Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 561

Archive 555

←

Archive 559

Archive 560

Archive 561

Archive 562

Archive 563

→

Archive 565

Copyright issues

How do I make sure that the pictures I am using for my page are actually copy written in my name, when they were taking by a church sister who was a photographer? She said that they were done for my benefit. Also, I have pictures of the CD covers I have been a part of in the past, I would like to use them within the page. Can I still do that? Let me know as soon as possible. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HillbillyGQ (talk • contribs) 05:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi HillbillyGQ. I think there are few possibilities available for you:

1. Simply ask your friend to upload the photos herself to Wikimedia Commons as her "own work"; she just needs to follow the instructions at c:Commons:Upload wizard.
2. Have your friend explicitly agree to freely license the files for use on Wikipedia as explained in Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries or c:Commons:OTRS#Declaration of consent for all enquiries. She can do this by sending in such a declaration of consent to Wikipedia:Contact OTRS for verification.
3. Have your friend officially agree to transfer copyright ownership of the photos to you as if it was some sort of "work-for-hire". I'm not sure of all the legalese that would go into such a document or whether a lawyer needs to be involved. You might be able to find out some more information here. Personally, this sounds a bit complicated to me compared to the other two, but it may be your only option if you truly want to own the photos in question.

Now for some other stuff. From your user page, it appears that you are working on a draft article about yourself yourself. While working on drafts in your userspace is not something expressly permitted, you should be advised that userpages which look like fake articles often end up deleted as a violation of Wikipedia's userpage guidelines. Wikipedia is not really a webhost or social media site and shouldn't be treated as such. Editors are allowed to post some personal information on their userpages, but only with in reason and nothing to the extent that you have done on your userpage. If this is just a draft of an article you someday hope to have added to Wikipedia, then I suggest that it be moved from your userpage to the draft namespace to avoid any misunderstanding. You can move it yourself, but moving pages can be a bit tricky for a new editor to do. So, one of the Teahouse hosts will be more than happy to do it for you, if that's what you want done.

If your userpage is a draft, then I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Notability (music), Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Wikipedia generally frowns upon editors writing autobiographies for a variety of reasons so it's important to familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines and understand what you're getting yourself into. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, HillbillyGQ. Copyright law is very complex, and I am not a lawyer. However, here are my informed opinions, offered for your guidance: There is a strong presumption that a photographer holds the copyright to any photo they take. If a written employment contract assigns the copyright to others, that may be legally enforceable, but as for a verbal agreement? The old saying is that a verbal agreement isn't worth the paper that it is written on. What happens if your "church sister" changes her mind? Or (God forbid) dies?

As for CD covers, their copyright would normally be held by the record label and/or the recording artist. If it was a group of people, then it would be unlikely for one individual person in that group to control the copyright, unless legal contracts were drafted that way. In some cases, the "star" of a musical group owns the intellectual property and the other participants are basically hired help. It all depends on the contract language. The bottom line is that Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and we do not rely on speculation regarding these matters. We need solid evidence, in writing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

does a link to another wikipedia page count as 'unsourced content'?

Hi - could I ask for some advice - Yesterday I edited the Barton-on-Sea page with "The village gives its name to the Bartonian age of the Eocene epoch of geological time." This was reverted as 'unsourced content'. I would have thought that the links to other wikipedia pages would count as 'sourced content'? Should I undo the deletion, and if so, what message should I use to explain this to the other editor? (My instinct is to make contact with the other editor but I wanted to clarify the 'wikipedia links' point before doing that)

Many thanks Gilgamesh4 (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gilgamesh4. Wikipedia articles aren't considered reliable sources for other Wikipedia articles because of the risk of circular referencing and the possibility that inaccuracies, once introduced into one article, will spread through the encyclopedia and become difficult to challenge. Please see WP:USERGENERATED on this, and the page Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources more generally on what type of source you should cite instead. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

In this specific case, if the material was supported by a reference in the other article, Bartonian, then the solution would be to check and use that reference. However, it seems to be unsourced there too. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I want to publish an article about a real estate builder

I tried to publish an article for this builder but Wikipedia refused to accept it. What can I do for it?(Malikjahanzaibsohail (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. In the feedback on your user talk page and on your draft (User:Malikjahanzaibsohail/sandbox) there is plenty of advice. The words in blue are wikilinks to where more detailed information is available. You also ought to read WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Malikjahanzaibsohail/sandbox doesn't appear to be about a real estate company, though. Could you clarify, Malikjahanzaibsohail? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

edit not showing

hi, i added a person to Notable People but it doesn't show. this is my first edit. i went thru the whole process ok so i thought. what gives? thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martinsville,_New_Jersey Naiadescoven (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The explanation for the reversion of your edit can be seen in the edit summary, which is visible in the history of the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Adding languages

How can I add a language? Irulan27 (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Irulan27. It's not exactly clear what you mean by "add a language". Do you mean add a link to a version of an article in a non-English language, like those that appear on the left of the article (when viewing the non-mobile version of Wikipedia)? TimothyJosephWood 17:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Massive deletions without discussion

Ok, admittedly this is a personal beef of mine and part of the reason I recently moved my wikipedia activity under my own name rather than an alias but...

