Help desk
< May 10	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 12 >

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

May 11

Pictures of dead people

If there's an article on a band in which the lead singer died, and you need a picture featuring all the original members of the band including the dead lead singer, but no suitable one happens to be in the public domain, and obviously there will never be a new picture taken with the dead lead singer, can you use a copyrighted picture instead? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; this falls under Fair use, specifically under WP:NFCI, number 8. You will need to include an appropriate fair use rationale detailing why it qualifies for fair use. This, of course, assumes the band is notable, which is a different question entirely. Intelligentsium 01:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, they're notable, alright... anyway, thanks for the links to the guidelines regarding the issue. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown license for images

This file says the license is unknown. Is it allowed to be used on an article or my userspace or will it be removed by FairuseBot or DASHBot? Also, how do you add a copyrighted image to an article without having it removed by FairuseBot? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert, but I would guess that it could be used in an article but not in userspace. Obviously, if the status becomes known (once the legalities of the law is ascertained), that may or may not be the case. You might want to ask this at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, where there are folks who absolutely love these kinds of questions! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your second question: To prevent FairuseBot from removing a non-free image that has been added to an article, the file page will need to link to the article. In fair-use, all the articles that the non-free image is being used on need to be linked to on the file page, along with giving rationale. For example, see how File:Mario64 - Dire Dire Docks.png has links to and gives rationale for two articles. If no such link exists on the file page, FairuseBot will automatically remove the image. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 10:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image is (for the moment) on Commons so in theory it can be used on any Wikipedia page, including articles and user pages. Questions about copyright, licensing etc of images hosted on Commons should be directed to the Commons Help Desk. – ukexpat (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find existing article - R&D orgs by country & focus

Hi,

I found a great article on here just over a week ago that listed R&D organisations by country and research focus, however now i'm trying to refer back to it, and I can't find it anywhere!

I would really appreciate if you could either let me know where this article is, or confirm if it's no longer available?

Any assistance is hugely appreciated as I need this article for a project i'm currently doing.

Thanks, D

04:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)04:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)04:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)04:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)04:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)04:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviclarke (talk • contribs)

Try Category:Research and development organizations. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 04:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that doesn't work, and you are on the computer which you used back then, it might be worth looking at your browser's history -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can't create user page

I've successfully created an account, edited articles, created an article... but I can't seem to create a user page. My user name appears in red at the top of the screen. Instructions say to click on it. When I do, it takes me, for a brief second, to a page that tells me there is no such page, and I think offers the opportunity to create it. Unfortunately, that page immediately redirects to a 404 error, page can't be found. I've tried this both in Firefox and IE, and get the same result both times. Is there any other way to create my user page, or some way to stop the page from going to the 404 error? BroWCarey (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2010 (U

Hmm..your userpage is blue in the signature? --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 04:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Try clearing your browser cache. Just in case that fails, I have created a placeholder page for you. (That's why the link went blue, Extra). caknuck _° needs to be running more often 04:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that explains why it's blue. thanks, Caknuck. I appreciate the help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BroWCarey (talk • contribs) 04:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the Help Desk is for. Cheers, caknuck _° needs to be running more often 04:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To seek details about "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandher#References"

Greetings! My name is Sarabjit Pandher and I am a journalist by profession. This refers to the origin of my clan "PANDHER". Your site at "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandher#References" has mentioned that "Pandher is a royal Jat surname traditionally found in Northern India particularly in Punjab (India). Pandhers are from the royal family of Uzbekistan."

I am quite keen to follow this Uzbekistan link. Please guide me to the authorities that established this lineage. Can you help me with relevant reference materials or links that I can follow to trace out the roots of my people. I shall be extremely grateful.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.250.116 (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid the article is entirely unreferenced. That particular statement was added on August 6, 2009 by an anonymous editor. If you feel that the statement has no basis in fact, you would be fully justified in removing it (see WP:BURDEN). If you have any reliable, published sources which discuss the Pandher clan in detail, they would be most helpful in providing verification for what is in the article right now. Simply put, that article is in sad shape, and given its utter lack of reliable references, I wouldn't trust anything in it. --Jayron32 06:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I not autoconfirmed?

