Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2021 February 11

= February 11 =

My photos, someone else’s information.
Hello! I am an author and comedian and when you google my name, it has all my photos, however they are attached to another author of the same name’s information. I’ve gotten many confused emails (as I’m sure she has as well) and would LOVE to have this fixed, I just don’t know how. I’ve reached out to the other Author a few times assuming she ran the Wikipedia page but haven’t had any luck. Any help you could offer would be a blessing for both of us. For the record, my name is Tiffany Jenkins, and My website is jugglingthejenkins.com. I am not a british socialogist married to someone name Iain :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.199.70.125 (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Are the photos in the Wikipedia article? If not, then this is another failure of the Google Knowledge Graph and you will need to report it to Google.  RudolfRed (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a Google Knowledge panel issue, which Wikipedia does not have any control over. There should be a Feedback link to report the issue. Looking at Wikipedia's current Tiffany Jenkins article, I assume that's the other Jenkins and not you. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I just contacted the other Tiffany Jenkins' agent through their web site to see if they'll email Wikipedia a photo of the other Tiffany Jenkins which I can then add to her article. I sent them a link to the declaration of consent page with the boilerplate permission email text. Google might then be able to pair the correct photo with the correct Wikipedia article in the Knowledge Graph. If the agent doesn't respond, all you can do is click feedback below the Knowledge graph and ask that they either remove your photos, or the Wikipedia lead snippet about the other Tiffany Jenkins, so the false pairing is fixed. But either may not be a long term fix - sorry. It's a Google issue. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  19:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism-only accounts
I was under the impression that if someone registers an account and does nothing except vandalizing or spamming on multiple pages, our policy is to block immediately without giving them a warning and then waiting for them to vandalize or spam some more. I am having trouble finding the policy that says that. Was I mistaken? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See Vandalism-only_account, but it appears to be informational and not a policy, and I don't see vandalism-only mentioned at Administrators%27_guide/Blocking RudolfRed (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , However, it can be found at Blocking policy, which is a policy.It was linked from Vandalism-only_account or I never would have found it. -Arch dude (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! good find. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Christopher Bullock
I have added a file of  a  Memorial Service page and it is  too big. Please alter - I cannot do so. Please add underneath the page the following caption: The Address at Sir Christopher Bullock's Memorial Service was was given by The Rt. Hon. Lord Geoffrey Lloyd M.P. 115.70.23.77 (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I reduced the image. I don't see a reason for the long caption, that information is already in the text. MB 02:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Terdema Ussery Article Edit
I was reading an article about Terdema Ussery (former NBA executive) and noticed a distinct lack of mention about the sexual harassment scandal unveiled in 2018 where he was a central figure. I went through the edit history and found edits from user "Jai49" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terdema_Ussery&direction=prev&oldid=942983581) that made mention of this scandal and subsequent investigation. These edits were subsequently removed by user "Aroadinflux" because "the content listed before was libelous." However, the edits making mention of this scandal included citations to a Sports Illustrated investigation as well as an independent investigation ordered by the Mavericks that came to the conclusions stated in the article.

What was the problem with those edits and why is there zero mention of this serious issue in this person's biographical history? As far as I can tell, there was no refutation by Terdema Ussery of the findings of this report that would approach anything like accusations of libel/defmation. I wanted to ask this question before I made edits to this page that were subsequently rejected for similar reasons. --Alex.c.beveridge (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.c.beveridge (talk • contribs) 04:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely something that should be discussed at the article's talk page: Talk:Terdema Ussery. —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 04:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

no update on graph
Hi wikipedia :) I love your site but WHY ISN'T anybody Updatating your chart for covid 19?? it's been 16days now since nobody DID anything :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.39.215 (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a volunteer-driven website. When something isn't updated yet, the usual reason is either lack of sources or that no one has gotten the time to make an update. Also, please be more spcific. We have probbably around a few hundreds of pages dealing with COVID-19 in a specific region or country, so one would have to go through all of them to find the one that needs updating. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Volunteers who are interested make these changes. Since you are interested, you can be the "anybody". Feel free to learn how to make these changes and join in the effort. -Arch dude (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of my article Opinion Express
Hi,