There was just a massive edit labeled "removed original research, personal essay type thing" on Knowledge representation and reasoning the where the user slashed what was admittedly not the best written content, and I don't think it was a bad edit on the whole but should there not be some discussion on any edits larger than say 2000 characters? Or where entire sections are being deleted?

This is not the best example of what I disapprove of but it's the edit I happened to catch within a short time of it being done. All too often I see large sections of Wikipedia articles redacted without discussions, pages nominated for deletion before they can get started, and other reductionist activity that I don't believe is in the best interest of Wikipedia or being done by people with enough knowledge of the subject matter. Jeffery Thomas 06:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jeffery Thomas and welcome to the Teahouse.

Welcome to the concept of Be Bold, Revert, Discuss. Since it's sometimes unclear whether there is anyone currently interested in any particular article, it is accepted procedure to start out by (Boldly) making an edit. If someone thinks the edit is incorrect, they are free to Revert. Both the original edit and the revert should be accompanied by an edit summary that allows other editors to see what thinking lay behind the edit. After a revert, the disagreeing editors should Discuss the article content on the article's Talk page. This process works for both large edits and small. Any editor can start the discussion on the Talk page, it can be someone other than the initial editor and the reverting editor.

This may be what concerns me the most about these massive edits. As I said... I don't necessarily disagree with this particular edit but if you are going to cut a massive amount out of any article would it not be good form to have a discussion first? Jeffery Thomas 17:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Adding additional limits for large edits might be counterproductive. When a large edit is unexplained, it generally is looked at more carefully by other editors who have the page on their watchlist or who are participating in the Recent Changes Patrol activity. "Section blanking" and "references removed" edits are tagged in the various history displays to help draw attention to them. But if the edit had to wait in a queue for an explicit review, that would likely result in a backlog.

The Wikipedia position on "original research" is one that some editors find to be an unbearable constraint. The person who added that "original research, personal essay type thing" may be one of these. It was very thinly sourced and - without being a subject area expert - I can see why BrianPansky decided it should be removed.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Again BrianPansky's edit was a bad example but it was the big edit that caught my attention that day. Jeffery Thomas 17:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

26(F)Program

Looking for any information on 26(F)Program a Financial Program2601:CF:8101:3D3:F536:351F:6F14:A9CC (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey there. I think maybe the better place to ask this may be at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. The Teahouse is more for questions about editing Wikipedia, and not necessarily the best place to ask broad topical questions. TimothyJosephWood 18:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi- protected articles

If the article is semi protected, how can suggest an improvement to the article? Please answer, it would be appreciated.HLC (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Just suggest the edit on the talk page as you have already done. You will soon be able to edit these articles yourself, but please read WP:Reliable sources. Dbfirs 20:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

To expand, as you make more edits in Wikipedia, you'll automatically be placed into a usergroup that allows you to make edits to semi-protected pages. Pages are often semi-protected to reduce vandalism from unregistered users. Until then, use the Talk page as stated above. Justin15w (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Editing on Page - Corrections and Revisions

Hello... I created a page for a person that is pretty notable in the online space blogger/trader. I was surprised to see he didn't already have a wiki page as he has been on TV etc. I would like to know if someone could help and check it for errors and make any suggestions?

Thank you

Camilo

190.158.87.199 (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Camilo. Have you considered creating an account? The benefits of doing so are outlined at Wikipedia:Why create an account?. As to your question, I presume that this refers to Marcello Arrambide. There are a couple of issues with the article that I can see. First, the tone isn't quite right in places (e.g. "He's been traveling around the world, while making money day trading in the U.S. stock market, and has even visited Antarctica"). We tend to avoid using contractions here on Wikipedia, and "has even visited Antarctica" makes that sound rather remarkable, when it's best to just report neutrally that he has visited Antarctica. See Wikipedia:Writing better articles for further advice on tone. The second issue is notability. That word has quite a specific definition on Wikipedia, namely that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. I'm not convinced that the sources you've cited so far demonstrate this. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the article history, I see that you have created an account, Camilo123Sanchez. Please remember to sign in while editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello yes.. I have created an account just forgot to login. Still new with to Wikipedia. I copied and paste that quote from the news site. That isn't permitted. Thank you for the help

