Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 October 30

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.

October 30

FEATURED ARTICLE

Resolved

 – Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 02:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

How do you put in different "Featured Articles"? . Do advertise a certain subject or topic?

Thanks. Moptopstyle1 01:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured content represents the best that Wikipedia has to offer, Wikipedia does not offer any advertising campaigns whatsoever as a non proftt organization, the articles you see featured on the main page are picked out of the featured article candidates. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 01:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm, so that means, it won't show any articles of Bands or Movies that are already articles? Just to show some diversity in the topics. Can someone find me a list of examples of articles that can be approved and posted there? Moptopstyle1 01:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moptopstyle1 (talk • contribs)

What makes you think articles on bands or movies wouldn't be featured? Just days ago the band AC/DC had their article featured on the main page. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 01:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

For more, see Wikipedia:Featured articles#Media and Wikipedia:Featured articles#Music. Melchoir (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks everyone! you really helped me out a-lot. Well one suggestion, House of Heroes, great band, they deserve some spotlight in Wikipedia. But the article needs a little bit of editing, so, I don't know if it'll be accepted oh well. Thanks! And The Beatles should be featured also. Ha.

How to do you say this has been resolved? hahah. Moptopstyle1 01:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moptopstyle1 (talk • contribs)

According to Talk:The Beatles, The Beatles is a featured article candidate. I am somewhat surprised to see that article is not already featured. Finding enough sources shouldn't be a problem, and plenty of editors should be interested in helping. Not so for House of Heroes, a less prominent band. If you want to bring that article up to featured status, see WP:FACR. Incidentally, when you say "featured article" do you mean articles which appear on Wikipedia's Main Page? If you are asking specifically about how articles get to be on the Main Page, see Wikipedia:EIW#Main. --Teratornis (talk) 02:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

A Help desk helper will place the {{Resolved}} template when he or she thinks the question has been answered. This doesn't necessarily mean the questioner got the response he or she wanted. I could ask "Please give me a million dollars" and someone might say "No. Resolved." It wasn't resolved to my satisfaction, but that's not what matters in a collaborative project like Wikipedia, especially if the question is open-ended. --Teratornis (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

EDITING HELPERS

Are there people out there willing to help edit an article that have Citations and needs more, um, I don't know the word for it. More info I suppose, that can become a featured article.

The article is House of Heroes. "I love this topic and am interested in helping to create a great article about it" so any one that wants to help. Go ahead. Moptopstyle1 04:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moptopstyle1 (talk • contribs)

"Amusing info" is emphatically what is not wanted in a encyclopaedic article. I don't want to discourage you, but the tone of your questions about House of Heroes seems to be "HoH are a great band, so I want everybody to hear about them, so I want to get their article featured on Wikipedia". That is not what Wikipedia is for. We want high-quality encyclopaedic articles about notable subjects, not advertising. "I love this topic and am interested in helping to create a great article about it" is very welcome: "I love this band and I want everybody to hear about them" belongs somewhere other than Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 08:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Information that is amusing to someone could be OK if it is reliably sourced and notable. Fun is sometimes possible on Wikipedia, but only within the rules. It's normal for people to start editing on Wikipedia because they have a strong interest in some particular topic - at least is was normal for me when I started. But to be a balanced Wikipedia editor, not to mention a neutral one, it is best to practice editing on a wide variety of topics. Be sure to edit some articles where you have no strong opinion about the subject matter. Then try to always edit that way on Wikipedia, even when you do have an opinion. Also note that on Wikipedia, there are more people looking for help than there are people providing help. See WP:BACKLOG for a staggering number of things that need help on Wikipedia. The best advice is to learn how to fix problems yourself. You could read Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. --Teratornis (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

And be sure to read some featured articles to get an idea of what it takes to write one. --Teratornis (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

