Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 March 14

= March 14 =

Self-Created SVG
Hi, I am in the process of making an SVG version of my university's coat of arms, which to my knowledge is not a copyrighted image. Am I correct in thinking that this self created version would fall under a free use licence if I upload to wikipedia? Thanks 79.75.184.195 (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If there was any creativity involved in creating the coat of arms, it would be automatically copyrighted by being created. Your copy would be derivative of the original. —teb728 t c 00:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So does that mean it could be used for any purpose on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.184.195 (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite the opposite. Since it would be copyrighted by the university and not licensed, it could be used only in accord with Wikipedia's restrictive non-free content policy. —teb728 t c 00:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So can someone please explain to me how this image is apparently free use??? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.184.195 (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That’s a good question. It may be incorrectly tagged. If the design is old enough, the copyright may be expired. I can’t imagine any circumstance under which File:Sidney Sussex College shield.svg would be GFDL. —teb728 t c 07:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, copyright exists from the moment it is first published in a publicly readible form. Copyright does not have to be declared, rather the opposite is true; unless something is declared by its creator to be free to use, or liscenced for free use, it is assumed that the creator or original copyright holder continues to maintain that copyright until they either formally release the image into the public domain, or it becomes old enough, by statute, to qualify for public domain.  If you cannot prove the image was created long enough ago to be in public domain, then all uses of the image, and all copies of it, including those made by you by hand, are still covered under the original copyright.
 * Coprorate logos DO have a special fair-use exception under our image use policy, but claiming "fair use" of a copyrighted image requires a specific set of actions on your part, including the use of a proper fair use rationale, and if you mess up any part of it, the image gets deleted and you get mad at the world. So, please tread carefully here. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  01:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In my limited experience a difference exists between copyright over a blazon and copyright over a rendering of that blazon. In terms of the blazon, copyright would have started ticking many years ago. If you ignore every other rendering of that coat of arms, and effectively start from scratch, you are creating a derivative not of the image but of the text (which is in many cases much older). It's probably a grey area though (watch out for modern changes to the blazon, which renew copyright over that portion of the arms!), but certainly is de facto allowed. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 08:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sidney Sussex College was founded in 1536. The design of its blazon is very likely to be in the public domain. To demonstrate this, the uploader should have found an instance of the blazon that was published prior to about 1860. (A later date would need additional specific info.) The SVG would then be a derivate of the PD work. If the SVG creator asserts that the added effort was a creative effort, then the creator may assert copyright in the creative effort that went into the deritative work, but not in the original. The GFDL would then apply to the derivative work but would not prevent someone else from deriving a separate work from the original PD work. -Arch dude (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct Article template
Hello Wikipedia! I've stumbled across a few articles (not talk/userpages) that I feel require a large amount of clean up because of recent vandalism and spam. Is there a certain template I use for that or do I just use the general clean up template? Thanks! Renaissancee (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the best thing to do with an article that has been vandalized to is to be bold and try fix it yourself. If you mess up, it's OK. Undoing mistakes is a simple process (just click on the "history" tab at the top of the article and click undo by the edit you want to undo). Alternatively, if you know the name of the article, just let us know here and a help desk volunteer can take a look at it. Finally, if you just want to draw other editors' attention to the issue, there is a list of clean-up templates on this page. TN X Man  00:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