Camilo123Sanchez (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

You can copy and paste short quotes from source, but you need to put them in quote marks as well as citing the source to avoid plagiarism, Camilo123Sanchez. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

repeated reversion of edit on David Bowie

Hi, I am wondering why my edit of "The Buddha of Suburbia" continues to be reverted. My first source was a link to the artist's liner notes on the album, my second was a press release issued upon the re-release of the album in 2007, from David Bowie's official website. There is also a Wiki entry for the album which corroborates my edit. Not sure why this relatively minor edit is turning into a weird back and forth. The album is very different from the rather abbreviated soundtrack David Bowie created for the series (except for the original track). Has anyone seen the BBC series and listened to the album? They're not the same. Maybe an editor needs to listen to the music? Also, it's unclear to me why my complete edit is reverted. As I've written before, I've certainly clarified the info on the tv series, which is helpful information, and this has also been wiped repeatedly. I found a different source, using a PopMatters review of the re-release in 2007. PopMatters is not a blog, as I'm sure the editors realize, but an online cultural mag which has been in operation since 1999. And I have again been reverted arbitrarily, which I've undone (again). I requested that the editor come to the Talk page, although there has been no response. This time the editor states that PopMatters isn't a valid source. PopMatters is reliable and has its own Wiki entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PopMatters The album in question also has a Wiki entry which supports my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Buddha_of_Suburbia_(soundtrack) I would appreciate clarification on the editing going on -- do these editors know the rather obscure record in question? I sincerely doubt it. Sreedb (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Sreedb. You have done the correct thing in this instance, which is to start a discussion on the article's talk page regarding the edit. I have every confidence that user:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and user:GaryGill will respond there soon. TimothyJosephWood 14:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to note a couple of other things, Sreedb: first, just because Wikipedia has an article about a source, doesn't mean that that source is considered reliable (consider The Daily Sport, for example); second, you write that "The album in question also has a Wiki entry which supports my edit", but Wikipedia articles aren't considered reliable sources for other Wikipedia articlces, as explained at WP:USERGENERATED. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

...which isn't to say that I consider PopMatters to be unreliable. I have previously assumed that it is a reliable source, but can't say I've done much research into the matter. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

"Valid" and reliable are two distinct concepts. Reliable sources will have reputation and policy that indicates the information they provide is subjected to a vetting process. John from Idegon (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your advice. The editors who have been consistently reverting my edit have yet to respond on the David Bowie talk page. But another editor has helped tremendously and it appears from the Reliable Sources archive that PopMatters is a reliable source, so my edit may be restored in the next few days if there are no naysayers. I am a new editor and I appreciate any and all assistance. Sreedb (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Way to request help/attention on article('s talk page)

Is there any template i can use to alert "people" to do a check on an article i might need to be checked for general things and possible re-evaluations of certain template messages or wikiproject classifications? Finding other people interested in providing content etc. for said subject can be next to impossible and random checks are...well, random.

Article in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Re-ALBUM

Thanks in advance! Elronor (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Elronor. I think a lot of that depends on what exactly you would like done. For example, if you would like the article copyedited a request can be made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. If you are just looking for others interested in the general subject area for input, you can try posting at a related project like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music.

I'm not sure if this really answers your question though, so if you would like to ask a follow up I'm sure myself or another editor will be happy to help if we can. TimothyJosephWood 17:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Elronor, you can also use the Template:Reply to feature to notify specific individuals (for example, those who have already contributed on the article's Talk page). A simple way to do this is adding {{reply to|<username>}} or {{Yo|<username>}} or {{u|<username>}} to your question. Justin15w (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Thanks for the replies Timothyjosephwood and Justin15w, i think i got everything i need now, much appreciated! --Elronor (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

how do I submit an entry (article) to Wikipedia

I want to write an article for Wikipedia. How do I submit it? What is the process?24.193.114.253 (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Please read the advice at WP:Your first article. I have removed your signature from the section heading; the right place for the signature was at the end of your message, where you'd placed it again. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Preventing users adding links to articles.

Hi, What is the recommended method to prevent users repeatedly adding links on an article to their own website?

Davebrown1975 (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Davebrown1975. First off, I would recommend warning the user using the {{Uw-spam1}} template (and, if appropriate, others in that escalating series of warnings). If that doesn't do job, then you can report the user at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (if they keep adding the links to the same article, despite being reverted) or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could request page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Davebrown1975 For the vast majority of cases you would need do nothing but what Cordless Larry advises above. In rarer circumstances, where a link is being persistently spammed across the project and blocking and protection are ineffective, you might request blacklisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, after first reading Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. For links being persistently spammed not just here but in other language Wikipedias and other Wikimedia projects, there's the m:Spam blacklist. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your advice.

Davebrown1975 (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I've used the template in the users talk page as advised. I never knew this existed, there's a lot to learn on wikipedia. Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction, much appreciated.

Davebrown1975 (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

For future reference, there's a list of these sorts of templates for all sorts of issues at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, Davebrown1975. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Help Me to remove deletion from my article

Hello Sir,

This is Amit Kumar Sharma, working for Cash Suvidha. I have submit article for my company profile but now my article considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy, so what i can do to remove this deletion policies. I have mention all my coverage detail on my article. So please suggest me any option that will suitable for me. I have mention all valid details is this article for any other information please check our website www.cashsuvidha.com.

Please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmitKumarSharma001 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The first thing you need to do is to make the appropriate declarations, see WP:Conflict of interest and WP:Paid editing. After that you should read WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Since the article is at WP:AFD you need to discuss the article on the discussion page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cash Suvidha. Before you go there and enter into that discussion, you really do need to pay attention to the information in the link above, WP:Your first article. You should also read the guideline we have for determining if a company meets the standards to have an article, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). What the deletion will come down to is if the article can show the company meets that guideline. - GB fan 11:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page Disclaimer

Hello,

I want to start off by saying that you guys are doing a fantastic job.

