Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

How do I clarify that I have permission to post a photo?

How do I clarify that I have permission to post a photo from the photographer in low resolution on Wikipedia, with attribution? What license do I choose? The photo is john_hanlon.jpg, but it keeps getting deleted from the page "John Hanlon (record producer)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hanlon_(record_producer)

Pcaabplroa (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Pcaapblroa, the page titled Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission should walk you through the steps. There's a sample form letter linked from there that you would have the copyright holder of the photograph fill out and submit to an email address which to send it to. Does that help? --Jayron32 05:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there another solution with less hassle and waste of time? Can't I just credit the photographer and say I'm only using a low resolution copy, or something? The sample form letter doesn't apply to my situation, since I didn't take the image from a website. --Also, how do you reply on Teahouse?

Pcaabplroa (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but there isn't. Copyright issues are taken pretty seriously on Wikipedia, as it's one of the few things that Wikipedia itself can get into legal trouble for. Also, simple permission isn't enough; the photo must be released under the terms compatible with the CC-BY-SA license that Wikipedia uses. The "low-resolution copy" bit is probably a reference to the fair-use criteria of images, which the exception to CC-BY-SA release on Wikipedia. I haven't seen the image, but I'm guessing it's of a real person; this means that it cannot qualify as fair use, since it is possible for a freely-licensed replacement to be taken. (See WP:NFC#UUI and WP:NFCC, particularly criterion 1, for more information.)

As far as replies on the Teahouse: exactly what you just did is great! You can indent new lines by putting colons (":") at the beginning of each new line; each colon will bean another level of indentation. It's customary to indent one more level than the person you're replying to, to make it easier to tell who's talking to whom, but it's really not that big a deal, so just keep on doing what you're doing! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I will pursue your solution of getting permissions. How long will the whole process take? Do I have to rewrite the sample form letter, since it's for internet images and the image I want to use didn't come from the internet? -- Pcaabplroa (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, if I submit a sample form letter to the photographer, what is the highest amount of protection I can offer? The sample form letter only proposes 1 license: a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). -- Pcaabplroa (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea to tweak the sample form so that it's more applicable to this specific situation, but that's up to you, I guess. CC-BY-SA is the most restrictive a license can get while being compatible with Wikipedia; it can be released under a less restrictive license (like CC-BY), but nothing that's more restrictive (like, say, CC-BY-SA-NC, which would allow reuse for only non-commercial purposes). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that a CC-BY-SA-NC license is not possible for images on Wikipedia, right? How long will it take to get approved for a CC-BY-SA license after I submit my permission letter to Wikipedia? -- 71.105.97.86 (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

What are the guidelines for adding information to existing articles?

Hello, So far I've only done one short article and made a few minor corrections to existing articles. What I'm not sure about is adding new information or detail to existing articles. How do people decide if the new info makes the article more useful or interesting, and who has the final word? How much information is too much? Is there a sort of rough consensus about which topics are worthy of long articles - for example, you'd obviously expect to find a lot of information on Charles Dickens (for the sake of argument), but how much is too much for some lesser contemporary - given that there is always someone out there who is an expert on obscure topics?

Also what about adding details which then link to other Wikipedia articles - for example, in an article about a city, if I happen to know that a famous/notable person was born there and this is not mentioned, would it be appropriate to add a paragraph or so and link it? At what point does the mass of detail begin to detract from the clarity of an article for the general reader? Another example would be a biographical article - suppose I've read a biography which would add a lot to a short wiki bio - can I add this info, referencing the biography? Should I reference the biographer's sources as well? What if the subject or the new info is disputed or controversial? Is it better to put all suggestions for changes on the 'talk' part of the page?

Rather a lot of questions, sorry, but they are all related I think. Thanks TuttiFruttiCherryPie (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, TuttiFrutti, welcome! I think the easy, correct, totally unsatisfying answer to all your questions is "it depends". The general policies and guidelines on the addition of content are verifiability and neutral point-of-view, especially the bit about "undue weight" within NPOV. Basically, verifiability is a necessary criterion for any and all information (even if some information isn't directly cited, it must be able to be cited if challenged), but it is not sufficient. NPOV prevents things like cherry-picking and the like that, while they don't break verifiability, slant the article unjustly, and undue weight ensures that NPOV isn't used to allow fringe views to take over the article or be presented as a mainstream view. Another important one is BLP, which states that, for legal and ethical reasons, all potentially controversial material written about a living person must be explicitly cited to a reliable source.