I have created an article title Opinion Express and it has been deleted because of the Copyright policy but the source where I have copied the content is also mine. I have the copyright of the Opinion Express website. I am the only one who handles that website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauravgupta7297 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see the notice relating to speedy deletion at your talk page which contains links to the instructions for what to do if the external site is yours. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not an administrator and therefore cannot see the deleted revisions on Wikipedia. However, I have taken a look at https://opinionexpress.in/about-us, which was given as the source. While, if you are the copyright holder for the website content, could theoretically follow WP:DCM, I am afraid it is a waste of time in this case: https://opinionexpress.in/about-us is not written in a way siutable for an encyclopedic article. Its actually a general advice for everyone: 99% of the texts no specifically written for Wikipedia are [Disclaimer: My Opinion, based on experience of the last two years] also written in a way unsiutable for Wikipedia. This does not mean a neutral article on Wikipedia cannot be created, but any new article cannot directly use the about website. The general advice for creating a new article can be found here. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to take a look at WP:COI before spending more time working on an article associated with you/your employer. You also need to find reliable sources other than Opinion Express' own website (or other web properties) to base the article upon. If the only people writing about Opinion Express is Opinion Express themselves, they're unlikely to be considered notable enough for an article on Wikipedia.Chuntuk (talk) 07:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * before you put further effort into this, please review WP:NCORP. Unless your organization is notable, your article will be deleted. Notability must be supported by several substantial articles in independent published major sources. We delete more than 200 articles every day due to lack of notability. see WP:CSMN. -Arch dude (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Uploaded a copyrighted image accidently, not knowing it was copyrighted.
I uploaded an image which I thought was in the public domain under California law (because the California state and supreme courts are part of the state government). But after uploading the image I found out that it was copyrighted by a private photographer in the meta data. This is the image name: File:Cynthia Aaron.jpg.

I request that it be deleted for violating Wikipedia's image and licensing policies.

BacktoSchoolForever0700 (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have nominated the image for deletion at Wikimedia Commons; see c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Cynthia_Aaron.jpg. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion page
On the discussion pages I occasionally ask questions but often I don't get answers. What can I do? Dr Salvus (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It depends on the page and the type of question. Please give examples. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It depends on the context. If you’re asking for permission to make an edit, and nobody responds, WP:BEBOLD and make the edit and it can always be reverted if there’s a problem with it. If it’s a question about the subject, you can go to the reference desk. If it’s a question over a dispute, you can post a Requests for comment template to ping unconnected editors. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  14:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'd also add that if the article is part of a WikiProject (you can see those at the top of the article talk page), then you could leave a message about the article on that project's talk page. Those tend to be watched by a lot more editors than any individual article.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Finding pages in multiple categories
I'm trying to find all biographies that are in Category:People with dyslexia and Category: Writers or any of its subcategories. I'm not sure if that would catch all the different types of writers; poets, scriptwriters, screenwriters, playwrights journalists, songwriters, novelists, academic writers, etc. I'm trying to determine whether it would be worthwhile creating Category:Dyslexic writers as a "disability/occupation" intersection category. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Global-changing external links
I'm the webmaster of, a site to which Wikipedia has a few thousand links. The site has for many months been a "secure" site, with valid certificate etc. — easily verifiable — so the links should all be httpS. Can some bot be made to change all those links over from http to https?

24.136.4.218 (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello 24.136. If you don't get any helpful replies here, you could try Village pump (technical). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a special-purpose noticeboard for this at Link rot/URL change requests. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both! 24.136.4.218 (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding information
I'm trying to add some information about a person, about his career and work, his publications and exhibitions, but someone just dumped it and said it was promotional. The man has a long and wonderful career. I have no idea how else to put it in. Help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helaineselin (talk • contribs) 16:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . The material you added to Tim Davis (artist) was unsourced, and was not phrased in a neutral manner. Everything said in a Wikipedia article should be based on a published source, and most of it on a source wholly unconnected with the subject. While it is not obligatory to cite the sources in an article, it is strongly preferred, and editors and reviewers tend to reject material that is not cited to a source. If you can find independent sources - not based on anything said or written by Davis, his associates, his agents, the galleries that exhibited him, but written and published by people unconnected with him - then you can add material to the article which is based on (but not copied from!) those sources, and cite the sources as you do so. Reviews published in major newpapers are often a good source for articles about artists. --ColinFine (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Question: How to add new documentary to Wikipedia
Please let me know how to get a small article about the documentary "Remember the Drumstick" added to Wikipedia. The film will be released in spring of 2021.

www.rememberthedrumstick.com

Thanks for any help you can offer.