I have been editing a Wiki page and have added a lot of relevant information.

However, there is a disclaimer on the top that questions the notability and just does not seem to go away.

What can I do to make sure that the disclaimer disappears?

This is the link of the page that I have been editing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suresh_Rangarajan

Thanks and Regards....

Nivedita Ranit (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nivedita Ranit. Those messages are added and removed from articles manually (see the Learn how and when to remove this template message link that's part of the template), and can be removed once the issue concerned has been addressed. Incidentally, most of the recent work on the article has been done by Avinaskm. Just to check, is that also your account (because you say that you have added a lot of information, but it appears to be Avinaskm who has added it)? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

To expand on this, the "disclaimer" posted up top is usually a template placed at the very beginning of the article - in your instance it is: {{notability|Biographies|date=September 2014}}. Removing that line would remove the message. Hope this helps and thanks for your contributions! Justin15w (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Larry and Justin

Thank you so much for your feedback and the swift responses.

To answer your question Larry, Avinas is a part of my team. I was in charge of collecting the information and he did the uploading.

However, we still haven't figured out how to get rid of the disclaimer. What sentence should I remove to get rid of the notability issues? Nivedita Ranit (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

You won't solve the notability issue by removing content, Nivedita Ranit. What you need to do is demonstrate that the subject of the article has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. When you say that Avinaskm is part of your team, are either of you being paid to edit this article? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

How to post a definition from a book.

I would like to upload a definition of a new term relevant to my research area, so that people can easily find it. I am citing the definition from a book I wrote. Wikipedia rules indicate "copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable". However, this prohibits including any definitions, since they normally must be cited exactly as they are without modification to avoid misinterpretation. How is this addressed by Wikipedia?Skounev (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Skounev. Usually definitions are sufficiently short, and essiential as the definition, that they qualify under Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and can be added to articles without violating copyright. This is, though, for most definitions, and for example, if this was a very technical subject, and the definition required a half-page quote, then it's probably not allowed. Otherwise you should be good, just attribute the quote and add a references to where you got it from and you should be fine as far as copyright goes.

However, after all that, if you are adding content from a book you yourself have written, you should review guidance on self published sources (see WP:SELFPUBLISH), and take care to abide by them in your editing. Depending on the area you're editing in, and the type of edits you are doing, it may be seen as a conflict of interest, or self-promotional, which are against policy, and could result in...unwanted attention. TimothyJosephWood 18:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Timothy! This was very helpful. I will follow your advice.Skounev (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

(semi)protected articles

So, I was getting to the point of almost thinking I was beginning to understand wp, when I read below about semi-protected pages, and thus figure that there must be protected pages, and, more disturbingly, fnding out that other users can apparently modify images that I post. That is NOT cool! I don't mind if people use my images. I don't care if they copy, modify and "repost" my images under a different filename, but being able to modify images made by someone else and save those changes under the same file name is completely uncool. Please tell me I'm mistaken, or tell me how to protect my images against editing. Thanks. DennisPietras (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I don't understand what the issue is. It is very hard to modify an image using normal Wikipedia software. I agree that modifying an image that someone else has posted is "uncool". Text is a different matter. What is the issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:A previous question to the teahouse "modifying someone-else's image" seems to indicate that it is possible to edit somebody else's image. I really don't want that hanging over my head. Not that I plan to upload anything controversial, but still, it would be so uncool to have something done like the other questioner asked about. Since asking my question originally, I did more research. It seems that I want to request upload protection. Is that routinely granted to the image authors? Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

On several occasions I have updated an image that I uploaded to Commons, mostly when I found that it didn't display properly (poor cropping, colour balance, etc). It's just a matter of replacing the old image with a new version (i.e. a new file). I haven't tried it with an image that somebody else uploaded, but I expect it would work; after all, isn't that precisely what I agreed to when I released it? If you like, try it with one of mine that's not used in article, say File:Aust Skeptic Con 2014 FitzSimons3.JPG and let us know what happens... --Gronk Oz (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz:I do NOT believe I signed up for that when I released it. CC4.0 states "Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform the work and make derivative works and remixes..." It does NOT say that somebody can alter the image and save it with the same file name!!! I'm almost thinking that I may have stumbled upon somethng fairly profound here. I haven't pinged the user (C***B****) that asked the original question, but how could anybody think it was cool to edit somebody else's image and save it as the same file??? How could wp let such a system develop???? smh. DennisPietras (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

User:DennisPietras - I think that you did sign up for that when you released it if you released the image under the CC-BY-SA copyleft. That's what you signed up for. Maybe you have stumbled onto something profound, but I think that is what you signed up for. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz:@Robert McClenon: So, I read copyleft. It covers "the practice of offering people the right to freely distribute copies and modified versions of a work". That does not give people the right to alter the image and save it as the same filename! People can modify it and distribute the modifications, but they can't change the original file, IMHO. So, I tried to modify the image above. I downloaded it onto my computer. Using paint, I put a red ? at the bottom right. Saved it with the same filename. Tried to upload it to en wiki. Got this error message:

"Upload error

A file with this name exists at the Wikimedia Commons. You can:

go back and upload this file to Wikipedia using a different name.

upload it to Commons, if your intent is to replace the image that already exists with a better version."