Beyond that, though, I think it's just kinda whatever is right for the article, really. Common sense, a keen editorial eye, and a willingness to discuss when others disagree are probably your best bets for the rest. One of the original wordings of "Ignore all rules" was: If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business. I still kinda like that wording, although it's a bit verbose. Be bold is also a good slogan to keep in mind; within reason, just go ahead and make the changes you're considering. If someone disagrees, they'll revert, and then you both discuss it over and come to a conclusion. It's not that big a deal, really (again, within reason; messing around with BLP can become a big deal pretty quick). There are probably a bunch of guidance thingies scattered about for individual topics, but in general, I think just common sense and willingness to discuss things will do ya just fine. Good luck! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Writ Keeper, thank you for the very prompt reply. I definitely like the bit about ignoring all rules if they make you nervous and depressed! What I'll probably do is add explanations to the talk part of the page if I make additions. You say 'if someone disagrees, they'll revert (the changes)' - yes, although if the article is not visited much then I suppose a 'bad' change could hang around for quite a while? Thanks again for your help TuttiFruttiCherryPie (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Creating a Wiktionary for another language...

How does one create a Wiktionary for a Language that is not featured in the Meta list? I have been asked by many foreigners visiting my countryside where they could get some help learning my language and I just realised having a Wiktionary for Lugbara, perhaps at <lgb.wiktionary.org/wiki>, could help them. The language is widely used in Uganda, South Sudan and DR Congo plus other places, so there are enough inquiries. Thanks! Aikolugbara (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Aiko, welcome to the Teahouse! That sounds like an interesting project. Proposing new Wikipedias/Wiktionaries/etc. happens on Meta-wiki, which is a site for organization of Wikimedia projects at the above-site level. New requests for languages can be found here, and instructions for adding a new language request can be found here. Hope this helps; good luck! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, i will try and follow EXACTLY what you have taught me and do my best to bring other people on board to contribute. It's a Dream Project i have had for some time and just realised it can be done on Wikipedia today. I found an ISO 639 code set for my language and so the work can be on <lgg.wiktionary.org/wiki> instead of LGB as i had imagined. That's another language but Lugbara is LGG...Thanks alot! Aikolugbara (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Uploading a charity logo

Can you please go through the steps of uploading a charity logo to a charity page. I am a new user (registered about two hours ago) and am only looking to update charity page of the organisation I work for. Looking at other charity logos used on the site, I can state that the following is correct for the logo in question.

Description: Charity logo Source: May be obtained from Christian Aid. Article: Charity Portion used: The entire logo is used to convey the meaning intended and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended image. Low resolution? The logo is of a size and resolution sufficient to maintain the quality intended by the company or organization, without being unnecessarily high resolution. Purpose of use: The image is used to identify the charity, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey. Replaceable? Because it is a logo there is almost certainly no free equivalent. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary. Other information: Use of the logo in the article complies with Wikipedia non-free content policy, logo guidelines, and fair use under United States copyright law as described above.

Can I send my logo somewhere for it to be uploaded for me? Do I need to wait until I am auto-confirmed and then I can add it? What I don't want to do is add it as Creative Commons. Reynoldskevin (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Reynolds, welcome to the Teahouse! In general, you seem to have a good grasp of how this works, actually. To upload the file yourself, yes, you would need to wait until you are autoconfirmed, which happens after four days and ten edits from when you registered. It looks like you have the fair-use rationale down; since the copyright to the logo probably belongs to the charity as a whole rather than any one person (they usually do), you might not have the power to release it under a CC license anyway, but since it's under fair-use, that's not an issue. Things uploaded as fair-use do not have to be licensed under CC, although we do prefer CC to fair use. If you want to wait for autoconfirmed, you can do so, and then use the File upload wizard to upload it to Wikipedia with an appropriate fair-use rationale. (Note that the other option for uploading files, Wikimedia Commons, doesn't apply to fair-use images.) As far as sending the image to someone else, there might be someone willing to do that for you, though I'm not sure whom that would be.

