Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 April 2

= April 2 =

Public Domain
I was wondering, if you put something in the public domain, is it impossible to take it out of the public domain? If you accidentally mistagged an image you uploaded to commons, for example, and didn't notice it for an hour, could you change the tag or is the damage already done, legally speaking? How about if it was a day, a month, a year? TastyCakes (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you place an image in the public domain, it's permanently public domain. I really don't think anyone will care though, if you make a mistake and promptly fix it. The longer the gap between tagging as PD and admitting a mistake... the more complicated it gets. Calvin 1998 (t·c) 03:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There are some images you cannot place in the public domain, even if you create them yourself, for example a faithful photographic reproduction of someone else's copyrighted work, or works that are substantially derived from copyrighted works. Thus we aren't sure from your description whether you actually could have (legally) placed the image in the public domain. See Commons:COM:EIC for links to all the documentation about copyright law that I have found on Commons so far. For a definitive answer, you might need to consult an attorney. --Teratornis (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

$
do i have to pay to have a wikiaccount? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lego Cheerio (talk • contribs) 03:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Algebraist 03:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just in case - see: WP:Signup — Ched :  Yes?   : ©  08:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Still having trouble with the delete process
I know how to prod the article (get the delete box on the page). I know how to notify the creator of the deletion thingee. But I am missing a step somewhere in the middle. Do I put something on the discussion page of the article? How does my nom get to the actual list of articles to be deleted? Yes, I'm green. I appreciate the help. I'm going through stubs in two projects, and there are some doozies that need nominations, but I can't get past just getting the box to show up.--Levalley (talk) 05:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Levalley
 * You don't need to put anything on the talk page. Us admins know about your nom because putting the template on an article automatically transcludes it into Category:Proposed deletion.  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll finish his sentence: "automatically transcludes it into a category". - 131.211.211.181 (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect the user would be interested in WP:TWINKLE  Chzz  ►  20:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible minor sockpuppetry
Is there a way to check if a user account and an IP address originate from the same place? I suspect User:MHazard9 is trying to bolster his position by using an anonymous IP here. They are both fond of the word "prolixity". It's not vandalism (just bad writing IMO), so I'm just curious. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Clarityfiend, You need to go to Usernames for administrator attention or Sockpuppet investigations. I hope i help you out. --Michael (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is possible to see which IP an account is using via checkuser, however it can only be done witin the bounds of policy, and only if nessecary. As Micheal mentioned above for non-obvious socking you need to go to sockpuppet investigations and open a thread on that user. If its a very obvious sock you could try reporting it to WP:AIV. —Nn123645 (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk
Does that explicitly apply just for talk pages? So anything on the main pages could be corrected (e.g. on userpages)? -- Menti  sock  09:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is called just "talk page guidelines", but I would think twice about editing someone's userpage without their permission. Xenon54 (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are there guidelines prohibiting that? Even if it's just fixing typos? For example recently I noticed some typos on meta:User:Anonymous Dissident/Metadata, hesitated to correct them but were later corrected by someone else. -- Menti  sock  10:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The guideline is at User page. It isn't prohibited, but thinking twice is certainly a good idea. Algebraist 11:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Challenging External Links
How can I challenge an external link to a site that may contain information that infringes my copyright? Is it possible to submit a request for links to be removed on this basis and if so, how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookworm181 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming that the external site does infringe your copyright, then it's a WP:COPYVIO and:
 * the external link can be removed by you - I'd note in your WP:Edit summary that the link was removed as a copyright violation;
 * if you don't feel comfortable removing the link yourself you could tag the link with Copyvio link and then discuss it on the article's talk page;
 * if the article is protected and you're unable to edit it then your best bet would be to post on the article's talk page, possibly using the Editprotected template, and ask someone else to remove the offending link.
 * Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 10:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