So, I tried to upload it to the commons. Got this

I still tried to upload it. Didn't get another error message, but the file I see still doesn't have the red? on it. Maybe there's a time delay. Maybe somebody experienced could have gotton it done while this newbie can't. In any case, I can't believe that wp would let somebody get that close to altering an image. If you want to try it yourself, I offer one of my files - File:ConvergEvoEyesjpg.jpg - that I composed for a section of the convergent evolution page, which I haven't yet incorporated into the page, so feel free to try to edit and overwrite it. I, however, am going to bed, with the vision of thosee eyes lookiing at me... DennisPietras (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@DennisPietras: I'm pretty sure that by freely uploading a file to Commons, you are in essence agreeing in advance to allow anyone anywhere download your image for any purpose they want, including for commercial reasons, and that this would include updating the file on Commons. Moreover, you can't really revoke this type of license after the fact. Try and remember that Wikimedia sites like Wikipedia and Commons are set up to allow anyone anywhere in the world to edit them at anytime and advance permission is not required. There are certain types of CC licenses which allow for certain things to be required such as attribution, etc., but I don't think you can really prevent another editor from editing file just because you don't want others editing your work. Commons like Wikipedia has a way to protect its pages to various degrees as explained in c:COM:PROTECT. If you think your uploads meet the conditions for protection, ask for assistance at c:COM:AN/P.

One hard to notice but actually quite important difference between freely licensed/public domain images and non-free images is that previous versions of the former are not eventually deleted per WP:F5 and thus can easily be reverted back to as needed like I did here at File:Aust Skeptic Con 2014 FitzSimons3.JPG (sorry about that Gronk Oz). Ideally, anyone updating one of your files should explain why they made the update. If you disagree with them, you can just revert back to the previous version and then try to engage them in discussion on the file's talk page or a user talk page. Generally, any substantial change to the original file (a major crop job, format, etc.) or a completely different file altogether is not really considered an "update" and should instead be uploaded separately as a new file. A minor tweaking (for example, removing a red-eye, or a slight straightening, etc.) probably is OK. Unless you are absolutely positive the update was a form of vandalism, you should not engage in edit warring even over your own uploads because that is likely going to be seen as disruptive and could lead to your account being blocked by a Commons administrator. I'm pretty sure that the Wikimedia Foundation's wmf:Terms of Use are the same for all its projects, and every time you click a "Save changes" button or uploading files you are basically agreeing to these terms. So, if you're finding it hard to accept that kind of thing, then maybe Wikipedia, etc. is not really the ideal place for you.

Finally, File:Overwrite.PNG is not really your "own work" and shouldn't be licensed as {{self}}. The file should probably be moved to Commons (See Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons and tag it as c:Template:Wikimedia screenshot instead since it technically is not really a Wikipedia screenshot per se. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

DennisPietras: editors can, and frequently do, modify images that have been uploaded to Commons by other editors. I recently modified one myself, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USA_Virginia_location_map.svg . To modify an image, you don't try to re-upload it with the same name; that won't work, as you have found. Instead you go to the Commons page for the image and click on the link that says "Upload a new version of this file". This does not destroy the older versions, they are still there (as you can see on the page I linked to), and can be reverted to, as with an edit to the text of an article. Maproom (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

DennisPietras, you ask "how could anybody think it was cool to edit somebody else's image and save it as the same file?". Well, I would if it improved or updated the image. In the past, I've uploaded charts of annual immigration rates. If, when new data becomes available, someone adds that data to the chart and uploads the new version under the same name, then it will instantly appear in all of the articles that I added the original file to. That's a lot better than me or someone else having to edit those articles to replace the old with the new file name. I also don't see how modifying an image in the same location is any different from modifying text in an existing article - i.e. we don't create a new article with a new name every time we modify an existing article's text. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

In fact, I can recall occasions where I've thought it "not cool" when someone has modified an image and uploaded it with a new name, as that's meant that it didn't show up on my watchlist and I wasn't aware that a new version of the file had been made until I discovered it by accident. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@DennisPietras: Your change to File:Aust Skeptic Con 2014 FitzSimons3.JPG did get uploaded successfully - then it was quickly reverted by Marchjuly because it was not a legitimate improvement. If you go to the link of the file, you can scroll down to see the history of all three versions of the file - the middle one has the question mark. So that answers one part of the question: it is technically possible to do it. That leaves the ettiquette of whether it is "cool" to do, and it sounds like opinions differ.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I accept that updating immigration data is cool, as is all good faith wiki editing. What I worry about is a zealot Creationist taking an image like mine about evolution and editing it to have the words "God created this, isn't he great?" appear over the image. I'm going to request that my images be upload protected. We'll see what happens. And, yes, I know that the overwite image wasn't mine, but it was for research, teaching or criticism, so I think it was OK. If anybody thinks not, feel free to ask for it to be deleted. On to my next question. So much to do, so little time. Thanks everybody. DennisPietras (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Now that I've have had time to see my red? on a previous version of the image and process mentally all that has gone on, I realize that wp does not allow violation of what I considered my CC4.0 license, because wp does NOT really allow somebody else to overwrite my image! wp is just allowing somebody else to replace my image, even though the replacement appears to have the exact same filename. After looking at URLs, I see that what I did to Gronk Oz's image was REALLY to add a new image to wikipedia with a different pathname (the new pathname ending in the original filename) and wp automatically replaced the image on the filename page with my newly pathnamed image. I find the nuts-and-bolts of this process way cool, and no longer think it violates my CC4.0 rights, but I still think in almost all instances it is uncool to do. DennisPietras (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Linking in table format

