Help desk
< January 15	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

January 16

Fair Use or my licence?

Resolved

– ukexpat (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking about taking a picture of a scale used in a hospital cafeteria, which has a state inspection seal on it, for use on the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services article. There's no doubt that such an upload would be acceptable under Wikipedia's image policies (since the image would greatly aide in te indentification and recognition of the agency, since there's probably many people out there that would recognize those inspection seals even if they didn't recognize the agency itself by name), but the question is whether that would be a fair use upload or a licence of my choice upload. The seal itself, which is the whole purpose of the image's inclusion, I believe would be considered intellectual property of Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the Division of Standards exactly. Also, the scale is HCA property (therefore not my own), but I doubt that's an issue. By the way, would it be acceptable to use such an image on articles other than Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services if it is fair use (for example, scale)? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions? GlassCobra 01:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming famous wiki editors

I have been editing a page recently about a poet and an IP user on the talk page claims to be the poet. Is there any way to find out if it's really him? Evaunit♥666♥ 03:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it would matter whether or not that person is really that poet. No one should add info that is not verifiable and reliable, so even if you had the entire crowd of living Nobel laureates on hand, they couldn't add anything to their own bios that has not already been published elsewhere. Subtracting things that have been published is more possible, but still requires a process of discussion and investigation, unless the material is potentially libelous. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oi, just went to Talk:Bill Knott (poet) and the guy is threatening legal action. More serious stuff. Am looking. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should be reported to WP:ANI as a breach of WP:NLT. – ukexpat (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly that forum would bring more experienced eyes to the question, plus the IP edits are inviolation of WP:NLT. Less certain that the confrontational mien of ANI is always and everywhere helpful. So bring it to ANI then, but... maybe also it would help to direct the IP to Wikipedia:Libel. If he has serious beefs, he needs to be shown how to address them responsibly... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles may be useful to get some general context. Evidently Wikipedia has recognized some (registered) users as being the persons we have articles about. An unregistered user would represent a different case, I suppose. --Teratornis (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I think the way to do that is provide proper evidence to WP:OTRS. – ukexpat (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, but...

I feel bad for 100% ruining the moment and spoiling the sad, dramatic effects, but I noticed that in User talk:Jeffpw/Memoriam#A fitting Piece, someone has posted the entire lyrics to Bohemian Rhapsody. Aren't they copyrighted? Should this be taken off? flaming lawye r^c 04:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest mentioning your concern on the talk page of the user who posted the lyrics. Hopefully, that user will understand the problem and choose to take the lyrics down. Having someone else unilaterally delete them in the usual high-handed Wikipedia way would be cruel even by the sociopathic standards of attorneys. Almost certainly, lyrics do not belong on Wikipedia, otherwise every article about a song would contain the lyrics (and be vastly better for it). It will be nice someday when the whole world becomes intelligent and realizes information wants to be free. Hey, I have an idea, how about suggesting to the copyvio poster that he or she should look up some song lyrics published under a free license (yes, there are such things) and quote them instead? Surely the most appropriate way to memorialize a Wikipedian is with free content. Let's not keep groveling before the information hoarders. --Teratornis (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here are the rules for including lyrics and poems. —Noah 06:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lyrics and the accompanying message have now been removed by another editor. DuncanHill (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the accompanying message, although part of it may be a little cryptic without the copyvio. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike. DuncanHill (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I'm sure I have no policy leg to stand on here, but this strikes me as handing out speeding tickets for going 56 in a 55 zone. Yes, it violated "policy". Would it really have been completely impossible to just ignore something buried on a subpage of user space? I'm not suggesting a change to policy or anything, or a "no rules!!!" approach to articles, or even an "anything goes" attitude towards user space in general. Just the civilized turning of a blind eye to a minor infraction, or at least an evaluation of priorities, before reporting it so someone would feel compelled to remove it. I just fail to see the point. --barneca (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the point of copyrights, but I do see that my opinion is irrelevant to what the legal industry does. Lots of people make lots of money by preventing other people from transmitting particular strings of characters. If someone sues Wikipedia for a copyright violation, I doubt that the relative obscurity of the page where the copyright violation appears will matter to the presiding court. However, I'm not an attorney so I cannot be sure. I am only sure it is futile to use common sense to predict what lawyers will do. The real question, I think, is to ask what was the real point of posting copyrighted song lyrics on a user subpage? Could the user(s) in question and Wikipedia as a whole derive a similar benefit by doing something else which does not invite lawyers to sue us? As I implied in my reply above, I think Wikipedians should take an anti-copyright stance in their personal lives. For example, stop groveling before the music industry that tries to restrict what we can do with the information it pumps into our heads. Just say no to non-free pop culture. Instead, seek out and support those performers who release their works under free licenses. Quote them on our user subpages when we seek some dramatic effect. Why give free publicity to people who oppose the fundamental principles that underlie Wikipedia? --Teratornis (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick point for background (yes, I am a lawyer and no, this is not a legal threat!) - generally speaking if the owner of an intellectual property right (whether it be a patent, copyright, registered trademark etc) does not take action against breaches or misuses of that IP, they can lose the rights to that IP. For owners of valuable IP rights, that is a big deal. – ukexpat (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poor image source