IP Address
I recently created an account, and I would like to link it to a couple of edits I had done previously. Is there a way I can link my account with the IP address I used to sign those edits? Thanks. --Tdp2010 (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It used to be possible years ago to reattribute edits from IP addresses to username accounts. However, this is no longer done. Edits can be reattributed from one username to another. TN X Man  01:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree. However, this is sometimes a good thing because your logs are cleared and you left the unexperienced edits behind.  Zoo Fari  03:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Age in BLP?
Is there something in BLP that suggests that birthdates are not permitted in BLP articles? I noticed that here.
 * See Biographies of living persons. It says that 1) birthdates should always be included when they have been published in a reliable source and it can be inferred that the person does not object to such information being published, and 2) the birthdate is otherwise widely published or well-known. So, for example, the (alleged) birthdate of Jimmy Wales is listed in the Encyclopædia Britannica and is therefore listed here. Dates of less-notable people, such as Ms Letourneau, should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis; if the birthdate is not already published in a reliable source such as Britannica, then it should probably be left out. Xenon54 (talk) 01:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia access
I am having a current problem with my wikipedia pages. For a few days now, for some reason I cannot seem to access any of the wikipedia websites that I have joined such as http://kingdomhearts.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page. I never had any problems like that before, but when I tried to access them on my home computer, it would take a long time to load, then it would stop and says the page was taking too long to load so it was canceled. However, when using my laptop, I had no problem accessing it. Is there anyone who could know what the problem might be? Is it the cookies? IP address? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.36.188 (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is Wikimedia (by the way, the website you provided isn't powered by Wikimedia) maybe it is your Internet server. Do you have access to the navigation bars? or is it just the articles?  Zoo Fari  03:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The page you mention is not part of Wikipedia. However, you can ask this question at the computing reference desk, where you're likely to get a better answer. This page is only for questions on editing Wikipedia.  C h a m a l  talk 03:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Locate Huggle on my computer
I recently installed huggle and worked on it for a couple of minutes to familiarize. I exited it, but don't know how to go back. Where does huggle get installed so I can open the application?  Zoo Fari  03:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What internet browser do you use? Renaissancee (talk) 03:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I use both IE and Safari, but I'm assuming you want the browser I used to install it. I think I was using Safari...  Zoo Fari  03:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Search for huggle using the search facility in your operating system. It's probably saved in the default download folder your browser uses, which you can find from the browser preferences/options.  C h a m a l  talk 03:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tried that, but nothing about Huggle. I will search my Internet files...  Zoo Fari  03:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it got saved on my desktop.  Zoo Fari  04:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That confused me the first time I tried to use it. You don't actually have a shortcut to huggle, it just puts the file there.  I think it should have some sort of installer like a normal program, sigh.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 04:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

HELP REGARDING ROBOTICS
Hello everyone,

I think it would be better if WIKIPEDIA keeps about the building of ROBOTICS and TACTICS involved in it.....and this WIKIPEDIA really helps me a lott in understanding different types of problems involved in my subjects.

Thanks to all of ur team, Regards Shri! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinivasan9 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia" is whatever the people who use Wikipedia want to make it. If you want Wikipedia's robotics articles to improve, the most efficient method is to improve them yourself. To learn how, read Wikipedia: The Missing Manual and WikiProject Robotics. The vast majority of Web sites you have seen do not allow you to improve them. Thus you naturally assume that if you want something to change, you have to beg someone else to change it. On Wikipedia that is not true; here you have as much power to change things as you are willing to earn through your own hard work and study of our policies, guidelines, and procedures. On Wikipedia, everything is subject to change, but some things are easier to change than others. --Teratornis (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

NPWatcher
Hi guys. I have a problem with NPWatcher. When I open the deletion tab I can only see speedy delete, article criteria, and redirect sections. I can't see the stuff to it's right. I've tried to expand the window, maximise/minimise, nothing seems to work. Can someone help, please? Anti venin  11:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't use NPWatcher, so I couldn't tell you for sure. However, I did find a link to the NPWatcher help page, which can be found here. Best, TN X Man  13:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I posted my question there too. Thanks for telling me about that page! People there have got to know the answer. Anti  venin  14:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

prctical topics
i wants some practically implementable topics related to ppt's.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinay ppatil (talk • contribs) 11:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. Could clarify what "ppt's" are? TN X Man  13:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps PowerPoint files. Are you aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia run by volunteers? Xenon54 (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If by "practically implementable topics" you mean you want a how-to guide, that may be a bit of a problem on Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a how-to guide (except that the project pages on Wikipedia tell how to build Wikipedia itself) . I think eventually Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation will relax that restriction and produce a how-to guide, because the Wikipedia community seems to be better than anybody else at building useful wikis (see for example wikiHow which just isn't as well-implemented as Wikipedia in my opinion), and procedural knowledge is an enormously important subset of the sum of human knowledge. Jimbo Wales' stated goal is to make the sum of human knowledge freely available to every person in the world in their own language, and I don't see how you can say you're doing that if you systematically exclude procedural knowledge. Knowing how to do things is of tremendous practical importance, and is in fact the most important kind of knowledge for working people, poor people, and any type of people who have real problems to solve. Not everyone is a privileged gentleman scholar who pursues knowledge merely out of intellectual curiosity. One might therefore say the disdain for dirty-handed practicality on Wikipedia is just a bit elitist. Maybe in another decade or two we'll climb down from the ivory tower and figure out how to include utilitarian knowledge in an encyclopedic way, or we'll use our Wikipedia smarts to show the world how to build the best how-to guide in history. --Teratornis (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