My username is Antoniogameirolopes. I am writing an article but cannot move it from the userpage to the mainspace, so I guess I am still not a autoconfirmed user. Nevertheless, I registered more than 4 four days ago and made more than 10 edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoniogameirolopes (talk • contribs) 07:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although your account was registered more than 96 hours ago, you have only made 7 edits including this one. Remember that preview does not count as an edit, only save -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fearful

I'm fearful of editing Wikipedia. Will someone help alleviate my fear? Volalo (talk) 07:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I hope to have begun to alleviate your fear by placing a helpful welcome message onto your talkpage. :) Orphan Wiki 08:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above message, the best thing to remember is that you can't break Wikipedia. If you make a mistake in an edit, it can be reverted. You can't accidently delete articles or other pages (only an admin can delete pages, and even that can be undone). Find a subject which you are knowledgeable about, find reliable and independent sources that back up any information which you add (or remove), and edit away. Seriously, you can't do anything to a page which cannot be very quickly undone! Read Wikipedia:How to edit a page, which explains how to go about editing pages; read "Your first article" (if you want to create an article)... and if you have any questions, then either ask here or at the New contributors' help page (but please note that you only need to ask in one place - asking in many places is not needed - if you have put your question in the wrong place, another editor will move it to the correct location!) By the way, just in case I didn't mention it before (and this is very important to remember): You can't do permanent damage to Wikipedia! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Start small. Start in a Wikipedia:Sandbox, specifically designed for you to test.--SPhilbrick T 09:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Find a subject that interests you and pile in. New editors are expected to make mistakes along the way. That's fine as long as you learn from the mistakes. Good faith editing is to be encouraged. Why not start at Wikipedia:Introduction, where you will learn a bit about what Wikipedia is, and how it works. Mjroots (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Account Merge Failure

When I tried to create a universal account following the instructions, everything went fine until after I created the account went into the home account preferences, picked "Manage your global account", and then at the "Login unification status" page in the box titled "Begin login unification" when I enter the same password I have used throughout the entire process, it tells me a different password has been entered. Now I'm not sure if there is a technical error or if I somehow entered the password badly the same way twice. Psturm (talk) 10:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the owner of the account Psturm at the German Wikipedia and at MetaWiki, as well as here? If one of these other accounts is not yours, that would explain the problem! If both of those accounts are yours, try logging into them seperately - perhaps one has an old password? For SUL to take place, all three of the accounts need to have the same password. Let us know how you get on, and if you have any further problems. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be one of my hundred-odd cousins in Germany. Could you please kill my Wikimedia acct.? Then I will differentiate my Wikipedia preferences properly change the passwords and try again

Psturm (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts cannot be killed! My advice would be to change your user name - then you can set up Single Unified Login (before you go to change your user name, you might want to check here that your chosen name doesn't exist on any WMF projects, as that might prevent you creating an SUL account! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me is having same problem with this account. It went fine with Commons and Metawiki, but there is an registered User in WP:en with 0 edits. That account was created in 2006. So i read about Userpations. Did i get it right, that i would have to create an other account on WP:en and start this procedure to get this account merged with mine ? --91.8.26.206 (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's an active user with that name on de:. Is that you? LeadSongDog come howl 16:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's me, with this named account there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.8.11.198 (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC) PS. as a proof, i added on my home-wiki greetings to you --91.8.11.198 (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this? :-) It looks like you should try usurpation on those wikis that have local bureaucrats. Given that the present user by that name has no edits it will likely be straightforward, though a bit tedious. Cheers.LeadSongDog come howl 20:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, i'm glad to get the notice that it should work there then , muito obrigado --91.8.11.198 (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not completely clear, but it may be necessary to register first under another name to be able to file the usurpation request. I posed the question at Wikipedia talk:CHUU but as yet it has not been answered. LeadSongDog come howl 04:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Staniforth Surname

How do I refer you to further information ie. I note when I put in the name Staniforth the info page told me correctly that it was of Yorkshire Origin butsaid it was a derrivation of another name Standford. DSheffield University have done research on the name as it was one of the 7 original Sheffileld families and they beleive it comes from stoney ford (dweller by a stoney ford) being a ford in the River Don in the Attercliff Area of Sheffield. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.33.6 (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that information is available in a reliable source, it can be added to the article (and cited). If, however, it is unpublished research (and/or not peer reviewed) then it may not be suitable for inclusion. If you told us the source of the information (e.g. a weblink if possible, or a publication) then we could give more specific advice. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing a deletion proposal