Resolved

I seem to remember a template which could be added to images that had as a source just a domain or generic name, which requested users to add the exact source (but didn't mark the image for deletion). I can't find it now, though. Anyone know it? Stifle (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Bsr}} ? –Capricorn42 (talk) 11:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Thanks. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long pages

Hi, is there anyway to see a list of Wikipedia articles, sorted by length? I know about the "long pages" page, but that only covers the top thousand, cheers. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find a simple way, you might find a not-so-simple way under WP:EIW#Query. Why do you want this list? If you tell us what you are trying to accomplish with this information, someone might know another method. --Teratornis (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious that's all really, I enjoyed glancing through the top 1000, but even the last one on that list is still incredibly long, cheers. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Title is wrong

Article entitled "U.C.F.W. local 1518 vs Kmart" should read U.F.C.W local 1518 vs Kmart the acronym being United Food and Commercial Workers

Thank You, Kassandra Cordero UFCW 1518 Executive Board member —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.66.133 (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It's now at U.F.C.W., Local 1518 v. KMart Canada. Thanks for letting us know! Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a Photo

Resolved

– Article speedily deleted (G11) by Jimfbleak. – ukexpat (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im trying to edit this page tower brick and tile i want to add a photo to it , im adding the link , but nothing appears to be happening , and when i search for it online it doesnt come up ? has it not been registered yet ?

HELP Please —Preceding unsigned comment added by Towerbrick (talk • contribs) 15:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to upload an image, your account must be autoconfirmed, which means that it has been active for four days and made at least ten edits. Once you reach those thresholds, visit WP:UPLOAD and follow the instructions. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 15:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Tower Brick and Tile for speedy deletion. Please read WP:Spam and WP:Corp for guidance on promotional articles and notability of companies. – ukexpat (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2009

Images Beside a Table

I'm working a revamped version of the List of pterosaurs and the way I had been displaying images is not compatible with the sorting feature of the tables. However, I devised a new method which has shown promise. Instead of displaying images in a single cell stretched to fit the table, I am dividing each section into two columns, one holds the data table, the other holds an invisible table that displays the thumbnails. Problem is, the table never seems to fit right with the other column, its always to horizontally narrow and leaves an ugly gap.

So, my questions are:

How does the two column format look compared to the older version?
How does the two column version look on your monitor/ in your browser?
Are there any modifications I can make to make it look better?

Thanks in advance! Abyssal (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undo vs Revert

I asked this question at Help talk:Reverting#Undo vs Revert but have not gotten a reply.

When discovering that the last edit to a page was obviously vandalism, would it be better to revert the edit manually or just use "undo"? I believe the end result to the article would be the same, since there are no other constructive edits to deal with, but is one preferable to the other for logging purposes? --Thomprod (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point of 'undo' - to revert blatant vandalism. You can alter the edit summary anyway. If you want to get serious, try Twinkle - it makes it a lot easier. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 16:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It depends on what you are looking to do. Undo will only undo the last edit. Revert will undo any consecutive edits made by the previous editor. So, for example, if you want to change all of the edits made by a vandalistic IP, you would use revert. If the IP's last edit is the only problematic one, then you could use undo. I feel like I'm not explaining this very well. :( TN‑X-Man 16:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out that undo is perfectly acceptable for good faith edits as well, and should be encouraged. The reason undo is there is that 1) the edit can be undone and 2) a summary can be left explaining why this is being done. For vandalism it's less necessary (if you use rollback or Twinkle), because it provides an automated summary that directly implies vandalism. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I use neither Rollback nor Twinkle and, as I stated above, only the last edit was vandalism, so there are no intermediate good edits to worry about disturbing. If I understand the above advice, the choice between "revert" and "undo" in this situation would be mine with no adverse effects resulting from one method over the other. Right? --Thomprod (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. TN‑X-Man 17:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What did I screw up?

I'm not a lawyer.

I uploaded this image. I wasn't sure what license to choose since none of them are very straight forward and just say "it's a picture of a dead person". There's only the "historical or iconic image" option which mentions deceased persons. Additionally, I'd like to know if I filled out the fair use rationale correctly. I don't want to be bothered by some tag on my talk page in a few days saying that I didn't dot some i or cross some t. That's what always happens whenever I add any image, so I'd like to nip that in the bud. Thanks, --Dismas|^(talk) 17:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright is one of the trickiest areas. The problem in this case is that the image almost certainly won't be usable under any fair use rationale, and its copyright is held by either the photographer who took the paper, or the magazine who commissioned the shoot. That the person in the image is dead is irrelevant...even if they held the copyright (and since they were a model then they almost certainly wouldn't have done), then their death would not make the image copyright-free - the copyright is an "asset", much like a car, a house, or whatever, which exists for the life of the creator of the image plus a certain number of years following their death (it changes from country to country). If I took a photo, I'd own the copyright to it. If I died, that ownership would pass to the relevant beneficiary under my will, who would continue to own the copyright until either they died (and it passed to someone else) or the time period of X years was reached and the photo became copyright-free. The "historical or iconic image" option won't apply - that's for things like, say, the shot of the assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald, where the image is copyright, but is of such historical significance that its usage can be justified on a fair use basis. I'm sorry to say it, but I cannot see that this image can be allowed to stay on any basis unless you can get the copyright holder to release it to Wikipedia. _Gb^T/c 17:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"the image isn't copyright"— I think you meant "is copyrighted". --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I'm clearly having a brain fart of a day, so whilst I've corrected that bit, just ignore the whole comment. _Gb^T/c 18:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to satisfy all ten of the non-free content criteria. Which criterion do you think is not satisfied? Dismas: you might want to try this at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Algebraist 17:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked here before if I could upload a copyrighted picture of a dead person and I was told I could. Like I said, I'm not a lawyer, so who is wrong? Algebraist: I've asked there as well, thanks. Dismas|^(talk) 18:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brain fart of a day - is there any other kind? My whole life is like one extended brain fart. Which I send in Wikipedia's general direction. --Teratornis (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a new Topic