Cathy Lohmeier Producer and President of Tim Lohmeier and Friends of the Drumstick Foundation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rememberthedrumstick (talk • contribs) 17:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * First, check if it meets the criteria at WP:NFILM. If not, then it is WP:TOOSOON and it will need to wait.  If it does qualify, follow the steps at WP:YFA to create a draft article for review.  Additionally, if you are connected to the film you need to follow the disclosure rules at WP:COI and WP:PAID RudolfRed (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

draft article
Hi, I believe that I am finishing up my article. I do not know what this means ("Rob Crocker and KISS FM". WRKS 98.7 New York, NY. date=19 FEBRUARY 2011. Retrieved https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqXoSZGBzic. Missing pipe in: |date= (help); Missing pipe in: |archive-date= (help); Check date values in: |access-date=, |date=, and |archive-date= (help) i received this when I tried to cite this youtube as a source...

I also do not know how to turn this draft in to be reviewed... thank you, Suzanne Rosenberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosenberg.suzanne (talk • contribs) 18:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, first of all, it appears you do not understand citations on Wikipedia. YouTube is almost never appropriate as a source on Wikipedia. To turn in a draft, there should be a template on the draft that will allow you to submit your article. versacespace (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Status: The OP has removed the cite with the syntax problem from Draft:Rob Crocker and has submitted it to AfC for review. —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 06:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Billy sharp
List of footballers in England by number of league goals

This article needs changing, he is now on 249 goals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:B693:E900:2165:7DE7:B058:CAC1 (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello,, you'll need a reliable source to support this claim, then it may be added to that article. versacespace (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You can make the change to the List of footballers in England by number of league goals yourself with the reliable source, or you can post a request at Talk:List of footballers in England by number of league goals with the reliable source. GoingBatty (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Insititute Institute 92
"Institute" is misspelled 92 times as "Insititute", how to fix? 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Simply click on edit and fix it. If there were more, it might be an AWB job, but this can be done manually. S Philbrick  (Talk)  19:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Post this question in Language reference desk. Rizosome (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , I think you misunderstood the question. S Philbrick  (Talk)  19:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for spotting those errors. Please feel free to fix any typos that you find.  Check out WP:TYPO for the Typo Team's hints and tips for finding and fixing typos.  RudolfRed (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The following may actually help you:
 * 1) Highlight the correctly-spelled word   anywhere, and press Ctrl-C, to copy it to the clipboard.
 * 2) Edit the article in question.
 * 3) Press Ctrl + F (or Find on Page, etc.)
 * 4) Type in the find box , ie the wrong spelling. Do not use copy and paste.
 * 5) Press Enter.
 * 6) The first instance of the wrong spelling will be highlighted in blue.
 * 7) Press Esc, highlight again the wrongly-spelled word, and press Ctrl + V (ie Paste).
 * 8) The correctly-spelled word should replace the false one.
 * 9) Press F3 (works under Windows, your mileage may vary with other OSes).
 * 10) The next instance of the wrongly-spelled word, should be highlighted in green.
 * 11) Repeat by pressing Ctrl + V and F3 (or Find Next) 91 more times.
 * 12) Press Shift + Alt + P, to show your latest edits (or at any time)
 * 13) Press F3 again and continue. If everything has worked, you will not find any instances of.
 * 14) When satisfied, press Shift + Alt + S to save the changes.
 * 15) If everything has gone horribly wrong, try again.