email evidence for permissions
I would like to provide permission evidence for an image I uploaded. As per instructions I need to email it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. However the permission I have is from an online chat. Jay (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Can I email the chat transcript as evidence, or is it mandatory that I email only the email of the copyright holder as a forwarded email?
 * 2) How is a forwarded email better than any other piece of textual evidence? What if someone types up an email in the form of a forward and mails it as evidence?
 * 3) How can I request for postponement of deletion of the image until I get the evidence ready?
 * To postpone deletion, leave a note on the image talkpage. An email from the copyright holder is better evidence because the OTRS people can check where it came from. If you send them a chat transcript, there's no way to find out who you were actually talking with . - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

hello to every1
can any 1 send me a case study on any 1 of d following topics 1)The blood of the workman is to be borne by the industry 2)fair days wages for fair days work 3)person's care is more important than profit 4)industry moves the wheels of commerce

i want case study in reference to industrial law subject. plz if any 1 can send me dis to my email address i.e, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innocentdevil 90 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * At the help desk we help with procedures and policies. Doing your homework is a bit beyond our scope. Anti  venin  14:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Unfortunately, I don't believe we provide case studies. You may find what you're looking for on our sister project, Wikibooks, which provides free textbooks. However, please be aware that none of the Wikimedia projects will do your homework for you. TN X Man  14:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Burning a dvd ,without a graphics card installed..
I am having a computer built, and the person building it tried to use the burning program that came with the motherboard's CD .. He left me a message last night telling me that it wouldnt burn the dvd without using a graphics card .Is this true, the computer needs a graphics card in order to burn dvd's &/or CD's .??? I thought a graphics card just was used to play graphics ,and didnt have anything to do with burning dvd's or CD's ....Thanks for all your help as I am computer illiterate and would like to know as much as I can .. Thanks again !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.42.61 (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you tried the Computing section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps.  TN X Man  14:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Photo credits / links
Hi there,

I'm an amateur / semi-pro photographer. By that I mean, I take pictures, mainly landscapes and scenery shots, on my own for enjoyment. I sometimes sell them in small quantities to partially offset my costs, though, since they are significant.

I've been a user of Wikipedia for many years and would like to contribute some high quality photos in various places. However, I would like to ensure that I get credit for these photos, and if possible, put a link back to my photography website.

I have read conflicting information on what is allowed and not allowed in this regard. I've seen some cases where photos included linkbacks, but others where they did not. Can anyone clarify?

Thanks.

Charles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charleskoz (talk • contribs) 15:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Might want to read our image policy. BTW, just so you know, Wikipedia does not pay for the services of its editors; they are all volunteers. Cheers. Im per a t <font color=#4682B4>§ r (Talk) 16:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A few additional links: WP:CMF, WP:LOP, and WP:IMAGE. However, I'm not too sure about your last question; could you please clarify? Thanks. Cheers. <font color=#4169E1">Im <font color=#7B68EE>per <font color=#6495ED>a <font color=#87CEFA>t <font color=#4682B4>§ r (Talk) 16:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition, I'm afraid that placing a link to your own website would be a Conflict of Interest. Transcluded from WP:COI:

''If you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia, then we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that would make your edits non-neutral (biased). Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy states that all articles must represent views fairly and without bias, and conflicts of interest do significantly and negatively affect Wikipedia's ability to fulfill this requirement.''