Hi,

How do I link to other internal pages when the words are inside a table? Thanks! Capolitico (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

You can just link to other pages the way you normally would (e.g. [[Link title]]). —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

can wp link to video? How?

The article cohesin needs a lot of work. There is an NIH videocast at https://videocast.nih.gov/Summary.asp?Live=19896&bhcp=1 that discusses cohesin with a way cool animated presentation from 1:03:45 to 1:05 time marks. Is there some way to have a link from the cohesin page to the total video? Even better, is there some way to link to the 1:03:45 mark of the video? Best would be a link to the segment 1:03:45 to 1:05, then redirect back to the article, but I'm thinking that is beyond my wildest dreams. Thanks for any advice. DennisPietras (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

duh, well, clearly since I just discovered that by inserting the URL in this question it does generate a link, so now the question is whether the link can be to a specific time. DennisPietras (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@DennisPietras: I'm not sure of a way to link to a specific point in a video - that is a question you my want to ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) - but you can assist the reader by using the citation template {{Cite AV media}} which as one of the parameters has the ability to set the time within the citation (Template:Cite AV media#In-source locations) in much the same way as {{Cite book}} allows you to specify the page(s) within the book. Nthep (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the issue is more at the source end than the Wikipedia one. As DennisPietras notes below, it's possible to get a URL from YouTube for a video to start at a specific time, but I'm not sure all video hosting sites support this. It might be worth contacting the NIH webmasters, Dennis. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

wow! I just discovered that if you are watching a youtube video, hover your mouse over the video, right click, you get the option to "copy the video URL at the current time", and it magically works! UNfortunately, that doesn't work on the NIH videocast player. Lots of nih vids are on the NIHvcast youtube channel, but the one mentioned above is too new. sigh. Still, you can copy a youtube URL at a specific time! Time to celebrate! DennisPietras (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@DennisPietras: for both YouTube and NIH videos, please also include the time that has the content that your citation supports in the {{Cite AV media}} template, e.g. {{Cite AV media|time=1:10–1:15}} – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Ian Watkins picture mistake

I tried to upload a right side picture on Ian Watkin's page but copied and pasted the example link e can someone take it down please?

BPJones90 (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done. You can always do this yourself in the future by using the article history to find an old version to revert to. See WP:REVERT for more details. --Jayron32 21:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Written article - how to submit for review?

I haven written an article on my user page, but cannot see where or how to submit it for review and publication.

Thank you.

GeneosaGeneosa (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Geneosa, and welcome to the Teahouse. I've added a submit button here on your userpage. However, you should work with the draft, in particular referencing, to bring it up to standard. Please read Wikipedia:Your first article, if you haven't already, and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I've moved your draft to User:Geneosa/sandbox, as your user page wasn't the right place for it (see WP:user page). I would heartily endorse the recommendations above, to read WP:YFA and WP:REFB. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

URLs with vertical bars (|)

How do I reference a URL with vertical bars in the source editor? As the | is used to separate fields, the editor misinterprets the | in the URL and gives me error messages. Is there a way I can circumvent this problem? 1618033golden (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi 1618033golden, welcome to the Teahouse. You can url encode it as %7C. See more at Help:URL#Fixing links with unsupported characters. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

ping vs u vs yo

Are all three completely equivalent? If so, "u" is going to be my choice! Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @DennisPietras: they are effectively equivalent. Ping and Yo are both just redirects to {{Reply to}}, so they are exactly identical. U is a shortcut for {{User link}}, which is also the same except that it does not put @ before and a colon (:) afterwards. So in practice, I generally treat them all the same. One subtlety to note: they only work if you remember to sign your entry with the four tildes ("~~~~~") - you have been very good at doing this, but if it ever does not work that's the most likely reason. --Gronk Oz (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S. @DennisPietras: If you're bored, you can read more about this at Wikipedia:Notifications - see the section on "Triggering events". --Gronk Oz (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz:Bored??? I used to be bored, but not anymore! I've become a wikipediaddict! And, if nobody has ever used that term before, I want credit!!!!!!! Darn, I just found it on urban dictionary. sigh. DennisPietras (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi DennisPietras. If I post Hi {{u|DennisPietras}}, it looks like "Hi DennisPietras". On the other hand, if I post Hi {{ping|DennisPietras}}, Hi {{yo|DennisPietras}} or Hi {{reply to|DennisPietras}}, then it looks like "Hi @DennisPietras:", "Hi @DennisPietras:", and "Hi @DennisPietras:" respectively, which all look the same because they are all the same template. regardless of which template you use, the username you add has to be "correct" and include any spaces, capitalization, underscores, etc. for the template to work as intended. Some editors customize their signatures to look a certain way, but their username maybe something completely different.

