Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 December 20

= December 20 =

Image licence question
I have discovered that Noise Ninja is available for Linux too. I downloaded a trial version of it, and it seems to work fine. I'm currently contemplating on whether I should register it.

Now, when I have previously added pictures to Wikipedia, they have been made almost completely with open-source software. The only proprietary software involved has been in the camera itself. In contrast, Noise Ninja is proprietary, commercial software. Would it affect the licence of the images in any way if I used Noise Ninja on the images I were to upload to Wikipedia? I suppose it wouldn't matter at all, because the copyright of a tool doesn't extend to products created with the tool, but I'd like to know for sure. J I P | Talk 00:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your last sentence says it all. The copyright applicable to the text I'm writing doesn't change if I type and edit it using Corel's copyrighted and trademarked Wordperfect and then copy and paste here using Microsoft's copyrighted and trademarked Internet Explorer, on my Logitech Group's copyrighted and trademarked Logitech keyboard.--162.83.163.199 (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Error: too many #time calls
I created a list of US Supreme Court justices such that their ages when they were appointed, when they exited the court, and when they died are calculated from the dates of said events. The dates are passed into a template which returns a paragraph about the justices. After 90 justices, it appears that I have broken some rule about #time calls. How can I get around this? (If I delete the first 80 justices from the list the errors go away.) ((I also have some errors on the template page, but I seem to be able to use it just fine.)) Thanks for any thoughts. Jrkenti (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * #time is an expensive function, in that it uses a lot of parser overhead, thus the number of allowed calls per page is deliberately limited. You should substitute static information where it will not change, such as for deceased judges. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 01:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Customize text above edit box
What is the template or wikicode for customizing the text that appears above an edit box? I see that some Wikipedians have customized the text when someone edits their talk page, for example. Thanks.—Finell 01:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you mean Editnotice. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 02:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, that was fast. Thanks!—Finell 02:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding An Article
I would like to add an article to Wikipedia about myself. I am a new author and trying to obtain exposure and I was told that I could do that here. Is that true?

Thank You 03:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agbusby1 (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry, that is not really possible here. Wikipedia highly discourages people from editing where they have a conflict of interest. Furthermore, Wikipedia does not have articles on people looking for exposure, only subjects that have already been covered in reliable sources. I would suggest wikipopuli instead. TN X Man  03:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipopuli has been offline for some hours today. You could also try WikiBios. To the original poster: who told you that you can or should write autobiographies on Wikipedia? What did they base this claim on? --Teratornis (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also like to add that new authors would not generally meet our Notability Criteria for creative professionals. If you do in fact meet those criteria and the General Notability Guidelines, then I would suggest that you leave a message at Requested articles, with reliable, independent sources (for example, coverage in national/international media about you - not just a few seconds of TV coverage, or a single sentence, but significant coverage) of information showing that you meet the notability criteria for inclusion. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 14:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Killed in action
I was reading the infobox on Dutch_intervention_in_Bali_%281849%29 when I saw the Killed-In-Action symbol there. It seems inappropriately Christian-centric. Imagine Reason (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you are inappropriately reading too much into it. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 13:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The KIA template uses the dagger. You can discuss at Template talk:KIA. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 13:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The template has an  option btw. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 13:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In the dagger article, it says In military history, a dagger is often placed next to the name of a commander who is killed in action. - it makes no mention of the religion of the commander in question - it is a general sign used by historians. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 14:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

google advertising
Hi, recently I've been seeing a lot of pushing for donations. I was thinking of sending 10 bucks, because I read your articles a lot, but then it occurred to me that advertising could solve the problem. Your webpages are at the top of google for practically all keyword searches and I'm sure you could make a lot. It wouldn't bother me, I'd expect it, and I feel it would definitely be less annoying than your constant big pushes for donations at the top of each page. You've got space on the side and it would be a perfect solution. The internet and information should be free, advertisers would gladly pay, and I think denying that is a bit silly. I read your history and see that the founder failed with this approach in the past, but now you are getting so much traffic that I think migrating to this approach should now work. Perhaps only tasteful advertising that is not in your face, while still accepting donations. Otherwise, good job guys and gals! Karel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.72.32 (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason for the annual fundraising is to prevent Wikipedia from having to be funded by advertising. Many editors (and readers) would object to advertising being on Wikipedia - indeed, there would be the worry that by having advertising on Wikipedia, Wikipedia would cease to be neutral. This is a perennial suggestion, and is covered at PERRENIAL --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 17:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Associate my account with a new email
I forgot my wikipedia password, and asked it to send me a new one. I haven't gotten an email, which tells me that the account was probably associated with the address at my old job. Is there any way to recover the use of my account and re-associate it to a current email address?

Username is 'spool32'. I know the likely address the reset email was sent to, but can't access it now.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.82.127 (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but if you've forgotten your password and cannot access your email, there's no way to recover your account. Your best bet is register a new account. TN X Man  19:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes people want to maintain their old name because it had an editing history. However, "spool32" only had one edit, so the best thing to do is register a new account.-- SPhilbrick  T  22:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion, but I really would like to retain the username. I have a public presence online in other areas that I'd like to carry over to wikipedia. I hold the spool32 at gmail dot com account... there's really nothing I can do to resurrect this username? It's obviously not one in demand, or one that could be considered worth stealing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.82.127 (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As the account has only 1 edit, and that was to the Sandbox (now Sandbox/History) back on 2005-01-19 at 11:43:31, it might be possible to usurp it by following the procedure under WP:USURP - create a new username, follow the instructions at WP:USURP, and make a note there that it is your old account to whose email address you no longer have access, that the only edit was on 2005-01-19 at 11:43:31 to Sandbox/History, and that you are willing to send the old work e-mail address (to which you know longer have access) to a bureaucrat through the mail system. It is possible that with all of this you could "take over" the spool32 account - but not guaranteed. If you try that and have no luck, then I can't see any way in which you could have the "spool32" account assigned to your new email address(I think the fact that you show yourself willing to email the old e-mail address to a bureaucrat - and that you do if asked to do so - will show that you are indeed the editor "spool32" - it certainly can't do any harm!) Please note do not post your old work e-mail address anywhere on Wikipedia! - only send it to a bureaucrat if they ask you to at the WP:USURP page, in which case they will explain how to do so. Hope this helps --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 23:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of Google Earth images (again)
Sorry to bring up this issue again, but this time I have a different question. If screenshots from Google Earth are uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for usage in articles, that would be unacceptable because Commons' photos must be allowed for commercial licensing, right? But the screenshots I am intending to upload are for Wikipedia use only, and Wikipedia's image policy allows fair use, so under fair use these screenshots would not be allowed for commercial use, and we could use them on Wikipedia? Shannon talk   contribs  22:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid not. My understanding would be that these would not qualify under any of the criteria for fair use. The nearest I can see is Screenshots from software products: For critical commentary. - however, you are not using it in the "Google Earth" article for critical commentary, and that would be the only article in which its use could be justified (indeed there are some there already). Their use in any other article would not come under that criteria — and it wouldn't qualify as Cover art/Team and corporate logos/Stamps and currency/Other promotional material (Posters, programs, billboards, ads)/Film and television screen shots/Paintings and other works of visual art/Images with iconic status or historical importance. Sorry, but I can see no way in which this would be allowed under fair use, and it definitely wouldn't qualify in any other way! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 23:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note that copyrighted images cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, and in no circumstances is a "Wikipedia-only" license ever allowed. Xenon54 / talk / 23:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)