Help desk
< September 1	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 3 >

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.

September 2

Help with new page

I'm having a hard time figuring out how to make a new Wikipedia page meet the requirements for reliable sources and/or references. I'm a visual learner with ADHD and the text heavy Wikipedia resources are quite overwhelming. Everyone here seems very committed and serious about doing things right so I'm hoping someone can help me. I think the links and references that need to be added to the page I made last week have now been added (by myself and/or others). Will the box posted at the top of my page go away now? if I need to do anything to make it go away I would appreciate some help with how to do that. thank you!Dhumphrey73 (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the page that OP is referring to. Dismas|^(talk) 02:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhumphrey73: The cliffs notes version is found here WP:42. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I really appreciate it. I want this page to be good and I also want to be sure it will stay posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhumphrey73 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhumphrey73: I had a few minutes, so I cleaned up the article a bit. I left fairly detailed edit summaries for each of my edits, so that you could see what I did and why I did it. And I removed one of the notices at the top of the article. In general, if you feel that a notice at the top of the article has been addressed properly, you can remove it. They are not removed automatically or by some bot. Note: If another editor feels that the issue has not been addressed, then they are fully within their rights to put it back. Leaving a note on their talk page would be good to get a discussion going on what they feel is still wrong with the article. I did not remove the notice about sources because I didn't dig into them to see what is listed. Hope this helps, Dismas|^(talk) 02:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Greatly appreciated.Dhumphrey73 (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Book Creation

When creating a book, is it possible to add a single section of a page into the book? If not, is it possible to request such a feature? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.99.20.102 (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like something to ask at WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Denali section editing gone?

Is this a bug only for Talk:Denali that I can edit the entire talk page, but not the sections? It worked earlier today and I seem to have no problems with any other article talk page. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyunck(click): You might want to post this to WP:VPT. They handle technical bugs over there. And I don't see this particular problem mentioned. When you report it, you should probably include your OS and browser versions. For what it's worth, I see the same thing you do. Dismas|^(talk) 05:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed the same thing regarding Denali talk. I am editing on the desktop site on a mobile device (recent HTC Android smart phone running version 5.0.1) and have seen the same thing in recent hours. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - Added |EDIT=yes per {{Box-header}} doc. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Newman Turner - photo copyright

I hope this is the right place and person to resolve a problem with copyright on a photo that was used with the biographical entry I wrote about my father Frank Newman Turner. The photo was uploaded but removed after 30 days, apparently because there was no clear indication of copyright. The photo was commissioned around 1950 and taken by a Douglas Allen, who is long since deceased. There is still a firm called Douglas Allen Photography listed for Bridgewater, (near where the photo was taken for use in my father's books; we have multiple copies of it) but I have been unable to contact them as the address and phone number seem to be redundant.

Although the photo has been in our family archive or years (and in new editions of his books) we have no way of verifying copyright. My brothers and I hold the copyright to all our father's published and unpublished works. Can you advise on how I might be able to reinstate the photo with the Wiki biographical entry? Roger Newman Turner 11:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Newman Turner (talk • contribs)

@Roger Newman Turner: If you mean that the photograph was in fact Douglas Allen's work, then it was not your father's work and doesn't belong to your father's published and unpublished works. Neither you or your brother should hold the copyright (unless, since Allen is deceased, under some special circumstances). However, since you do not seem to know much about that photograph's legal status, it is best that it not be uploaded, and certainly the volunteers here on Wikipedia will not be able to do anything about the law. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, given that your father died in 1964, over 50 years ago, I think an argument could easily be made for using a non free image under WP:NFCI criteria 10:-