How do I go about withdrawing my nomination for deletion at AfdD? Astronaut (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe (having done it myself before, albeit some time ago) that simply indicating that you no longer wish to proceed with the AfD is sufficient. Regardless, this would be a useful step as it would notify other participants of your new position. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule, stating on the AfD that you are withdrawing the nomination (along with the reason) is sufficient, and someone will normally close the AfD as Nomination withdrawn. However, if there are delete !votes, it would normally be kept open. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anya Verkhovskaya, although you can withdraw your nomination, there is a delete opinion, and so the AfD should remain open. You might want to contact the editor who left the delete opinion, letting him/her know that you have withdrawn. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, a "withdraw" can help to influence the outcome of the AFD toward "keep": the closing administrator is likely to attach a bit of significance to the fact that the nominator has changed his/her mind. Nyttend (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continous numbering

How to change the number format in this article so the numbering does not start all over after the cross-headings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.41.34.154 (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can specify a starting value like this:

#<li value="9">Amsterdam
#Rotterdam
#The Hague

which produces:

Amsterdam
Rotterdam
The Hague

For more help with lists, please see Help:List. --Mysdaao ^talk 20:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Level of warning after a block

If a user vandalizes again when a block has expired, I usually give the user a level-2 warning. However, I have seen other users giving a level-4 warning in such cases. Is there a policiy on this? Lova Falk 18:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say level 2 would be the way to go for anons, and is what I usually do. For registered accounts, if for some reason they weren't indeffed as a vandalism-only account, and haven't been doing anything constructive, and came back with more vandalism after their block, I could see bumping it up to a 3 or 4. I don't think there is really any heavy-duty policy on what the warning must be, just use common sense. AlexiusHoratius 18:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I normally give a 2 for anons if the block is recent. I start over at 1 if it isn't a recent block. But for registered users, I would probably go with 4im of a block. If they aren't doing anything constructive right after a recent block, then it's unlikely they intend on doing anything constructive at all.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 18:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflictFrom what Im familliar with, returning vandals can be blocked more quickly (per Wikipedia:VANDALSIM#Warnings). I think thats about all the guidance there is on what level of warning to give. So yes common sense would be the order of the day. I would think that if it is a registered account and you know that they have been warned before than a level 3 or 4 warning is fine to give (as mentioned above). If its an IP however there is no garantee it is the same person and could be a new user. As such i would treat the IP as if they were a new person entirely and run through the normal warning scale from level 1-4 and then report. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they're registered and resume doing the same thing that got them blocked before, just report them to WP:AIV. The block was the 4th (or 5th) warning, no need for another. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Warnings are designed to inform users who may not be aware of policy, or who may not be aware that their edits are in violation of policy. For registerred accounts, especially those that have been repeatedly warned and blocked for similar violations, there is no mandatory warning for repeated violations. If a user should know better, and still don't, there's no reason to warn before blocking. For IP editors, it is trickier. Old warnings may have been directed at a person who is not using that IP address anymore, so one should consider whether the current user of that IP is likely the same person, or not. The most important thing about warning people is there is no formula which must be followed beyond using common sense. Furthermore, the warning templates are a convenience and not a requirement, any user can be warned merely by directing them to the policy they are violating; you can just type a personalized warning message yourself. The point of warnings is to give a user the chance to correct their behavior themselves before resorting to a block, any method which is likely to accomplish this is fine, but one must thoughtfully consider the likely outcome of any warning, and apply warnings and/or blocks in order to achieve the desired outcome in the most effective and least disruptive manner possible. Personally, I rarely use the warning templates anymore, instead I actually type out a message which is highly specific to the situation. --Jayron32 18:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Henry VIII

To whom it may concern,

Hello my name is Angela.. I have been catching up on some history of KingHenry VIII. I was just reading some footnotes from your on-line wikimedia. I don't study this, but what I have found on the site for King Henry VIII,, and theactual death of Catherine Of Aragon to the election of Pope Paul III has got meconfused. I'm sure I may be able to go to the nearest library to find out more,but thought you would like to know.. As follows

Catherine of Aragon was Queen of England from: 11 June 1509 – 23 May 1533

It also says she died 7 January 1536

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Aragon

Next to be known as Queen after Catherine of Aragons' anullment to King HenryVIII, Is Anne Boleyn.

From 28 May 1533 – 17 May 1536 (Beheaded 19 May 1536)

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Boleyn

Now what I am confused about are: Of the actual year of Catherine of Aragonsdeath and Pope Paul III election to time.