As GronkOz pointed out above, notifications will only work when the post they are used in is signed at the time of use. They won't work if they are added after the fact to a previously signed post or to a post which is signed after the fact. Another thing to keep in mind is that some editors really find the whole notification thing to be quite annoying and have disabled this feature in their user preferences. Many editors prefer to keep track of discussions using their watchlist, so simply adding a notification template does not automatically mean the intended person will be notified. Moreover, editors are not obligated in anyway to respond to notifications, requests, etc.. So, if you ping someone and they don't respond, then either leave it be or post something on their user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Be careful with that Wikipediadddiction. It can lead to WikiHomelessness, which is of course, the opposite of being a Wikipedian in residence. TimothyJosephWood 11:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I actually chuckled out loud when I read this and the FBDB page! Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@DennisPietras: {{User WikipediAddict}} was created in 2007. The more common term is Wikipediholic (created in 2001 like Wikipedia itself, we got people hooked from the start). WP:WHAAOE as they like to say at Wikipedia:Reference desk. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox musician in German

I am creating a German page for my piano teacher .He is one of the quite influential musicians of North Rhine-Westphalia in Germany, but i have the problem in creating the infobox in German, Because there is no character like Infobox Musiker so, can you please help me with this. Awaiting, for the answer Rupesh319 (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Rupesh319. Having looked at a sampling of random German Wikipedia articles on musicians, and noticing none of them had infoboxes, and then looking at German featured articles on musicians and seeing none in any of them either (as opposed to German featured articles on bands), I am fairly certain there is must be consensus not to use infoboxes in them. You could always ask at de:Wikipedia:Redaktion Musik. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Rupesh319. With a little more time to look now, I have located for you some of the past discussions (yes, the German Wikipedia rejects by consensus infoboxes for musical artists and deleted their version of Template:Infobox musical artist). See de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Redaktion Musik/Archiv/015#Infobox Musiker and de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Redaktion Musik/Archiv/016#Infobox Musiker und Andy Biersack. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

What is the purple box at the base of articles?

Hi, I am following the Hybrid Air Vehicles HAV 304 Airlander 10 page as I work here (already mentioned on my talk page). As an inexperienced editor I was rather shouted down a few months ago but I do like to flag it hen facts are wrong.

Recently a perple box with odd allusions has appeared at the base. What is it and can anyone edit it / make suggestions? If I want to suggest a change rather than outright edit do I start a discussion in the talk page?

Thanks, Philbobagshot (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Please provide a wikilink to the article about which you are talking. Hybrid Air Vehicles HAV 304 Airlander 10 doesn't have any purple box. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Philbobagshot. The purple box is Template:Hybrid Air Vehicles, and like most things on Wikipedia, anyone can edit it, although special care should be taken on templates as making a breaking change will break the template on every article it's used on. As with articles, editors with a conflict of interest should use {{Requested edit}} or similar avenue for requesting changes to pages they have a conflict regarding. TimothyJosephWood 17:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Am I going colour-blind? Is that really purple? It looks blue to me. Or is it governed by some preferences which are set differently? --David Biddulph (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's looks purple to me. Probably something on your end that's making it look blue. JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks kinda light blue to me. Maybe we need an RFC to get consensus on it? Joseph2302 (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I would call it Periwinkle (color). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm voting with Cullen... although when the box is expanded I also see some Lavender mist. Gab4gab (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I hate to complicate matters further, but... Cordless Larry (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328 is right. The default title background is defined with the below in MediaWiki:Common.css. Periwinkle (color) says "also called lavender blue". PrimeHunter (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

.navbox-title {
    background: #ccccff;      /* Level 1 color */
}

Welcome to the Teahouse, Philbobagshot. That box is called a navigation template. You can read more about these at Wikipedia:Navigation template. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all your explanations and please accept my apologies for my appalling spelling as I was in a rush. I will follow your advice. I also agree that the Navigation Box is lavender! Philbobagshot (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Creating a new page

I would like to create a new page for a temple which has potential to become tourist attraction in Bangalore, India. How do I create a new page?Hebbarrk (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hebbarrk and welcome to the Teahouse. If you would like to create an article, I recommend you use Articles for Creation. It helps you get started and it gives more experienced authors a chance to provide you some help and guidance. Good luck, I'll be following your progress. Best wishes Flat Out (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Please also review Wikipedia:Golden rule to get an idea of what is expected for an article to be deemed acceptable for main article space. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Remove the half page

I wanted to create a page for music teacher and somehow it didn't work but some of the information that i have written is still visible on internet though i tried to delete the page so can you please remove the whole page of "Herbert Krey" it is odd to see half page with information. so , please do me this favour Rupesh319 (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Herbert krey has been deleted once from Wikipedia, and Herbert Krey deleted four times (including twice yesterday) as you have kept continually recreating it. If you have found either of the pages elsewhere on the internet (on mirrors of Wikipedia), that isn't Wikipedia's responsibility, and you need to remember that when you made each edit you agreed to Wikipedia's Terms of Use, including that "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." --David Biddulph (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

How can I protect a wikipedia article?