10 - Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely

In that case you would need to upload it to Wikipedia not Commons - which cannot accept non-free images.
I suggest you read Wikipedia:Non-free content first, and then click Upload file (under Tools in the left hand margin) then "Click here to start the Upload Wizard" in box 3 select "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." and then "This is an historic portrait of a person no longer alive." and fill that out - lots of work, but I think that should justify the use - Arjayay (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rog. It would be better if you asked this question at our sister project where we have more experts on hand :Commons:Village pump/Copyright If your father 'commissioned' the photograph, then under the UK law at that time, he may have well held the copyright as he would be the employer. If the said photo was also reproduced in any book or magazine, then at the beginning or end of it, there should be a page titled 'Plates' (which is how publishers refer to photographs and other illustrations). That should indicate the owner of the copyright. As the late and great Percy Thrower used to say "the answer lies in the soil" and all you need just to do is a little bit more digging.--Aspro (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final thought. Publisher don't throw way anything to do with copyright. They should still hold a record to whom the reproduction fees of the 'plates' are payable to. Even when a magazine ceases publication, someone buys any copyrights they hold off of the liquidator.--Aspro (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Err. Think I may have been eating too many radishes and beginning to repeat – please forgive. Quote: “Prior to 1 August 1989 though, the copyright in photographs, portraits and engravings (and only those types of work) which were created as a result of a commission were owned by the commissioner and NOT the creator.” www.gov.uk/topic/intellectual-property Also, if you have the negatives, this adds further proof, as a copyright holder would never let anybody else have the negatives, in order that he only (the rightful copyright holder) can charge and supply reprints. So if you have the neg's you (et al) probably own the copyright. If you have a lot of questionable material, it may be worth sorting it out now rather than pass legal doubts such as this on to your descendants. Pass it by a solicitor that is an expert in the intricacies of UK copyright law (beware; the average solicitor in the high street knows less than I and notwithstanding their pontifications to the opposite). If you are thinking of republishing any of your father's works you can also take out insurance. In the UK, courts (unlike the US) will only award the rightful owner (if you get it wrong) a 'fair' financial remedy. So the insurance is very cheap. Hope this helps. P.S. I don't think one can beat soaking a bucket of fag-ends in water and that pretty plant called pyrethrum but those garden remedies have been banned in favour of Neonicotinoids. Madness!--Aspro (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SFM Media Corp

When one “Googles” SFM Media Corp, the initial results all refer to a former division of SFM Media Corp, not the company itself. If Wikipedia would like a description of SFM Media please refer to the following:

SFM Media Services Corp. was the largest advertising time buying service in the United States during the last quarter of the 20th Century, with annual bookings estimated at $1 billion.(1) While it functioned as a typical full-service advertising agency media department for numerous boutique advertising agencies and some corporations such as Chubb, Caterpillar, and JP Morgan, it was primarily involved in television network and local spot buying for some of the country’s leading companies. These included: Nike, Pfizer, Menley & James, Lorillard, Hunt-Wesson Foods, Mrs. Paul’s, Izuzu Moters, and Intel. It was also active in the placement of national spot tv placement for election campaign of three U.S. Presidential candidates: Richard Nixon in 1972(3), Gerald Ford in 1976(4), and Ronald Reagan in 1980.

SFM’s entertainment division counted Mobil Oil and Walt Disney among its clients, and is credited for the creation of the SFM Holiday Network, the first syndicated series of first run movies on television, and the renewal of the Mickey Mouse Club.

SFM Media Corp.,as it was eventually known, was sold to Havas Advertising S. A. Paris in 1998 (2) The SFM Media Corp. appellation was discontinued when Havas folded the company into its media department. SFM’s entertainment division was exempted from Havas’s purchase and became a separate entity: SFM Entertainment.

SFM Media Corp. was founded in 1969 by advertising agency executive Walter Staab, and broadcast sales executives Robert Frank, and Stanley Moger.

New York Times, Feb. 9, 1998, “The Media Business: Havas Buys SFM, Big Media Agency” Advertising Age, Feb. 6, 1998, “Havas will purchase SFM Media” Variety, Oct. 25, 1972, “TV Makes it “Clear” for Nixon” New York Times, Jan. 13, 1976, “Buying the Right TV Time for Candidates” by Joseph Lelyveld — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter staab (talk • contribs) 15:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. - Arjayay (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walter staab this sounds like information that could be included in a Wikipedia article. The older SFM appears notable. I ran into a similar situation with the Austrian company Voestalpine. A company related to them used to have a factory near where I live.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help to edit I Impact India

Hello, I have created one Wikipedia Page "I Impact India" which is non-profit CSR Consultancy of India. Someone has reported to delete the article. I need help to find out the problem and I want to solve it.( I know till now it is orphan, but it is not the criteria for deletion as per I know) ArnabKumarSaha (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ArnabKumarSaha:There are two problems with the article, which are both mentioned at the deletion discussion on which you have commented. The first problem is that the article reads like advertising. It uses phrases like, "provide communication expertise in the development sector with the cost and maximum impact," which sound like marketing or public relations language. The second (and more important) problem is that the article does not adequately demonstrate the notability of the organization. Notability on Wikipedia is a very specific concept, which involves not merely the idea that a thing is worthy of notice, but that it actually has attracted notice and attention in published material which is about the subject, but produced independently of the subject, and published in a way that provides for fact checking and 3rd party editorial oversight. See this guideline page for more information on how to establish notability for an organization like this. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ONUnicorn: I have solved the first problem. Is it okey now? ArnabKumarSaha (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ArnabKumarSaha:, you slightly altered one sentence, which I quoted as an example of a problem which is prevalent in the whole article. That didn't solve the first problem. Let me give you an example that's not from your article.