Paul III (*)13 October 1534 10 November 1549 Henry VIII between ages of 42 and death. Final break from pope

It is said on the Bio of King Henry VIII, that Catherine of Aragon died 15 months after Pope Paul III was elected. But according to the bio of King Henry VIII (at bottom of page) This is what it says: Catherine of Aragon died 15 months after his election. On (*)17-Dec-1538, four years into his pontificate, Paul III excommunicated Henry VIII http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England

Too, I am confused about the actual time of the Popes election and excommunication to Henry VIII

I am sorry if I have it wrong. I have never looked any of these history facts up in my time of school, only now.. Cause I am more aware about the importance of history. Also that it is, in those times, I have always had a very deep inner-connection too. Maybe it's just facination or mere intuition. Either way, please, If I am wrong, fill me in if you'd like. Otherwise I hope I may havehelped the next reader.

Sincere thanks,

Angela Gabriel —Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyPlavwell (talk • contribs) 20:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Angela, thanks for asking the question, but you may get a better response at the reference desk. The reference desk is more designed for asking questions like this, while this help desk is more about getting help with the technical aspects of editing Wikipedia articles. --Jayron32 21:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already copied your question over to the Humanities Reference Desk - so please look in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Question on Henry VIII. Cheers, Chzz ► 22:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tag "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" at the top of the page

Is it just me, or did the tag at the top of the page (below the article name -below "Editing Wikipedia:Help desk (new section)" in this case) change today from "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" to "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Was there a discussion somewhere on whether to add that part or not? I kinda preferred it the old way myself. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Tagline was indeed changed, following discussions here and here. Algebraist 21:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Improve the WP tagline. – ukexpat (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use argument

I recently wrote a revised version of the article about Fred C. Koch and, because I happen to work with Koch Industries (which cares about his legacy), I have worked with other editors (and this Help desk) to gain consensus for moving it into place. That much is done. Now, I also have a photograph of the late Mr. Koch which I would like to include in the article's infobox. Koch (the company) definitely would like for the image to be used on the article, but they do not wish to release it under a free license. I've studied WP:NONFREE and am pretty sure that this guideline was established to allow just this sort of image, but I want to be sure that I've got it right before I upload. Can anybody point me to a good example of a non-free rationale, ideally for a photograph of an individual? If not, I'll just take my chances later. Thanks, NMS Bill (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather at random, see File:Akuffo.jpg. Note that you must upload a relatively low resolution version of any photograph to meet WP:NFCC 3b. However, have you looked at NFCC 4 and can you meet that? The way you describe the image makes me think it may have never been published or publicly displayed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good point. I believe it has been published, most likely on one of the websites associated with Koch Family Foundations. I will ascertain that it has been, or use one that they have published, before I move forward. Thanks much, NMS Bill (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The banner won't hide

I keep clicking the "hide" button on the latest banner, but nothing happens. Does anybody know why? A. Parrot (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the related thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Site notice won't hide. DuncanHill (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

What happens to people if they vandalise a page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.152.194 (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Answer -- First you get a few warnings and if you keep it up in a short period of time a passing admin will PWN you. Happy editing wiooiw ^(talk) 22:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually, if the user keeps vandalising Wikipedia, they can get a permanent block from editing the site. Chevymontecarlo. 16:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that's not all. A long-term vandal who creates many abusive accounts for the purpose of disrupting Wikipedia could eventually be completely banned from Wikipedia as well. (Note that blocks and bans are two different things.) In addition, stewards have the ability to disable the global accounts of vandals who also abuse several other wikis that are owned and operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When was text added?

Is there a way to identify in which revision a certain template was added to an article. In this case, {{use dmy dates}} was added to the Metre article. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see the history page of the article (click on the history tab) - and check each revision. It's even easier if you have popups installed. – ukexpat (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering. I already know how to use the history page, but the text I'm looking for could have been added any time in the last few years, so I was looking for a much easier method. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer to an easy way, but I think the revision is this one.--Beloved Freak 23:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Wikiblame can search article histories. – ukexpat (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that, but couldn't get it to work.--Beloved Freak 23:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just use binary search. You'll rapidly converge on the correct revision. That is, start with the earliest plausible date when the template could have first appeared in the article (which couldn't be before the template was created - check the template's history to see that). Basically, you start by establishing two revisions that bound the desired revision: the current revision, which contains the template, and any old revision which does not contain the template. The template must have first appeared between them. Check the revision midway between the two bounding revisions. If it contains the template, it becomes the new upper bound; if it doesn't, it becomes the new lower bound. Each revision you check therefore divides the interval in half. If for example the interval contains 1024 revisions, you should find the target revision in about ten tries. --Teratornis (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's how I found it.--Beloved Freak 00:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you open the article history, there is a list External tools near the top. Revision history search will open WikiBlame. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]