How can I protect a wikipedia article? Monamour14 (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Monamour14. In some circumstances, various levels of protection may be applied to an article in accordance with Wikipedia:Protection policy. However, this is rarely if ever done in cases where there is not persistent and/or egregious vandalism or disruptive conflicts between users that should not otherwise be solved by blocking one or both of those involved. Protection should never be applied preemptively, or simply to protect one user's preferred version of an article.

If you come across an article that needs protection, you can request it at WP:RFPP. However, if it does not fall under the above policy, your request will be denied. TimothyJosephWood 13:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Monamour14, and welcome to the TeaHouse. If you are referring to P.I and its nomination for deletion, then you should explain your case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P.I. In doing so, be sure to address the specific concern raised when the article was nominated for deletion: the lack of independent sources to support the article.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, only administrators can protect articles. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:INDEX

In what cases would user or user talk pages be indexed? RedPanda25 16:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, RedPanda25. By default (meaning without any templates added by the user), userpages are indexed and user talk pages are not indexed. In order to override the preference, you can add {{NOINDEX}} to a userpage or {{INDEX}} to a user talk page. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, Finnusertop. Actually, my question was in what cases would {{INDEX}} be used on a user talk page? RedPanda25 14:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

In those cases when you want it to be indexed by external search engines for some reason, RedPanda25. Even popular user talk pages, such as Jimbo's, are not indexed, so this isn't something that's done often. I would imagine user talk pages almost invariably contain discussions that are useful for only a limited number of people, and only for a moment. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

CAPTCHA not working

I want to make an edit, and it asks me to answer a CAPTCHA. but all i see is a broken picture! Verthelion (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Verthelion. I really don't have a good answer for you, but since no one else has attempted, I would only say that my first step personally would be to try a different browser and make sure that or one of the related plugins isn't causing problems. Hopefully someone will come along with a better answer soon. TimothyJosephWood 18:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Verthelion: Images on Wikipedia (including CAPTCHAs) were not loading reliably about an hour ago, but they seem to be loading properly now. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Citing a Webinar?

I'm looking to cite some information I found in a webinar--i.e., a video shown online that's accompanied by a quiz that enables viewers to earn continuing education units from a professional accrediting organization.

I think it's safe to assume the video is a reliable source, since it was approved for official CEUs and because it is of a US National Institutes of Health researcher explaining research that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Would the speaker's statements that aren't included in the NEJM article be considered reliable?

Also, would I use guidelines for citing videos? Is there an official guideline? I found this, but it's not official.

Thanks. Kekki1978 (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Kekki1978. There is, as far a I am aware, no other specific guidance for videos other than the essay you link to. At the heart of it, you'll probably have to use your best judgement using the types of criteria we use to judge the reliability of all sources, WP:RS. If someone questions the source then you'll have to make your best argument at that point why it should be acceptable.

You may also want to check out Template:Cite AV media which is probably the best thing to use for citing videos. TimothyJosephWood 18:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Kekki1978, is there enough information in the webinar that you could cite the presenter's sources? That would probably be the best solution. John from Idegon (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

H2AFZ aliases. Should there be redirect pages?

Here's a simple one. Page H2AFZ lists several aliases. It seems that if you search for one of the aliases, the wp search engine does find the H2AFZ page. What is the wp policy? Is it preferred to have redirect pages made for each alias, or just let the search engine do the work? The one advantage I can see to having redirect pages is that would prevent duplicate pages from being started. Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey DennisPietras. Full guidance can be found at Wikipedia:Redirect. But in a nutshell, if it's a reasonable search term, and it doesn't potentially interfere with another article, it's usually alright to create a redirect. If someone wants to replace that redirect later with an actual article, it's usually fairly simple to get done, so no harm. Problems usually only arise when redirects are made from things that don't make much sense as a search term, or are just plain silly, of which there have been plenty to be sure. TimothyJosephWood 19:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Finding an older page

I remember a while back, a page spoke of Americans rounding the initial r in "round," "rap," etc. However, it seems by now the content could have been removed. If so, is there any way to know what page it was on? Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@LakeKayak: See Pronunciation of English ⟨r⟩ § Variations of "r":

• In most dialects /r/ is labialized [ɹ̠ʷ] in many positions, as in reed [ɹʷiːd] and tree [tɹ̥ʷiː]; in the latter case, the /t/ may be slightly labialized as well. In General American, it is labialized at the beginning of a word but not at the end.

I first tried English phonology § Sonorants. That mentioned the phenomenon, but referred over to the above page, which is more specific. HTH. --Thnidu (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)