How can I add information to an existing article?
How can I add information to an existing article? I have facts and figures relating to a number of articles about different countries and would like to contribute them. Thank you.reference six Reference six (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * At the top of the page is a tab "edit this page". Click that and make the necessary changes and then click save. If you can't see the tab, the page might be protected from editting - let us know if this is the case. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But please remember, you need to prove a reliable, verifiable source for them or they may be removed. See WP:RS and WP:Verify. Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Special:Tags
Hi, I am tring to understand where are the actual tags. How do I know which articles are tagged? The links in the above page refers me to the RC page. Am I missing specific CSS to be able to see the tags? Thanks, 212.199.200.76 (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Which particluar tags are you looking for? Could you be more specific? Tagged for cleanup, tagged for wikify, what? They go into categories, e.g. Category:Cleanup from March 2009. Queenie  13:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The heading links to Special:Tags. I have not seen that page before. The right column "Tagged changes" contains Recent changes links with things like &tagfilter=spam in the url. It's apparently supposed to only show recent changes with that tag, but it shows all recent changes. There may be people knowing more about this at Village pump (technical). PrimeHunter (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Special:Tags doesn't do anything much as yet. The Abuse Filter can tag edits, but the tags don't show up anywhere, and the search-RC-by-tag thing doesn't work. Algebraist 13:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Then whats the use of tagging edits? bah. 212.199.200.76 (talk) 09:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No use for now. The feature has yet to be implemented fully. Algebraist 20:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Whats it called when one article focuses too much on a tangential topic?
I know there's a term for it but I can't remember what it is. And it's a problem in The Painted Bird, where a good half of it is an overview of controversy surrounding the author, not necessarily specific to the book, and thus would fit under that term, but I don't remember what the term is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.15.101.155 (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Its called Undue Weight, and the guildline can be viewed here: WP: WEIGHT Livewireo (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess the poster is after Coatrack. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * YES, Coatrack, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.15.101.155 (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I lost my password and my mail address has changed
My name is [redacted]. As far as I remember my password was [redacted], but somehow it doesn't work. On top of that my mail adresse has changed and is now [redacted]. Is there any possibility to help me retrieve my page? Thank you for your assistance. Regards, Therese. my website is : [redacted] in any case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.19.145 (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have redacted your personal information, as this is a highly visible page, so posting your email address and password (albeit one that doesn't work) is not a good idea. If you cannot remember your password, and no longer control the email address that is specified in your preferences for the account concerned, then I suspect that you will have to create a new account, as the password for the old one cannot be changed by anyone other than you, when logged in. Anyone else got any ideas? pushthebutton  &#x007C;  go on...  &#x007C;  push it!  13:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It may be possible at a later stage to usurp the old user name, but it may not be worth the hassle. – ukexpat (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Account login problems (no email)
I have an account that when i try to login to does not allow me, but then when i try to email myself the password it says

Login error Error sending mail: There is no e-mail address recorded for user "[username]".

I know this username is mine as it is unique and rarely used, but I can't seem to get logged in nor does it have an email for this account. Is there any way to retrieve this account? Have it deleted as the contact information is null so I can re-create it?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.169.15 (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read the several answers above to similar questions. In short, without a password and without an e-mail address linked to the user name there is nothing you can do except create a new account. Accounts cannot be deleted and re-created. – ukexpat (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Picture on commons, how do I get it to the article
I have succesfully uploaded a picture to commons,

commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Colorado_and_Southern_890.jpg

and i want to insert it in,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_U30C

I have an account but have not edited any articles, I just want to add my picture to this location.

I have made the picture public domain.

Ksamson1 (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Simply list [[File:Colorado_and_Southern_890.jpg]] in the article. There are various things you can do with the picture once it's there, such as making it a thumbnail, forcing right or left alignment, etc. See WP:Image syntax for more info. TN X Man  15:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ I added it, see GE U30C. – ukexpat (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"username removed"
This is the first time I've seen gray, struck-out text for usernames and edit summaries. Is that what oversight looks like? Just curious. -kotra (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that it is oversight.  tempo di valse  [☎]  18:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oversight was invisible. That's what RevisionDelete, which has essentially replaced oversight, looks like. Algebraist 18:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Is RevisionDelete restricted to oversighters or is it a totally different user group? This is the first I've heard of it. -kotra (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is limited to oversighters, if you try to access Special:RevisionDelete it lists the user groups the function is limited to.  tempo di valse  [☎]  18:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, right. Thanks! Hmm... on a related note, I'm surprised nobody has registered User:username removed yet. -kotra (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We also have a rare sighting of (comment removed) here. This used to say something like "Reverted vandalism by nice try ". Certes (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