Encyclopedic language: X is an automobile company that produces low-emission vehicles.
Marketing/PR language: X is an innovative company which partners with industry leaders to improve the environment by promoting environmentally friendly low-emission vehicles for personal and public use.

See the difference? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got it @ONUnicorn.I will modify it shortly. ArnabKumarSaha (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:@ONUnicorn: Please review it once again and let me know your opinion. ArnabKumarSaha (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Torrance County, NM

There are slandered remarks being made about the Commissioners and former Commissioners on this site. They are being made anonymously but by the same editor. This does no good for the County and needs to stop before legal action is taken. Visitors go to your site for information, not slander. Please help us stop this. We are not threatening legal action but fear someone will, especially the people being defamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthregulator (talk • contribs) 21:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism can be reported at WP:AIV. If the editor in question is using multiple IP addresses, go to WP:Requests for page protection and follow the instructions there. Fussing at the people who are busy dealing with vandals on other articles is just mean and ungrateful. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to anyone who may have misconstrued my statement. I have no intention to seek legal action. My question is simply how do I stop the remarks made that may be viewed as slander. My intent is to only show a positive picture of Torrance County. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthregulator (talk • contribs) 22:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not exist to show a "positive picture of Torrance County", or of anything else. Wikipedia strives to show an *accurate* picture of any topic that meets the notability guidelines, whether that's flattering to the subject or not. Rwessel (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, the text that Truthregulator complained of was probably libelous and certainly unencyclopedic. He was right to remove and report it. Maproom (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct but normally we just remove the vandalism and move on with our lives. If it gets bad enough we use AVI or page protection requests. We normally don't scream "legal" or use legal terms like "libel" or "slander." So in the future, just don't do that alright Truthregulator? --Stabila711 (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been clearer that I was commenting on User:Truthregulator's stated intention, not on the particular bit of vandalism that prompted this. I'll grant that he may not have quite meant what was written. Rwessel (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading a company logo to our page

I have registered, but I am not auto-confirmed yet, so I cannot upload images. I would like to upload our new company logo (non-free use) to replace our old company logo in the infobox of our page. How would I best go about this? Thanks for any help you can offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abolt2015 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Abolt2015: You can use Wikipedia:Files for upload. Or post a link to the article and the new logo here and somebody may upload it for you. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must be doing something wrong as it won't let me upload our logo. ""Fair use" media files are not allowed on Commons"

I am registered but not autoconfirmed, so not allowed and it looks like I can't request upload on my behalf since it is Fair Use (??).

Cushman & Wakefield --Abolt2015 (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Abolt2015: Wikimedia Commons doesn't allow such files. You would have to upload it directly on the English Wikipedia, using the "Upload file" tool. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Abolt2015 is not autoconfirmed and can therefore not upload files to the English Wikipedia. The right choices at Wikipedia:Files for upload for your situation will lead to [1] where you can make a request. Updating a copyrighted logo is a standard request so don't worry about the license fields. Just link to the article and a URL to the wanted file. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, what sort of logo are we talking about? One common error I see with uploading logos is to assume that logos which are not original enough can be copyrighted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The website for Cushman & Wakefield displays http://www.cushmanwakefield.com/~/media/Logos/new/CW_Logo_Color_resized.png?mw=183. I guess that's it. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The logo looks very similar to our former one- it is very unique in nature so I believe it complies with Wikipedia requirements. According to what I read Non-fair use logos cannot be uploaded (by me at least since I am not autoconfirmed). @PrimeHunter Are you saying I should disregard and upload image to Commons (as if it is a public domain image even though it isn't) and change tagging to non fair use after upload? Again, what I am trying to do is swap out one logo for another. Apologies in advance as I an new at this. Thanks, all.--Abolt2015 (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The logo has been posted on our behalf- thanks everyone for all your assistance- much appreciated!. Please consider this request closed. --206.155.89.2 (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FASTEST SOLO CYCLIST ACROSS BRITAIN (WEST TO EAST) 90 MILES IN 4 HRS 1 MIN BY ALAN HENRY. 31/08/2015.