And if by some amazing coincidence you are able to see the band House of Heroes in real life, the article is crying out for photos. Take some pictures of the band yourself, so you own the copyright and can license them freely. Upload your photos to Wikimedia Commons under a free content license such as {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. See Help:Images, Wikipedia:Picture tutorial, and Commons:Commons:First steps. If you haven't already created an account on Commons, visit Special:MergeAccount and set up your single user login. --Teratornis (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm kind of new to Wikipedia anyways, so in good time, I will learn the rules way better. Thanks for explaining everything. I appreciate it. Uh, I actually asked the drummer of the band about permissions and stuff to a picture of them, and he never replied so. I don't know. Yes, the article needs much more work. Moptopstyle1 03:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

unsuccessful searchs

I created an article on my username page. It was then moved so that it could be accessible to the public. When one searches for the article's subject [American artist Arlene June (A. J.) Finley-McRee] on either Google or Yahoo now, my empty Wikipedia Username page opens but the article on Finley-McRee doesn't appear, nor does a redirect/link. Neither Google nor Yahoo produce an actual link to the Wikipedia page. The only way to find the article at this point is to go to Wikipedia and type in the artist's name. Any thoughts on how this problem can be fixed? Christine Hamlin 01:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christinemhamlin (talk • contribs)

I wouldn't worry about it, in a short while it'll most likely be sorted out by the search engines so that the actual article page is listed in the search results. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 01:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It is now the first entry in a Google searchSPhilbrickT 12:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Page not appearing via Search

I have created a page under 'ComOps Solutions', and it appears whenever I am logged in, but if I log out and just try to search for the page, it doesn't come up at all. Could someone tell me why this is happening please?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by ComOps Solutions (talk • contribs) 06:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The page is located on your userpage, not in article space. However, if the page were in articlespace, it would be deleted as being advertising. Even if you removed the most advertorial sentence from the page, it would still be deleted as as non-notable company. Please review the links I have provided, and please also know that writing about your own company is highly discouraged. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

please also see Wikipedia policy on user names Sssoul (talk) 08:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I left the user a message on his userpage informing him that he was blocked and his userpage was deleted. —teb728 t c 09:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Affie Yusuf

The article for Affie Yusuf which was deleted by Bearcat should also have included references to the Artist in the the "Rough Guide To" book series. He has been written about in both the rough guide to house music, And the rough guide to techno - both highly regarded and most credible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sianlou (talk • contribs) 10:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Leave a request on my talk page an I will userfy it for you. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And see wikiindex:Category:Music to find other wikis that will accept the article. --Teratornis (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Linking to enlarged images

I've managed to upload 2 images, one a low resolution (thumbnail)version to appear in my article, the other a higher resolution version that's intended to appear when you click on the thumbnail version in the article. Can you advise me how to make the link? --Dcuwebmaster (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I've just spotted that there's a thumbnail 'field' in the File History for the larger image where I should have put in the thumbnail filename - but I don't seem to be able to edit this in now.--Dcuwebmaster (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You only upload the one large image; you can then render the image at a smaller resolution. The example at the right is 275 × 297 pixels, but it is shown as 50 pixels wide using [[File:Bad Title Example.png|thumb|50px]]. when you click on the image, it opens at the larger size. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

However, looking through your contributions, I assume you're talking about File:DCU Logo 600.gif and File:Dcu logo small.gif. Because this is a non-free image, the image you should keep is the smaller, thumbnail size one, and the other image should be deleted. You also need to add a fair use rationale to the image description page of File:Dcu logo small.gif. +Angr 21:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus in a Merge

While the merge page clearly states that if consensus is reached for a controversial merge then it can proceed, what about if the controversy remains - or even if a majority of the comments are opposed? Can I remove the merge banner on the main page in this situation? Supertouch (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If the consensus is against a merge, then a merge should not take place. Go ahead and remove the merge tag if that looks to be consensus. Remember that consensus is not voting.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is NO consensus either way does the controversy simply continue with no end in sight? That seems rather counter productive... Supertouch (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If the discussion is going nowhere, then it's best to end it as "no consensus", preserving the status quo; if a merge is still thought to be a good idea after a suitable lapse of time (not just a few days or weeks), then it can be started again. Which article is this, by the way? Bencherlite^Talk 13:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You may want to try dispute resolution to solve this then.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This is regarding the proposed merger between Salafi and Wahabi. Supertouch (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend that you open a request for comment. GlassCobra 13:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

desperately need some help...