 * 16) NB There may be mistakes in this procedure, I'm just doing it from memory. MinorProphet (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I appreciate you laying out step-by-step instructions but I want to add an important caution. With 90 or so of these to do, it is awfully easy to fall into mindless repetition mode. In a number of cases you will have to take care. Two examples come to mind. In a couple cases the incorrect spelling is part of a redirect, deliberately created for people who might do the misspelling. I'm still gob smacked that someone could make that misspelling but there are 90 or so examples proving my assumption wrong. The point being, you probably don't want to correct the spelling in the redirect. I might be guilty of doing this myself. A second example is one several case s where the misspelling was in the name of an image. The image name itself has the misspelling, so if you change the spelling in the article, the image would no longer be found. Arguably you ought to go the extra step, track down the location of the image, correct the spelling of the name of the image, and then look carefully at all uses of that filename, but the general point is don't just mindlessly search and replace because you will introduce an error.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Most users cannot rename files. If the file was uploaded here at the English Wikipedia then it can be requested with Rename media. A misspelling may also be part of an external link which may break if the spelling is "fixed". My favorite example from a Google search is https://www.facebook.com/pages/category/Language-School/Elaf-Insititute-of-Learning-101050841768657/. You can take an online course "ENGLISH ESSENTIALS!" at the Elaf Insititute of Learning. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I never "mindlessly search and replace" anything. I was was just talking about the article. One of the primary joys of Wikipedia is that there are hundreds of gnomes per usefully contributing editor, and the former will swoop into action until everything has been corrected. They might even create a bot, especially designed for the "mindless repetition" which you rightfully denigrate. MinorProphet (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There are a number of misspellings in filenames.
 * E.g. File:Mining Insititute editathon 2013-11-06 05.jpg and the curious redirect:
 * File:Mining Insititue editathon 2013-11-06 05.jpg which is a redirect from one spelling error to another. I used to be a Commons admin, so quickly needs up myself I am no longer an admin there so I requested this one be changed. If a Commons admin is reading this, I cleaned up many of the spelling errors in articles, but many of remaining errors are in files posted at Commons.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I hope I didn't leave the impression I thought you would be guilty of that. However, many people read this page, including new editors who are looking for something to do, and this is a good example of something that a beginning editor can handle. I just wanted to give them a warning that some tasks are 98% mindless, but it's not immediately obvious how to identify the 2% that takes extra care. S Philbrick  (Talk)  23:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "...how to identify the 2% that takes extra care." Correction: 102%. Take extra care at all times, everywhere. You have been warned.™ :) --MinorProphet (talk)
 * I added "Insititute" to Lists of common misspellings/I and asked at the Typo Team talk page if they had a general suggestion for how to handle these cases. Unfortunately, above my post I see an earlier post about problematic "its'" from July 2020 that seems to have gotten no attention. Perhaps the Guild of Copy Editors and Typo Team could coordinate. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  02:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There are 10 redirect pages that contain "Insititute" in the title. They now all contain R from misspelling.  GoingBatty (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Haha, In my sleepless state I fondly imagined there was just one article with that word mis-spelled 92 times, rather than that mis-spelling spread thinly everywhere. Nevertheless, take extra care at all times.™ MinorProphet (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Who actually funded Wikipedia before wikimedia foundation?
Who actually funded Wikipedia before wikimedia foundation? I mean before 2003. Rizosome (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * According toHistory_of_Wikipedia, bandwidth and server were provided by Bomis, one of Jimmy Wale's companies. RudolfRed (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

