed some uncommon parameters in a given reference. The other conundrum is deciding whether to mash all the parameters together on the fewest possible lines of wikitext, or spread them out one per line to make the wikitext more readable. I prefer the spread them out style, since it makes references easy to distinguish from body text in the edit window. --Teratornis (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The citation templates based on {{citation/core}} have mostly the same output, so the actual choice is not very material. The main difference is in the parameter names— {{cite web}} uses parameter names that are easier for most editors to apply to web sources, whereas {{cite journal}} uses names more suited to journals, magazines and the like.

I think Teratornis's last comment refers to horizontal format where there are no newlines between template fields and vertical format where fields appear on newlines. Both give the same output, but you should use one style throughout.

Since we have so many style options, I started a list a while back: User:Gadget850/Article style options, still incomplete. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Photo images. Puzzled.

Re:

http://www.wikipedia.com/en/Alan_Merrill

I noticed that the photo on the page for Alan Merrill, the previous photo was taken down a day or so ago for "copyright" reasons by wikipedia member "Soundvisions1". He cited that it was a Gered Mankowitz photo, a copyright infringement. Fair enough. However, on the page for Mr. Merrill's related band The Arrows there is also a Gered Mankowitz copyrighted photo that is still up of Mr. Merrill's band. I'm confused as to why Soundvisions1 would single out Mr. Merrill for photo deletion and not his band The Arrows, when both are Gered Mankowitz photos. I have replaced Alan Merrill's recently deleted photo with an image I took myself in Tokyo of Mr. Merrill on stage last January 2010. I own the image, but honestly, wikipedia don't make it easy for someone to have the image stay up very long unless one is a computer wizzard.

Please help me to keep my newly posted self produced photographic image of Alan Merrill up on wikipedia, before the wiki-bots come along and autodelete it. Your advice to a layman with little wikipedia knowledge like myself would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Van Walker (Novice, I admit, but trying!)

wikipedia member i.d.- Vanwalker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanwalker (talk • contribs) 23:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Van. We use copyrighted images in limited ways to attempt to comply with fair use law. Fair use allows images to be used for certain purposes despite being copyrighted such as for educational aims. There's a complex body of law on this and Wikipedia has distilled this down to a set of defined criteria set forth at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The issue involved here is replaceability. A person who is alive is capable of being photographed in the future so generally it is considered a violation of fair use to use copyrighted photographs of living persons. I personally have some problems with the reflexive enforcement of this in all cases. For example, it does little for an article on someone known for having been a beautiful starlet to have our photograph now, or in the future because of their current age be of them when they are eighty years old (this not uncommon seen here). In any event, pictures of many things are not replaceable, so a claim of fair use is more straightforward. In this case, a picture of all members of the Arrows is not possible because one has died. If you look at the fair use rationale template on the subject image page, under "replaceability" this is noted. Does that clear things up?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Above you signed manually instead of using our internal signing system. When you make a post like this to a discussion page all you need to do is type for tildes at the end (~~~~) which will automatically format as your signature linked to your user page with a link to your talk page and a timestamp when you save the page. Instead of typing the tildes, you can add them at the end of your post using the editing interface button that looks like this: Cheers.

What really frosts me is editors removing images which are plainly out of copyright (old stuff) and being so darned sanctimonious about it. It's almost like they are lying in wait to jump, like a bobcat from a tree branch. It is super irritating because it is not very much fun to go through the uploading process and then be told your image can't be used, even though it is plainly eligible. This has happened to me so many times that I hesitate to do any more uploading. Oh, well, thanks for letting me vent even though it is off the subject here. I shan't do it again. Yours in Wikidom, sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to clarify this quandary GeorgeLouis! Yes, I too have noted some wiki editors do view wikipedia as a kind of video game, where they look around for people who have made an unintentional technical error, and then pounce and erase their work. It would be far more productive to try to work with a novice like myself and help that person to contribute. I don't want to cause trouble or infringe copyright. But the photo of Alan Merrill was from the same 1974 photo session as The Arrows photo. So, for example, in order for the Gered Mankowitz photo of Alan Merrill to be reinstated, Mr. Merrill must first pass away like his late band mate Paul Varley? A bit extreme!! I'm smiling.

Thank you also to Fuhghettaboutit for letting me know why the Gered Mankowitz image of Alan Merrill was deleted. I have since uploaded a new photo that I took myself this year of Alan Merrill on stage in Japan. The "bots" tell me it will be taken down in a week if I don't prove it's public domain. I have tried, but the wiki links lead me around in circles. Please advise. I am not teribly internet savvy, and I certainly don't want to mess up pages with my contributions due to my lack of net tech knowledge. All the best! Sincerely, Vanwalker VanwalkerVanwalker (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

If it is your image then basically you add the template Template:pd-self to the image to show that you own the copyright and have released it. We do have a problem with users taking images from the internet or friends and claiming ownership so it is also a good idea to give as much information as you can about the image. You said you took the image in Tokyo in January 2010 which is good but the image details show it has been photoshopped which could arouse suspicion in the future. The original image will have the camera data embeded so it may be worth uploading the original image and then show that you have cropped or adjusted it. You could just leave the info you have with the pd-self but the more info the better. MilborneOne (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

People are understandably frustrated when their acceptable images get slapped with the Big Copyright Bat, but you need to bear in mind the financial and publicity implications for the Wikimedia Foundation if a copyright owner does decide to take action over a violation. Copyright law is very complex and varies with jurisdiction; few images are "plainly" out of copyright even if they are "old stuff". That's why there is no benefit of the doubt, and the onus is on the uploader to get it right, or face their image becoming collateral damage. Without an acceptable source and licence or a fair use rationale that conforms to the policy of the site to which it is uploaded, the image must go; sadly, with so many copyvios uploaded it's just not practicable to investigate each one in detail. Yes, it's one of the more complicated aspects of Wikipedia despite valiant efforts by many to make the instructions simple to navigate; yes, it's very easy to make an unintentional process error in uploading. But the bottom line is that if someone steals someone else's work and publishes it here, the matter must be addressed as quickly as possible otherwise the Foundation is complicit in the theft. Karenjc 15:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)