was mayfair inn and country club (golf course) open in 1963. who the manager and golf pros were. what tournaments were that were there in 1963 everything i find says "late 50s" or "early 60s. ..im not finding anything that refrences the owner/mgr or the playing pros for 1963 either.

please help me!! this is very important.

thank you very much

terri french <blanked> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.46.32 (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried the Miscellaneous 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. TNXMan 14:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion confusion

Hello, I saw a new article Anderson and Miller, Attorneys at Law in recent changes and I thought it should be deleted. I looked at the history and saw that another editor had tagged it for speedy deletion under G11 (spam) but the article creator removed the notice. I prodded the article but my prod notice was also removed.

I warned the article creator about removing speedy deletion notices and also said (wrongly, I now see) that deletion tags in general shouldn't be removed.

What should my next step be? I just apologized to the user for my mistake but should I remove the PROD or take it to AFD? I am confused. Thanks for your help. LovesMacs (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it as a copyright violation of this. I hope that clears up the confusion. :) TNXMan 15:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, only an admin can remove a speedy deletion tag. Anyone else attempting to do so should be reverted and warned, especially the article creator. However, anyone may remove a PROD (including the article creator); if you still think the article should be deleted, you may take it to AfD. GlassCobra 18:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Now I am confused, the statement above contradicts what WP:CSD says in the lede:

“ The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. A creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead add {{hangon}} to the page and explain the rationale on the page's discussion page. To avoid speedy deletion, make sure that articles provide both content and context. ”

I have removed many speedy tags and am not an admin. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 18:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:CSD does indeed state that any editor, other then the creator, may remove an article's speedy tag. Tag removal is not limited to admins. If I saw an article whose tag I regarded as blatantly inappropriate and which did not appear to fulfil any of the speedy deletion criteria, I'd remove the tag to safeguard the article in the short term, giving my reasons in the edit summary and/or on the talk page. I'd contact the tagger to let them know, and then I'd look at addressing the issues that led to the tagging. The OP was right to contact the creator about removing speedy tags, but rather than prodding the article could just have reinstated the tag and watched to ensure it was not removed again until a CSD admin had reviewed the speedy deletion request. Karenjc 19:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That is what I thought, just verifying after seeing the comment above. Thanks. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 19:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

How do you move/rename an image

I'm guessing its an admin only option... If so can an admin rename a few pictures for me?

File:KawarthaLakesRoad02.png

File:KawarthaLakesRoad03.png

File:KawarthaLakesRoad04.png

File:KawarthaLakesRoad05.png

File:KawarthaLakesRoad06.png

File:KawarthaLakesRoad07.png

File:KawarthaLakesRoad08.png

File:KawarthaLakesRoad09.png

These 8 images need the 0 removed from the number at the end. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's admin only. If it was only one file then {{Rename media}} could be used. Why do they need the 0 removed? File names are not displayed in articles and I don't see the need. I assume the road name is not normally written with a leading 0 but such things are common in file names, and moving files can have some inconveniences. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm the uploader of the files and I know where I've made use of them to make the changes. The main reason is for the use of templates, which display the road name as well as the sign. With the trailing 0, the road name displays with a trailing 0 as well. Removing the 0 from the pictures avoids to burden having to rewrite a lot of much more complicated template code. If its simpler, I will upload copies sans zero, and nominate the images above for deletion - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

All moved per request. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

article deletion

Sorry to ask about a subject that is well covered, but I can't seem to figure out the correct procedure/criterion for deleting an article on a subject that doesn't exist.

The article in question is Arrow without a head, supposedly a military award for civilians in the Roman Empire. More than a month ago, I left a note on the article's talk page, contacted the article's creator (here), and left a message at the Military Project's Classical Warfare Task Force (here) saying that after diligent searching I could find no evidence of the existence of such a thing. Or rather, I found one source that is probably the source, but this is some kind of dictionary pertaining to arrows, and it gives no indication of where it got this notion. None of the numerous books on the Roman military that are available in preview online mentions this, even in sections that cover awards and decorations — a subject I've researched a little in the past, and so I also have in my own files pertinent articles from scholarly journals, none of which mentions this award. I'm not even sure that there is such a thing as a military award for civilians in ancient Rome. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If you aren't using Internet explorer, you should enable twinkle in your Preferences (Click on the Gadget tab). With twinkle, new tabs will appear at the very top of the page (next to edit, history, talk, etc.). One of those tabs is xfd, which is X for deletion. You go to the article, click the tab, and fill out the box that pops up with your reasoning (and select afd from the drop down box, as the item for deletion is an article).