Hi, I am writing to inform and ask for recognition of a NEW cycling record that I (Alan Henry) became the fastest solo cyclist across England/ Britain on Monday 31st August 2015. This momentous cycling achievement has full data, GB athletics timekeeper and 8 signed witness statements with video images for the public to view. (FULL DATA ATTACHED). THE RECORD TIME: 4 hours 1 minute 55 seconds (04:01:55) with a average speed of 22.3mph. From the (Irish sea) West coast of Britain to East coast (North sea). The distance 89 miles across Britain to make NEW British coast to coast record. THE MACHINE: Giant Propel (road bicycle) with clip on time trial bars. RECORD DATA: Garmin/ Strava > Time, Route map, Average speed, Cadence, Heart rate, Temperature. Official GB Athletes Timekeeper signed time and witnesses statements .

DATE: Monday 31st August 2015. PLACE/TIME: Started> 01:00. (Slipway) Silloth, Lifeboat Station, Lawn Terrace, Cumbria, CA7 4AW. THE IRISH SEA COAST LINE. Finnished> 05:01 (Slipway) Crusoe’s Restaurant, Tynemouth, NE30 4BY. THE NORTH SEA COST LINE. I (Alan Henry) would like to be recognized and documented as a new cycling record holder for cycling across England in the fastest time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.96.179 (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your record, but we cannot record it here until it has been reported elsewhere. I can find only one Facebook report so far, so try to get your feat reported in the papers and let us know which. Dbfirs 22:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your achievement. Unfortunately, Wikipedia guidelines require verifiability, reliable sources, a neutral point of view, and notability. In addition, we cannot accept original research or autobiographies as they usually have clear conflicts of interest. If you wish you can write up a draft and submit it to articles for creation. They will examine your article and make sure it fits in with Wikipedia guidelines. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And please don't SHOUT, we can still hear you...--ukexpat (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright question

If someone copies material from a published source direct into Wikipedia, they are in breach of copyright law, and the material should be removed. But what if they machine-translate it from another language, and use the results? The result is a horrible unreadable article, but are they in breach of copyright law, or of Wikipedia's policy on copyright?

This question is inspired by the article Valeriano Lunense. Until I removed the phrase "once again", it contained "The planning of the village once again, at least in the most important elements...". This strongly suggests to me that it was copied from some (presumably Italian) guidebook. However, detecting the source cannot be done via Google, as it can when no machine-translation is involved. Maproom (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: I think that depends on the copyright law of the country the book was published in. There is an enormous amount of information at WP:NUSC regarding foreign copyrights and I am starting to go through it in regards to Italy but from what I can tell, a translated copyright violation is still a copyright violation. The main issue now is proving it. I tried to run some of the text through multiple different translation services and I have come up with nothing. In addition, I looked at the original on the Italian wiki and from what I can tell from the links there, nothing is directly copied (my Italian is not really that good so someone might want to double check my work). Since we can't prove copyright from an English source and we can't prove copyright from an Italian source I don't see how we can proceed. --Stabila711 (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: The text added in this big edit of 1 August is a translation (whether machine-assisted or otherwise is immaterial) of the corresponding it.wp article, Valeriano (Vezzano Ligure). Since no attribution was given by the IP making the edit, that material is technically a copyright violation—see Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate—and one could delete it as such, especially since the Italian article is largely unreferenced and may itself contain copyright-violating material. Alternatively, one could make a dummy edit to the article to provide the proper attribution and slap a {{Translated page}} template on the article's talk page. (On the general question you asked: Yes, a direct translation of copyrighted material in a non-English language is definitely a copyvio; see WP:NONENGPLAG, for one place where this is mentioned). Deor (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding external link ot Wikipedia page

I had edited the Wikipedia article on Sir P. Rajagopalachari

and added a reference to a web link in the Further Reading. This was deleted as inappropriate place by the editor .

Where would be the proper place to put a link? I do not find any place in the page which says External Link of something similar?

Raabharath (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Raabharath: I am assuming you mean this[2] revision. That was done by a bot. XLinkBot's purpose (as copied from its userpage) is "XLinkBot is primarily intended to deal with domains which may have a legit use on-wiki, but are frequently misused by new and anonymous users (or have a history of being misused). The bot allows established users to add links, while reverting links added by others. IP's and new users can still edit a page that contains links on the bot's revert list, they won't be reverted unless they add or change a link themselves." The link you added was autoremoved as it triggered the bot's protocols. Any link with the .tk domain name will trigger the bot. --Stabila711 (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]