License Plates in Photographs
Hi, I have a couple of pictures I would like to upload, but they include readable British license plates, should these be blurred out? Thanks in advance, JoshB (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Xenon54 (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will censor them. JoshBr (talk) 07:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've edited to create a neutral point of view. Now what?
I added a page called Tombras-Group. It was tagged as needing to be edited for a neutral point of view, which I did. How do I get feedback on my edits? Also if this page would be better placed in the Companies category under Advertising Agencies, is it better to move the page or delete it and create an entirely new one?Mettamom (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the article doesn't quite meet WP:N because none of the sources seem really notable themselves. You may want to move the page to main space anyway and see what people think. If somebody nominates the article for deletion, there will be a discussion (to which you can contribute) on whether or not the article should stay. If nobody nominates it after a few days, then try removing the template. Most likely, whoever put the template is watching the page so, when you remove the template, he/she will check the article for neutrality. I'd suggest, "Advertising Agencies" as a category - no need to delete it to move it there, just add the category template at the bottom of your current article. Regards. Laurent (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * IMO it's way too promotional in tone. – ukexpat (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Changing redirects created after a merge
If I want to change a redirect that was created after a merge, so that it redirects to a different article, can I do that, or would that not comply with the GFDL? Calathan (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can do that. I can't see why there would be any licensing issues. Algebraist 22:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Technical answer: yes, you can change it. The only requirement is a note in the page history when the merging was done saying where the stuff came from. Actual answer: we break the GFDL literally thousands of times a day, via template substitution. So I wouldn't worry about it terribly. Prodego  talk  22:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia commons
Could someone help me transfer to wikimedia commons? I'm not quite sure of the procedure. Perhaps for a more speedy result, would someone be so kind as to do so for me? Thanks in advance. 21:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This type of image cannot be transferred to Commons. They only accept media that have been released into the public domain, and it is against their policy to upload fair-use media. See Commons:Commons:Fair use for more information.  tempo di valse  [☎]  22:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure they also accept images uploaded under GFDL, Creative Commons, CC-by-SA, etc. "free" licenses. This includes most images already on Wikipedia. However, copyrighted and fair use images used on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of adding important non-replaceable visual detail to article(s) are not accepted there. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 01:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Can i make a copy from the history on Alexander Fleming for my essay in college?--Hazel eyez (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
--Hazel eyez (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Legally, you can copy anything from Wikipedia per GFDL. However, many teachers and college professors check Wikipedia and you won't get a very good grade if you have copied your essay word-for-word from here.  Read out article first to get an overview and then read some books about Fleming.  --Richard (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are copyrighted. If you copy from wikipedia without complying with the license, you are in violation of copyright law. To comply, you must cite the Wikipedia article and the GFDL in your paper if you copy. As a completely separate issue, if you copy anything from anywhere without attribution, whether or not it is copyrighted, and you fail to cite your source, you are committing plagarism. Plagarism is not illegal, but it is a serious violation of acedemic norms and will generally cause you to receive a failing grade at least, and can lead to suspension or expulsion for students, loss of tenure for faculty, and demotion or firing for professionals, and loss of credibility for just about anybody. If you got a bunch of ideas from Wikipedia and then used some of the ideas to write you paper after checking Wikiopedia's sources, that's OK, but you should cite bot the Wikipedia article and the sources. You might choose to make a direct copy of the wikipedia article (citingthe GFDL) and attach it to your paper if your teacher does not have access to a computer, but this would not be part of your paper. -Arch dude (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * See also WP:REUSE. – ukexpat (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing Reverted
I recently discovered that much of the article on Enterprise, Florida was lifted from an article I wrote for a website called OldEnterprise.org. Not only was I not credited for the information (which I had researched for many years), but the lifter inserted his own little bits of "misinformation" at various places in the article and added some revisions that made much of the information inaccurate according to Florida history.

I carefully edited the whole article to improve the writing and historical accuracy only to have the whole thing "reverted" by someone from Jordan named "Madhero."

Who are the people who do the reverting? What background does he have in Florida history? I have been studying it for about 20 years now and wrote much of the Volusia County, Florida government website on county history including the background on Enterprise.

What good is it to try to improve and correct an inaccurate article when someone from another country is going to decide that he doesn't like it and delete everything you did?

How can I submit my own correct version of this topic?

Thank you.

74.170.33.216 (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You raise two separate issues: 1)unattributed copying and 2) non-expert editing. Unattributed editing is is a violation of your copyright on the original web site, unless that site explicitly permits it via a notice of release of your copyright. You have a copyright by law unless you explicitly renounce it. Such material should be immediaely removed from Wikipedia by you or by anyone else.  For non-expert editing, we explicitly refuse to recognize any editor as an expert: this includes you. Instead, we require that all material be referenced to reliable sources. See WP:RS. This concept seems bizarre when you know for sure that you are an expert and that the other guy is clearly a twit, but it is one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. -Arch dude (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also some of your edits seem to be vandalism. And remember, Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. Read the policies and guidelines to learn about Wikipedia. Cheers. :) -Porchcrop (talk 23:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I just went through the article and compared it to the one on oldEnterprise.org and as far as I can tell there is no copying issue. The topic is the same obviously but that's as far as the similarity goes. Also the revert done by Madhero makes sense as you didn't provide any sources for your changes. Any statement on Wikipedia must be properly documented by third party reliable sources. Laurent (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * To understand the need for reliable sources, consider the difference between these two claims:
 * The earth is flat.
 * The Flat Earth Society says the earth is flat.
 * Not all of Wikipedia's registered users would agree with the first claim. However, they could possibly all agree with the second claim, if it comes with a footnote reference that cites a reliable source, which anyone can examine to verify the claim (namely, that the Flat Earth Society really exists now or did exist in the past, and says or did say that the earth is flat). On Wikipedia, we cannot always get everyone to agree on what is true, but often we can get everyone to agree on who said what. Since we have no satisfactory way to determine which user is an expert and which user is a twit, the best we can do is to make sure everyone can verify who (outside of Wikipedia) said what.
 * Since it can be frustrating to learn Wikipedia's odd style of editing with other users constantly reverting your edits, I suggest that you create an account, so you can practice editing on what we call a "sandbox" subpage in your "user space". When you edit in your user space, other users will generally leave your work alone (unless you write something which creates serious problems, but that's easy to avoid with a little common sense). --Teratornis (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)