If you don't wish to use twinkle / have internet explorer, you have to do it the old fashioned way at WP:afd and follow the instructions it lists. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have listed the article at AFD here. You may wish to comment. Intelligentsium 16:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was under the impression that 'hoax' wasn't prima facie grounds for speedy deletion; moreover, I don't think it's a hoax so much as pulling a bit of info from a source that's unreliable. To me 'hoax' questions the original editor's good faith, which I have no reason to do. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Just checking to make sure you know you are right, that isn't a reason for speedy deletion, but it hasn't been nominated for speedy deletion.--SPhilbrickT 20:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"Blatant hoaxes" was added to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G3 at some time, but I don't think Arrow without a head qualifies. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Maybe a hoax, but not exactly totally unbelievable to be considered a "blatant" hoax.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 23:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If I had to guess, the article was created on the basis of this dictionary entry. But this entry is unsupported by any scholarship within the field of Roman military studies that I'm aware of. So I don't think it's a hoax, but rather based on a single dubious source that can't be verified. My question is which criterion for deletion is applicable to this situation, as I've encountered it before. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It is the opposite. The Wikipedia article is from 2005. Your link is to a 2008 book which says "[WP]" for that and many other entries, meaning they were copied from Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I guess to answer the main question here, if you're at all in doubt, or think deletion may be controversial, nominate for deletion at AfD. If still in doubt on speedy criteria, but think it would probably be noncontroversial to delete, propose for deletion via PROD.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

See [1] for documentation that the book copied from Wikipedia when it says "[WP]". PrimeHunter (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that! I thought there was something bogus about the book, but didn't spend any time exploring it. Thanks for alerting me to this sort of thing. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This is apparently part of a whole series of books called "X: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases", with varying X and lots of Wikipedia material. At Talk:A. E. J. Collins#Reference copied from Wikipedia I found a featured article with a reference from one of those books, but the reference is a similar "[WP]" copy from Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Inadvertently made 5 edits anonymously

I inadvertently made 4 edits anonymously today, all of them to the same article: Names of European cities in different languages: E–H. Can someone please convert those 4 contributions from User:173.9.37.97 to User:Pasquale? Ditto for one additional contribution I made on 6 July 2009 to the article André Aciman, also as User:173.9.37.97. This is important to me because the remaining few contributions by User:173.9.37.97 are not mine, and one or two of them appear to be vandalism. Thank you very much! Pasquale (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, reattribution is no longer performed. You may want to make a null edit with an edit summary indicating which edits are yours. However, this will identify your IP address for anyone who wishes to know. TNXMan 18:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an ongoing problem for me. First, make sure you have the "keep me logged in" box checked when you log in. Second, every week or so log out and log back in so you don't hit the 30 day expiration. It's a pain and I've tried to see if Wikipedia can just keep you logged in forever or at least let you know if you're making anonymous edits but there doesn't seem to be a practical way of doing it.--RDBury (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

See WP:LOGGEDOUT for help on this issue, including tips to ensure you are logged in. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

For some reason my wikipedia account on my other computer never ever logs me out. It's been logged into this account for over 4 years. However, on this computer it logs me out. You just have to keep a keen eye out for it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Automatic "return to" after login?