1324509732 homgwaa
êâ Big text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.27.36 (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 2nd edit from IP - last was ten years ago and was also garbled text. WP:NOTHERE. TimTempleton <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Why 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest is removed near "ongoing" at home page?
Why 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest is removed near "ongoing" at home page? If COVID-19 pandemic is there near "ongoing", why not 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest? Protest status is active not ended

Rizosome (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See (and feel free to participate in) the conversation at In_the_news/Candidates. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 19:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Richard Thurston full-page make-over reverted
I recently updated the Wikipedia page for Richard Thurston, using what I found were good quality sources, most of them pointing to interviews he had done with reliable domain-based online magazines (including one with Decibel, which ought to be notable enough). I also added an Infobox musical artist, relevant categories and templates that link directly to the page. All of my edits were reverted back to a minimal page this morning by user:Graywalls (edit changes). He appears to have engaged in similar content-removal recently, based on other user comments on his talk page and his recent edits. I am not interested in an editing war and would like to have a second opinion from fellow Wikipedians as whether or not this was justified. If it was, then I will humbly apologize and will not attempt to restore all of the information that was removed. But I do have a gut feeling that this was a mischievous edit, perhaps a CoI. Certainly not all of my additions warrant complete removal. --LOCdataLKR44 (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not looked at the details, sorry. However, Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject says about himself, either on blogs, social media, his own web site, or in interviews, except for facts like birthplace and date of birth. Thus, your "good quality sources" don't count. Please engage with the reverting editor for that editor's reasoning here. -Arch dude (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Looking at your edit and ' edit summary when he removed it, I believe the problem is your extensive use of interviews with Mr. Thurston. Interviews with a person are considered primary sources for information about that person.  Wikipedia articles should primarily be based on secondary sources.  Moreover, interviews are never independent sources, and notability is entirely based on the existence of independent sources.
 * Doubtless someone will be along shortly to tell you that Wikipedia does not care what a person has to say about themselves - I don't like that line (which gets posted on the helpdesk multiple times per day), because what someone has said about themselves is occasionally relevant and important and can be used in a limited fashion. However, an article should be approximately 80% sourced to independent, secondary sources, with primary sources and about self sources playing a limited, supplementary roll.
 * Your changes to the Richard Thurston article introduced sources and content to a bare-bones mostly unsourced stub, but 90% of what you added was sourced to primary, about self type sources. There may have been a better way for Graywalls to handle this than reverting your good-faith efforts, but he was within policy to revert you. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 20:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S. The infobox and categories you added should have been left, regardless. I see  has restored them. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 21:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I was made aware in pop-up that I was mentioned. A Wikipedia page is supposed to be encyclopedic, so generally things whose contents are guided by user generated or self published or questionable sources shouldn't guide what gets featured. When a whole bunch of things get added where majority of it is questionable, WP:ONUS would suggest that it's on those restoring them, rather than on the person removing them to meticulously go through everything and selectively remove problem contents from a very recent major make over. A bunch of stuff added by LOCdataLKR44 was a concern due to WP:DUE weight, as well as not having reliable sources. For example, the infobox's DOB ws not properly cited, which is essential for DOB and such. Per WP:RSP, discogs is WP:UGC and is not an acceptable source for this., your claim mischievous edit, perhaps a CoI. may brush up on failing to assume good faith especially since I've explained it in edit summary why they were reverted. Graywalls (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Question about notifications
Hi, I'm a new user... where are my emails stored in Wikipedia? I'm not finding any Inbox or similar. And when I see an email in my Notifications, I can't click on it to view it. Being searching for it for hours. Would appreciate your help, please. Thanks! --Alfajor123 (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . Wikipedia is not an e-mail service, and you will not receive e-mails or store them in Wikipedia.  If you enable e-mail, you might receive e-mails from Wikipedia or Wikipedia users, and that can be useful if, for example, you forget your password.  The things you see in your notifications are not e-mails, they are notifications.  You should have gotten one about this message, because I pinged you.  They invite you to visit the page where someone has mentioned you or left you a message.  Sometimes they tell you that someone has reverted one of your edits, and invite you to look at the edit. If you want  to see a notification you've already seen before, you should be able to click on the icon that looks like a bell or the one that looks like an inbox to find it again. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 21:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your user page User:Alfajor123 has a link "Email this user". If another Wikipedia user clicks that to send you an email then it is sent to the email address you have stored at Special:Preferences. On Wikipedia you only get a notification saying "[Username] sent you an email", and maybe showing the first line of the mail. You cannot see the whole mail on Wikipedia. You have to use your own email account. If the email does not arrive there then see Help:Email confirmation for some tips like checking if the message was blocked as "spam", or trying another email account. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