Also, you probably already know this, but it bears repeating: editing the page on an organization you work for (even a charity) is considered a conflict of interest. Editing with a COI is not verboten, but you should be very careful when you do so, and it's generally highly discouraged to make COI edits yourself. A better idea may be to propose your edits on the talk page of the article and let someone else review them, to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I can't imagine anyone would be angry with you for uploading a new logo, so you should be in the clear for this case. Just bear it in mind. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality scale

I have recently created an article, however it has significantly improved since the point of creation. How do I go about getting my article moved up the quality scale as it no longer reflects start class status?Frenchhousefantatic (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Frenchhousefantastic, welcome to the Teahouse. I see a lot of your edits have been to Laura Norton. As this is a biographical article then you can add a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment#Requesting an assessment. NtheP (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

10 DAYS and it still says "Review Waiting." What the hell man? =(

RingerHere! (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You just gotta be patient. Last time I submitted an article for review at AfC, it took two to three weeks for it to get reviewed, and I think the backlog is bigger now than it was then. Keep in mind that we're all volunteers here; people only have so much free time to devote to Wikipedia, and it's a very long list of articles to review. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments against Changes

Hi, I have recently edited a page on a London based film school, and have noticed that since I've made postings in the Teahouse it has received some attention and edits. This is good, and helps, and my question is pretty basic - on the edit page the contributors have explained their changes, how did they do that? And can I add a comment to track the changes that I might make? thanks in advance SamCardioNGO (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sam. I guess you refer to the comments at the end of page history entries at [1]. They are called edit summaries and are written in a small box below the edit box. See more at Help:Edit summary. It's recommended to use edit summaries. You cannot go back and add them to already saved edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Need help with a portal

I recently created Portal:International relations per a request I saw posted on the corresponding project talk page. HTML code makes my eyes glaze over on the best of days, but I thought I had things under control. The problem is that, when I make changes to some of the components of the portal, it occasionally throws the whole page into disarray. For instance, I have created pages for the selected article, selected biography, and selected picture. Everything was displaying just fine until I creates the categories box. Now they're not displaying at all, or are doing so only intermittently. Any ideas on how to solve this? Thanks.Keihatsu (talk) 05:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Keihatsu! I don't think it's actually your edits causing the problem. I think the problem is that your random page/picture/etc. templates are misconfigured, and because they're random, they will occasionally work and occasionally not work. Each of these templates has a "max" argument of 5; this means that it will try to choose between 5 articles, biographies, or articles. But, you only have 3 biographies, 3 articles, and 1 picture created as a subpage (see Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:International_relations). So, every time the template generates a number higher than 3 for the articles and biographies or 1 for the picture, it will display a redlink (which means that the article and biography each have a 2/5 chance and the picture has a 4/5 chance to be a redlink), since the subpage for that number doesn't exist. To fix it, you should either create those subpages or reduce the value in the "max" parameter for each template. Does that makes sense? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that makes perfect sense, and I'm glad there's a cogent explanation. I'll work on building out those additional pages today, but expect me to be back at some point with more questions... Keihatsu (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

new at this

Epoch era (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)((helpme)) hello. I'm new here and am still learning. Helpful suggestions are welcomed.03:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Epoch era, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! Our suggestions kinda rely on what you want to do here; there are lots of different things we could use help with! I think that a good way to get your feet wet editing is to go to random pages and fix any typos or misspellings you see. This will get you in the habit of making edits to pages. While you're doing this, a great habit to get into is to always click on the "Show preview" button before you save your edits; this gives you a chance to make sure you didn't accidentally break anything. (I myself don't use preview as often as I should!) Anyway, I hope this helps, and I look forward to other hosts' suggestions! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

How does one update the information on the right side of an article (the brief summary part)?

On the main page for The United States Air Force there is a summary on the right side, it list the headquarters as "The Pentagon." The headquarters of the U.S.A.F. is at Langley AFB, Virginia. How can that section be edited?