I apologize in advance. I am new to Wikipedia. I have read throughout the site and I cannot find how to start, (from scratch), a new topic. Can someone please help me walk through this process, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilton111 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. Algebraist 18:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. You might want to start here. Here is a tutorial and here is information on writing your first article. If you need help, please ask me a question on my talk page. --Thomprod (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want to write about? Wikipedia has many pitfalls for the new user. I intend no disrespect, but Wikipedia is an insanely complicated place, with all sorts of unintuitive policies and guidelines you haven't imagined yet. The result is, for most newcomers, that if you don't yet know enough about Wikipedia to know how to find the instructions for creating a new article, then you almost certainly do not know that Wikipedia has a small army of deletionists who eat newbies for lunch. If you tell us what you want to write about, we can advise you on whether your topic has a snowball's chance of surviving deletion. Be aware that starting entirely new articles from scratch can be one of the more difficult tasks on Wikipedia. It's much better to learn by making small edits to existing articles, and reading the friendly manuals as you go along. Once you have accumulated around 1000 edits, then you should have a much better idea of how to write a new article which can survive here. If you are familiar with skiing, the analogy is to start on the bunny slope before heading to the black diamond run. --Teratornis (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone here explain any foreign Wikipedia GA process?

I'm thinking about doing a Wikipedia:Signpost article on foreign GA processes. I have the beginnnings of an article at User:Peregrine Fisher/Workspace/. Is anyone familiar with any foreign Wikipedia GA process (or FA) and could you describe it on my workspace page? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "foreign"? If you mean "not in English" pray remember that English is a foreign language to many of us here. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is the English Wikipedia after all - it shouldn't be too difficult to guess what "foreign Wikipedias" means here (although granted, encyclopedias attract lots of hairsplitting pedants, so a more precise term such as "non-English-language Wikipedias" would be advisable). I'd guess that on the French Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, etc., the respective definitions of "foreign Wikipedias" ("Wikipédias étrangers"? "ausländischen Wikipedias"? Perhaps they would not use such phrases) would also be clear enough, even though the languages of those Wikipedias are probably also foreign to some of their editors. As to the question, I have no knowledge of article assessment processes on the "foreign Wikipedias." It seems the people most likely to know are going to be "foreigners," so one should probably try to phrase the question in a way that won't make them feel slighted. As I am a stereotypical Ugly American, I couldn't tell you how to do that. --Teratornis (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended. I just ment the other language WPs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Past Weather

What was the weather forcast on November 22, 2006 for zip code 16159? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.246.107 (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A) this is not the place for factual questions outside of how to edit Wikipedia. B) You can get this info from http://www.wunderground.com Dismas|^(talk) 21:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong link

When I click on Carlos Sousa at 2007 Dakar Rally I get to an article of a tiger but I want to read about the Rally driver. Can you fix it, please? --87.167.70.84 (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've temporarily de-linked his name until we can create a stub article for Carlos Sousa (rally car driver) or something like that. (The other Carlos Sousa was mauled to death by a tiger.) There are existing French and Portuguese wiki pages on the racing Carlos, so perhaps we can start with those. Also, you can always make the changes yourself. Wikipedia always needs more help. Check out the tutorial to get started. —Noah 21:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the page name/headline of an article

Hi,

I want to make a simple change to the headline (page name) of my company. I simply want to remove "The" from my existing page that is currently called "The Transcenders". Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Terence Transcenders —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transcenders (talk • contribs) 22:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can do that using the move button when you're Autoconfirmed. Please read WP:COI while you're reading. It seems like it applies to your situation. - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Site-wide blanking

I'm currently experiencing pages getting blanked all over the place (for the last 30-60 minutes). A few of them have returned after I purged the pages, but I'm not sure what happened. My scripts are fine and haven't been meddled with and it appears the problem is restricted to when I'm signed in. I'm using Google Chrome. Was this some dastardly vandalism or did something else happen? - Mgm|^(talk) 23:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not noticed a problem. Can you give some examples of pages that are blanked right now that we can check? --Teratornis (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]