William Hollingsworth Wood
Hi, I'm a wikipedia rookie. I've created an article William Hollingsworth Wood which is in draft, awaiting approval. I've uploaded two images which it references, both of which have been flagged as problematic:
 * File:William Hollingsworth Wood Pontypool 1956.jpg : this has had a deletion request raised for it on the basis that I'm not the author, which I am. What do I have to do to remove this deletion request?
 * File:William-hollingsworth-wood-uni-newsclip-1937.jpg : is a newsclip from 1937 from an unknown newspaper, which I've uploaded on the basis of fair use (although it may be out of copyright, I'm not sure of the rules). The complaint is that it is non-referenced, which it is, from a draft article. Why is this not sufficient? Ceperman (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Ceperman. As to the first image, you've already responded at the deletion debate. That discussion will be closed on or after seven days, with a decision on whether to keep or delete it. The only thing you can do is make your ownership more clear at that discussion. In particular, what I wonder after reading it is whether when the book was published, it said anything about the credit/ownership of the photo? The second image is fairly patent copyright infrigement—it is likely subject to the life of the author plus 70 years, if first published in the UK—but since you don't know where it's from, we must assume it's in copyright. Meanwhile, the claim of fair use fails on multiple grounds. (I am not going to get into the details of that.) I think all you need you know on this is that there is no need whatever for a source you cite to be posted online in order for you to cite it for verification. See WP:SOURCEACCESS&thinsp;/&thinsp;Offline sources&thinsp;/&thinsp;Reliable sources/Cost. Furthermore, what I recommend you do, in the wake of that information, and to be a responsible user, is tag the page voluntarily for deletion; just go there, click edit, add this to the top of the page:  and save. Normally I would provide some recommendations as to how to cite the news source, but I guess you do still have a problem, insofar as you seem to just have the clipping, and don't know where it was published, so you can't just use, for example, cite news and fill out the name of the newspaper, author, page, etc. (I attempted a search to see if I could locate its source, but failed). Still, it's gotta go. Lastly, there is no chance of the draft being accepted with its current state of sourcing. You need to cite reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the subject in substantive detail to demonstrate his notability, and verify all significant factual statements. We don't properly write what we know off the top of our heads here; the only advantage for writing articles people like you enjoy—a person with a conflict of interest writing about a subject they are connected to—is that they might know where sources exist, and have information about the subject that could form grist for good leads for searching for sources. Far too often, however, a person's comnnected knowledge has the exact opposite effect; it represents a liability for writing proper content, because they write what they know out of their head, which then needs to "back into" sourcing (if verifying sources exist for the content, which is often not even true), or be removed. To put it another way, having never heard of your father, if I decided to write an article, I could only write what I learned from sources – and that is the only content that belongs in an article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Please rethink the phrase "patent copyright infringement". When I first saw it I thought you were bringing up something to do with patent law, but I now realize you are using it in a different sense. On the chance someone else might misconstrue it, I urge different phrasing. Perhaps "clear copyright infringement"? Even there, if the image were pre-1925 it would not be copyright infringement, but I think an image from 1937 depends on whether the copyright holder filed for and properly renewed their copyright, which is a pain to track down, but I don't think it's obviously a problem; I think it takes research to determine whether it's a problem. S Philbrick  (Talk)  23:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey . I see what you're saying but I think it's fairly clear from the context – but I will keep it in mind when speaking of intellectual property. As to the second part, we will have to disagree. The default is assuming non-free copyright unless we have affirmative evidence to the contrary. Meanwhile, all the evidence we do have implies it is likely copyrighted. Your post (patently) reverses the burden.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with . Wikipedia policy is to be conservative with copyright law, and the basic Berne convention law is that a work is copyrighted by default. To use it, you must show that it is not copyrighted for some specific and demonstrable reason (or that is has a compatible copyright license). -Arch dude (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , We are not really disagreeing. I accept that the default is that it's copyrighted, and for relatively recent works, I always assume copyright unless I see evidence that it is properly licensed. However, my understanding is correct, photo copyrighted in 1937 is out of copyright unless they affirmatively renewed it. I'm fine assuming that the default is they did, but assuming one needs proof that it's out of copyright is not remotely the same as saying it is clear that it is subject to copyright. It's not clear. We don't know. The odds are that it's not copyrighted but it can't be used without evidence that it's not copyrighted. S Philbrick  (Talk)  01:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Copyright law is an unmitigated disaster, and is not consistent from country to country. The alleged intent of the law is to protect the creator's monetary interest in the work so as to induce the creator to publish it for the overall benefit of civilization. The actual effect for more than about 20 years of protection is to suppress further publication. Because of the complexity, the "was it registered" test will depend on the country in which the work was published. It's true only for a certain timespan in the US, and is not generally applicable in most jurisdictions. -Arch dude (talk) 05:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for all that, and I think I get most of it - I've done a lot of reading. However, you say there is no chance of the draft being accepted in its current form. Can you be more specific? Is this because you think the subject lacks the notability needed? (To which I would disagree - I've seen far more trivial articles on Wikipedia.) Or because I've not included sufficient citations? This may be about my father but there is nothing in the article that is purely personal knowledge - everything is in the public domain and verifiable if you know where to look, which is one reason that I can write this article, and as you say, perhaps you couldn't. His BBC record is to be found in the BBC Radio Times archives (that I've added as an external search link) and books in the publishers' records - admittedly I've not included publishing details but creatinly could if that's what needed. What other citations are needed? And re. the newspaper clip: I've not taken your advice just yet, I'm trying to track down the source of the clip from the paper I suspect it may have come from. Ceperman (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey Ceperman. I am not saying at all that he's not sufficently notable. I am saying you need to demonstrate that by citing the sources that verify all significant factual statements. All such sources should be reliable, and mostly secondary and independent in nature, rather than primary sources (you can use primary sources but with limitations – and they do nothing to establish notability). If those sources exist, as you say they do, then cite them using inline citations. That's what's needed for an acceptable article. By the way, the fact that we have many poorly sourced articles has very little precedential value. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF for a treatment of some involved principles. In summary of that page, the fact other articles exist that might appear to be in a similar state to a draft that was declined or rejected has little to no precedential value – because we have plenty of articles that don't currently meet our standards because they escaped review, were reviewed poorly, were reviewed in an earlier era under different standards, and so forth. All this is to say, the existence of another page that doesn't demonstrate its subject's notability, needx better sourcing, etc, probably means that it needs to be edited to meet our standards or deleted, which just hasn't happened yet. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)