Help desk
< August 20	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 22 >

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.

August 21[edit]

Uploading copyrighted photos I own[edit]

I have photos that I took that I'd like to upload, but want to maintain my copyright on them. I'd like them to be used only with my attribution and a note that I own the copyright. How do I upload such images? I found the section on uploading "free images," but I don't want to load my photos as that. Please direct me to the answer or send me the info. I need. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonFisherJr (talk • contribs) 00:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia accepts images that are released under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike licence, which seems to be what you want.

If you upload the photographs at Commons, you can choose a licence. One option is Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 - that allows anyone to use the image, for any purpose, but they have to attribute the work (stating the 'author' that you enter) - that's the "Attribution" - and, any copies have to be under the same or similar license.

For more details, see Commons:Licensing. Chzz ► 00:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright question[edit]

If someone were to take a picture of a statue which was created in the 1700's is the picture in the public domain or not? Can a picture of an uncopyrighted object be copyrighted? Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can have a copyright. A photograph can almost always have copyright to it, regardless of what's in the image. ^Avic _ennasis @ 00:49, 21 Av 5771 / 00:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think the copyright status of the image has nothing to do with the statue, but only with who took the picture and when and if he or she is still alive or not. And yes, a picture of an uncopyrighted object can be copyrighted (we would normally assume that the person who took the picture is the copyright holder). If the image is still copyrighted depends on whether the person is still alive or not and if not, when he died and the copyright law of which country applies. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link photo with article[edit]

O.K., I've uploaded a photo I created and I want to link it to an article. How is this done? The article is about Market Square Arena in Indianapolis, Indiana and the photo is one of I took of MSA in 1982. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.180.171 (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you want the photo to appear in the article? First, I cannot see that you uploaded a photo at either her or commons. To insert a photo in an article you should enter [[File:PHOTO NAME.JPG (or whatever file it is in)|thumb|CAPTION]] Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The following is an example of how it works:

The code

[[File:Example.jpg]]

produces

See also Wikipedia:Picture tutorial for additional options and parameters. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It would help us if you could give us a link to the image, but in general, you would add the filename in brackets to the infobox, e.g., for Market Square Arena, you would change

| nickname          = 
| image             = 
| caption           =

to include the image name like below (using the proper file name.)

| nickname          = 
| image             = [[File:Example.jpg]]
| caption           =

Hope that helps. ^Avic _ennasis @ 01:10, 21 Av 5771 / 01:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If (as appears to be the case) you did not succede in uploading the file, see Wikipedia:Uploading images for how to upload. —teb728 t c 01:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk page template for close connection[edit]

I know I've seen a template designed for article talk pages that stated something about close connection to the article topic. I can't find it now that I want it. (I know where to find the COI template for articles, but that's not the one I want.) Cloveapple (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong but I suspect that you're looking for {{uw-coi}} or maybe {{coi-stern}}, both of which are placed on user talk pages rather than article talk pages.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions.Cloveapple (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are {{COI}} and {{Connected contributor}}. Do you mean one of those? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The {{Connected contributor}} should work for what I want. I now think the notice I was trying to re-find was somebody's unofficial creation because it was a non-standard color and was very brief. I liked it's relatively understated and neutral feeling, but with hundreds of thousands of random article talk pages to search, I doubt I'll ever see that particular page again.Cloveapple (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle on an iPad?[edit]

I've had several people tell me that I should be using Twinkle to do speedy deletions. Would using it on an iPad be reasonable? Has anybody tried that combination? Cloveapple (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't heard anything that would say it doesn't work; you just need to use something other than IE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 3, 2015[edit]

May 3, 2015: Unless more articles on Wikipedia will become featured articles, Wikipedia's Main Page will end up without any "Today's featured article" to display.

How do we prevent that "doomsday"? 123.24.96.94 (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that to be a problem, spend time getting articles to become Featured Articles, problem solved. GB fan please review my editing 10:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This claim in May 3#Events sounds rather dubious to me. The fourth entry at Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year#Style says "references to support listed entries must be found in linked Wikipedia articles" (Note however that this is only a WikiProject guideline.). I found nothing supporting this claim in the article Wikipedia. Therefore I think the statement should be removed. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it, it is a non-notable event that probably won't happen because more articles will become featured in that time. GB fan please review my editing 10:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Yellow-billed pintail" article has a serious problem[edit]

I was doing some reading on the article about the Anas genus of waterfowl birds when I clicked on the link to Yellow-billed Pintail and something disgusting and obscene came up. I can not even edit the link/direction article to fix it so someone with better knowledge or access should probably do something. Thanks for any help with this. Epf (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be related to Wikipedia:ANI#Dodo? Яehevkor ✉ 12:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its certainly possible. I don't know if anything was done to my computer but I am running Malwarebytes right now. In any case do not click on it and we need to try to get someone to delete it or at least put up a warning ASAP. Epf (talk) 12:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox → Related changes will show that {{IUCN}} was vandalized and reverted. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to bypass your cache too. Яehevkor ✉ 12:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template loop detected: User talk:George SJ XXI[edit]