When I log in, my browser stays on the "Login successful" page until I click a link or type something in the Go box to go to a different page. But I know that when other people log in, they're taken automatically back to the page they were just looking at. How do I get that to work for me? I can't find anything under "My preferences" for it. +Angr 19:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope someone gives you a good answer, but it doesn't work that way for me. When I login, I get a "Login Successful" notice, with a link to return to the page I was one, but I have to click it to get to the page. I fnd myself logged out very often, not sure why, so it would be nice to find an easier way in.--SPhilbrickT 20:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have never returned automatically to another page after logging in, but I get a link saying "Return to X" when I was on page X. Do you not get that link? Are you sure others are returned automatically without having to click that link? PrimeHunter (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I get the link, but I have to click it. And I don't see why other people would lie about being returned to that link automatically. +Angr 20:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm with PrimeHunter, I have always had to manually return to the page I was viewing before I logged in. Not only on Wikipedia, but on all the other MediaWiki wikis where I have accounts. Before assuming the other people lied, make sure there was no misunderstanding. They had to understand exactly what you meant, and you had to understand exactly what their reply meant. Wikipedia is a big confusing place and many people do not use the correct terminology for every feature. Misunderstandings are very common - just read the Help desk for a while and see. --Teratornis (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

When observations don't fit the theory, one needs to ask more questions to uncover the source of discrepancy. How do you know that when other people log in, they're taken automatically back to the page they were just looking at? Did you actually observe someone at a computer when this occurred for them? Are these people highly experienced Wikipedia editors who are familiar with Wikipedia's terminology? If everybody involved has 10,000 or more edits, that is different than if they are all new to Wikipedia. See Meta refresh for the technical means by which such a feature works on Web sites that support it. I'm not aware of any reason why this feature could not be on Wikipedia, but I haven't yet heard of anyone implementing it by some means. Lots of people do lots of tricks on Wikipedia, though. Maybe it is possible with JavaScript. The Meta refresh article says:

• Alternatives to meta refresh include JavaScript, or HTTP redirection headers such as HTTP 301.

so maybe someone knows a trick. --Teratornis (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It works for me. I log in and get instantly taken back to whatever page I was just looking at. I don't know why; I didn't realize it wasn't that way for everyone. Pais (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What is your browser and version? Have you tried another browser? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It happens on Google Chrome 3.0.195.27, on Firefox 3.5.4, and on the older version of Firefox I use at work. All running on Windows XP. It hasn't always happened for me, I think it started doing that a few months ago. But I didn't change anything to make it do that, at least not that I was aware of. Pais (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(undent) It is possible that I am losing my mind. I just tried logging in on one of my company wikis, which runs MediaWiki 1.15.1, and something automatically redirected me to the page I was viewing before I logged in. Somehow I didn't remember it working that way. --Teratornis (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Image link

Hi, at Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0/Wizard-New edit instructions A I'm trying to make an image link go to a different page than the File description page - it's confusing people. I made Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0/Instruction image as a page specifically for viewing the instruction image at higher resolution - but I can't get the link= syntax to work; it just seems to be ignored. Help! Rd232 ^talk 21:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The link parameter cannot be used with thumb, nor can it be used with frame. Intelligentsium 21:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you're kidding! Is there any clever way to achieve what I'm trying to do, which is allow newbies to click on the image to see a higher-res version without getting confused by copyright messages and such, as seen on a standard File: page? Rd232 ^talk 22:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Like so:

Screenshot demonstrating where to put your text. Click the picture to enlarge.

P.S., I have changed 450px to a smaller size to prevent the rest of the page from being skewed. Intelligentsium 22:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, fantastic! Many thanks. Rd232 ^talk 23:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

How do I delete an image I uploaded

How do I delete an image I uploaded. I found out that the image is actually copyrighted and must remove it until I receive permission from the author. Thanks! Coreywalters06 (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

{{db-g7}}, or perhaps a criterion here. Intelligentsium 21:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, be aware that getting permission to use the image on Wikipedia is not sufficient. The author must release the image under a free license, such as the GFDL. Somewhere in Wikipedia namespace there's a boilerplate letter to send to copyright holders to ask them to do so. You have to make sure they say directly "released under the GFDL" (or CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA, or into the public domain, or whatever), and not just "You have my permission to use the image on Wikipedia". +Angr 21:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that is acceptable. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 21:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As that page says, when you donate copyrighted material, you license it under GFDL and CC-BY-SA 3.0. You are not giving permission for use on Wikipedia only. +Angr 21:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)