Thanks. Cheers. <font color=#4169E1">Im <font color=#7B68EE>per <font color=#6495ED>a <font color=#87CEFA>t <font color=#4682B4>§ r (Talk) 16:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hope I'm doing this right. Thanks for the response, but I'm still a bit confused. Just to clarify, I do not expect to make money from editing Wikipedia. I only mentioned what I did out of a desire for full disclosure. I am willing to donate the images to Wikipedia, I just want a link to my website (where other similar images can be viewed for free). I have seen this done in other places so I'm confused by your reply. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charleskoz (talk • contribs) 16:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's one example of what I want to do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bow_River-27527.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charleskoz (talk • contribs) 16:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Placing a link to your website on the image description page (as opposed to the article) is perfectly fine. This is done frequently, by many photographers. So that there is no problem later with people questioning whether User:Charleskoz is the owner of whatever your website is (that is, whether someone is impersonating you and uploading images from your website without your permission), you may want to add a note somewhere on the website stating that it is owned by the Wikipedia user User:Charleskoz. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh...whoops, misunderstanding on my part. Yes, you are perfectly entitled to link to your website on your userpage (though not promoting it; see WP:USERPAGE) and the link on the uploaded image. Hope that helps. Cheers. <font color=#4169E1">Im <font color=#7B68EE>per <font color=#6495ED>a <font color=#87CEFA>t <font color=#4682B4>§ r (Talk) 17:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the point?
is it true that wikipedia has no point and it will be deleted? 78.149.69.226 (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Truth and trolls are much the same; Obvious to many, ignored by few. — Ched ~ (yes?) 18:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC) (sad case in point)
 * Actually, wikipedia has at least 35 points. :) Franamax (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See Ozymandias and Heat death of the Universe. Everyone and everything will one day be forgotten, so one could argue that ultimately Wikipedia has no more point than the person behind 78.149.69.226. However, at the moment Wikipedia is temporarily important to lots of people, as it is the world's fifth most popular Web site or thereabouts. --Teratornis (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

New user log
The user creation log tags each new user with either new user account or account created automatically. What does the latter mean? -hydnjo (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The latter means it was automatically created as part of Single user logon. Basically, account created automatically means that it was an account created on another Wikimedia controlled wiki, and due to SUL it automatically creates it on different wikis." Vivio Testa rossa  Talk Who 20:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Got it, and thank you for that fast response :-) -hydnjo (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

problem logging in
i am having problems logging in to my account, i can't get in with my password, can you please help me, because i want too become a member of the tagged family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.224.2.202 (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you've forgotten your password, the only way to recover it is to type in your username and hit "E-mail new password" on Special:Userlogin. If you didn't set an e-mail address, then you'll have to create a new account. Xenon54 (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * After you have created your new account follow this .User:Yousaf465 (talk)
 * That doesn't apply here. Alternate accounts are used at the same time - doppelgänger accounts, like mine, or accounts that are used on public computers. However, you might want to add a notice (if you've made any edits on your old account) to your userpage to the effect of "I used to edit under the name User:Example." Xenon54 (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * O.k agreed. '''yousaf465'

Full Page Protection?
I am requesting clarification regarding Full Permanent Page Protection. Is it possible for an article to have this from the very start? From what I understand, all articles are open to editing by anyone, until there is a conflict. What would be the circumstances for gaining full permanent protection for an article? Thanks! Sarah  sko1221 talk 22:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You want to read WP:PROT. I can tell you that permanent page protections happen rarely if ever.  <font style="color:#333399;"> GARDEN  22:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Full protection is rarely used, as that prevents anyone from editing an article. Also, articles are never protected because of what may happen (vandalism or otherwise), only in response to what has happened. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  22:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are fluent in German, or want to learn, you might look into the German Wikipedia which is or was testing Flagged revisions, which (depending on the implementation) may be about as good as protecting every page. Or possibly much better, because any editor would automatically earn some sort of "trusted editor" status by accumulating a track record of non-malicious edits. The current WP:PROT machinery on Wikipedia is a fairly blunt tool, because full protection means only administrators can edit a page, and there are far too few administrators to make that practical for all but the most high-risk pages (such as some heavily-transcluded templates). Note that the anti-vandalism industry on Wikipedia is evolving toward the much the same result from the bottom up instead of the top down, by developing ever-more sophisticated tools for recognizing vandalism and reverting it quickly. Smart vandalism tools would learn which users have a low probability of committing vandalism, based on their editing records, focus more scrutiny on edits by unknown users, and focus extreme scrutiny on users or I.P. addresses who have vandalized before. Imagine a Wikipedia which could detect and repair 99% of vandal edits within ten seconds. Then we wouldn't have to argue about whether to protect (most) pages, require all users to create accounts, etc. Also, the faster we can repair vandalism, the less vandalism we will encourage, according to the Broken windows theory. --Teratornis (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)