The user George SJ XXI tried to archive his talk page without success. Could an administrator please revert his talk page to "as was" at start of Sunday. Many thanks. Preceding unsigned comment added by George SJ XXI (talk contribs) 12:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the page as far back as I can. When I get home, I will restore from the archive. Perhaps use a archiving bot next time? LikeLakers2 (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello can I mix ultram and naproxen[edit]

Hello can I mix Ultram with Naproxen Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.90.253 (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but we can not give medical advice. You should consult your doctor or your pharmacist. GB fan please review my editing 14:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

adding a listing to a category[edit]

i am trying to add a listing about a writer from louisiana. there are several listed there now, but i am trying to add a name and an article, how do i do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfalk67 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way to add a name to a category is to add the category to the article. For instance if you wanted to add a person to the living people category, you would add [[Category:Living people]] to the bottom of the article. GB fan please review my editing 14:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to create a brand new article on a Louisiana writer? Or are you trying to modify an article that already exists? Have you seen the page at [1] that shows the 117 writers in the "writers from Louisiana" category? (Just to be sure they aren't already there.) If those questions aren't clear just tell us the name of the author you are trying to work on.Cloveapple (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do I contact user HUGHPUGH[edit]

He/She is editing a page of a person I represent.. and is now threatening to take MY editing privileges away because I keep undoing his/her edits.. Please can someone tell me what I am supposed to do. It's getting ridiculous and they don't have a page I can contact them on — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoxyB (talk • contribs) 16:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FoxyB has been notified of our rules on COI. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User has figured out how to leave a message at User talk:Hughpugh.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo submitted for article[edit]

Ryan, Thanks for the info. about putting a photo with an article. I'm still unsure how to do that, however. Here's the photo in question: File:MarketSquareArena1982.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonFisherJr (talk • contribs) 19:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there is a problem with the copyright statement - it says, Credit will read: Photograph by Don Fisher, Jr., All Rights Reserved - we cannot allow images with copyright conditions like that (in bold); we only use images released under appropriate licences. You've chosen to release it under the GNU / Creative Commons dual licence - which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, as long as they give credit. You can't impose conditions beyond that.

So, if you accept the commons-compatible licensing, you need to edit the file page, and remove that caveat. If you are not happy to accept the licences shown on that same page, then let us know, and it can be deleted.

Now - regarding using it;

The usual syntax is, on a blank line, [[File:filename.jpg|thumb|Put a caption here]]. The word 'thumb' makes it into a standard-sized thumbnail, on the right.

For example,

[[File:MarketSquareArena1982.jpg|thumb|Market Square Arena in downtown Indianapolis, Indiana]]

~~You can see the result of that, on the right.~~^*Struck, see below. -Chzz

There are other options, but in the vast majority of cases, a standard-sized thumbnail on the right, with a caption, is the best solution; for more, see Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. For more on the copyright-side, see Wikipedia:Image use policy#Copyright and licensing. Chzz ► 19:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the photograph's display from here since, though it is at the Commons, it is not properly licensed for free use as noted above (and will be deleted from the Commons, if the license is not worked out).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; sorry, you're quite right; the copyright needs sorting out before we can use it; thanks, Fuhghettaboutit. Chzz ► 19:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. Right now this is little different than a fair use image being used outside of the article where its fair use is targeted. I just spent some time looking for a suitable template at Commons to tag this with, but I am not a regular there. I don't want to tag it for speedy deletion yet as I hope DonFisherJr will work this out soon.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is very confusing for a first-time contributor. I've found numerous photos and illustrations on Wikipedia that use this license http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content and it was my intent to use that, if possible. If not, I'll delete the image. I was just trying to help out and provide an image for people who may want to use it, with the understanding that I own it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonFisherJr (talk • contribs) 18:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Numbered and unnumbered references[edit]

Why do some articles have both numbered references and unnumbered references? Example: in Extensive reading the first six are numbered.

Why does article Central processing unit have a "Notes" section (numbered) and a "References" section (unnumbered)?

--Mortense (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Easy answer: Someone seems to have mixed up things. In Extensive reading two different citation styles seem to be used side by side. This should be avoided and consensus should be reached on which citation style to use in the article. A 'Notes' section is often used for comments to a particular inline passage of text in an article. It can also be used to specify, where in a source information is located (for example by giving page numbers as footnotes, see the article Penrose tiling for an example of this citation method). This citation method is called Harvard referencing. It seems in the article Extensive reading, someone tried to use Harvard referencing, but omitted the page numbers. Harvard referencing is a citation method, where the source is identified by the name of the author, the publication year and the page number in a footnote. This method is usually called shortened footnote referencing. When using this method, the source is identified by the name of the author, the publication year and the page number in a footnote. This short notation refers to a reference usually given in full detail in a seperate 'References' section (see WP:CT#Harvard reference and shortened footnote examples for more information). Sorry, I mixed some things up, however it should be correct now. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a mish-mash. I made some detailed comments on their talk pages. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note; anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation (WP:V). Most, currently, do not. That means they need fixing. The exact format of the refs isn't so important; as long as the reader could reasonably hope to check the facts.

What I mean is...lots of articles on Wikipedia (especially older ones) do not have specific, in-line numbered refs. They should. That doesn't mean we will remove them; it needs they need improving. Chzz ► 02:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]