153.91.208.33 (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for stopping by the Teahouse. The information you are referring to is in the infobox. You need to edit the page by using the "edit" button at the top of the page and you will find the information towards the top in a section probably starting infobox military unit. NtheP (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, 153! Don't forget, that a change like that would require some sort of reference. If you need help with the technical aspects of citing a reference, just come back here and ask. Happy editing! Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Why was my edit removed

Hi,I run a website which has become the hub for IT in my home town of Knaresborough. Last week I was asked by the Chamber of Trade and Commerce to add it to the list of external links on the Wikki page for Knaresborough. There are 2 external links on there already for a commercial website that is years out of date so we didn't think there would be any problem. However when I look today I see it has been removed. Did I do something wrong? PaulKboro (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Paul, welcome to the Teahouse. Not per se is the short answer. I think the problem here was that the external links section of the article was becoming something of a linkfarm and not meeting the fairly stringent requirements of the wikipedia policy on external links for example three links to the same website, just different bits of it including one dead link. I've taken the bold step of reducing the whole section to two links. As you are the owner of one of the websites I would suggest that you abstain from any other involvement on the article especially around this question of links as your actions could be misconstrued as having a conflict of interest in wanting to promote one web link over another. NtheP (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. I just looked at your edit. Thanks for putting my link back up. I did wonder about the multiple links, but thought best left alone on my part. Once again thanks for your prompt reply and action. PaulKboro (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Dealing with 'animosity'?

I'm not sure if this is the place I need to be or not, so please bear with me! A while ago, I reverted an edit on the Stephen Leather page; at the time I did say it was because I thought it was vandalism. There was then much too-ing & fro-ing and re-wording of the piece in question done by others, then a complete re-vamp was done on the page. I had tried to avoid discussion with the person who made the original amendment as alterations seemed to be being made by other editors. I did still keep a watch on the page as it has been subjected to adverse alterations in the past. A sock puppet investigation was then instigated about the person who had made the amendment and I discovered I was also listed on it. Unfortunately, the other evening I did respond - maybe I regret it a bit now - so then felt it was probably better just to walk away and leave it all well alone again. However, today when I was checking to see if anything further had been done about the 'sock puppet' allegations, I happened to go onto the users Talk page and discovered what (I feel) is quite a lengthy diatribe against me. I have never posted on his talk page, so he must have copied/pasted I comment I made elsewhere. I'm not sure what to do now? Sagaciousphil (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, SagaciousPhil, welcome to the Teahouse! That's quite the question, but it's perfectly fine to ask it here! First of all, I wouldn't call the edits you reverted vandalism. It's an easy mistake to make, but vandalism has a very specific definition on Wikipedia: it's the bad-faith insertion of purely disruptive material into an article for no reason other than to cause trouble. The distinction is actually important, as vandalism reversion is subject to exceptions for things like edit-warring, topic-bans, and the like. You may have been right to revert the material, I haven't looked at it closely enough to tell, but labeling it as vandalism might not've been the right move. Not everything that should be reverted is vandalism, even if it's disruptive in other ways.

Now, as far as the SPI, I wouldn't worry about it too much. I believe it has a pretty low false positive rate, at least on the technical side, so let it just be what it is. You can see the official advice for responding to investigations here. Finally, for the diatribe, well, I think the best advice would be to just ignore it. I mean, if there isn't really bad personal attacks/outing/legal threats, and if he's not posting it anywhere else but his own talk page, there's not much to be done, y'know? If there were such things, then you could take it to the administrator's noticeboard for quick action, but I don't think there's any quick action indicated here. Maybe just don't go to his talk page if you can avoid it. There used to be a page called "Wikiquette Assistance" for complaints like this, but there was a discussion to deprecate it a while ago. I know it sucks to have to just sit there and take it, but sometimes it's the best solution. Anyway, hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am aware of the brouhaha in which you refer. I am certain that your emerging the discussion without being blocked is indicative of your good faith approach in both editing and dealing with others. I suggest you maintain your position, on higher ground, and disengage from the discussion. The relatively large "sock-farm" that came into light is the exact opposite form of colleague that we desire this community to be. I am certain that these "puppets" have no ability to tarnish a thing by their word. Don't even sweat it! Now if someone attacks you personally with any form of incivility, or threats to levy consequence against you, that raises the matter to another level and you can rightfully expect indemnification. Feel free to inquire further if this answer is lacking and you need additional information. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, I guess I knew all along I should just keep trying to ignore it and not be goaded..............Maybe you'll let me drop by here on another day to enjoy a cuppa (!) to get things put back into a more sensible perspective; it's amazing how easily writing something down can make you realise how silly you must sound. As you very sensibly say, at least it's only on his own talk page :-) Sagaciousphil (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Creating a new article when articles with the same title already exist.

I want to create a new article about a woman named R. Rajalakshmi. She never used any first name other than the initial R. Because of this, I feel like there are two options for titles "R. Rajalakshmi" or "Rajalakshmi", but both already have existing articles about other people. What can I do?AudreyMurray (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi AudreyMurray! The simple solution would be to add an additional descriptive in brackets after her name - see WP:D for more info about disambiguation. For example, if Rajalakshmi is a well-known professor, you could call your article "R. Rajalakshmi (academic)" to distinguish her from other topics with the same name. Hope that helps! Sionk (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Article cited as advertisement

Hi There, my article on a London based Film Academy was cited as reading like an advert, and not having sufficient external links (see 'London Film Academy'). I've spent quite some time amending these two problems. Including adding only tutors that appear on Wiki, and discovering external accreditation for the Academy. So two key points really: How can the article (London Film Academy) be considered any worse than LFS, or the NFTS which I used as shells? And how do I appeal to get the citation removed, which, when compared to the two sites above, is now not equitable. Many thanks for your time SamCardioNGO (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sam, it was me who tagged it as reading like an advert as all you have is lots of bullet point lists about members of staff and courses offered. You're not telling me anything about the school, for example how it is regarded in the world of film making? What do others say about it? There is a Wikipedia essay called Other stuff exists which says don't compare new article a with existing article b as a reason for justifying the content/existence etc of article a. With over 4 million articles on this wiki alone it's not always going to be a level playing field. I haven't looked at the other articles but just because they aren't tagged is not a reason for saying that LFA shouldn't be. The aim should be to improve the quality of the article you are interested in, not let it rest just because that is the level other articles have been left at. Of course it's only my opinion that London Film Academy reads like an advert - if another editor wants to disagree and remove the tag they are welcome to do so but if they did without change to the content of the article I would want to enter into a discussion about why they feel it's not written like an advert. NtheP (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So my question is: Is there a structured process for working towards removing that citation? I have recently discovererd two key articles on the LFA, one in the Guardian and the other in the Telegraph. Once I've added information from these articles in, and thereby established 5 sources, 4 external and 1 internal will I at least loose the no external sourcing citation? thanks (I do have a ps here which is, are you at least aware that a great number of changes have taken place since the citation was made?) SamCardioNGO (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sam! We are glad you came to Teahouse for help. Might I suggest that you also read the guidelines for school articles, found here? Among the things those guidelines suggest is that a complete listing of faculty is unneeded, the exception being if they are notable in their own right. It appears some of your instructors have Wikipedia articles about them, so they should be included. There is also a layout guideline for school articles there (and an infobox designed specifically for schools). Hope you find this helpful. Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sam, yes I had looked again at the article before my previous reply and I'm still of the same opinion that the article tells me very little about the organisation. I'll be interested to see the addition of references from the Grauniad and the Torygraph. NtheP (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please help!! Someone on here old me that my sources are not reliable!

What should I do now? I have over 30 YouTube video sources which have no copyrights and are famous too. I have a few articles on a famous website as well, should I use them as references so that I can get my article reviewed and accepted? What about a YouTube video embedded on some other site? Can that also be used as a reference? Please help! RingerHere! (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Do bulletin sources work as references without using those <ref></ref> things?

For example: (Is it necessary to have it this way or can we just write it by ourselves in the reference section without using <ref>?</ref> Charles (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RingerHere! (talk • contribs) 08:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello RingerHere! It is best to use "those things" because they show which text is covered by a reference. There is also the issue that if someone else inserts a new citation early in the article it will make your numbers wrong so best to use inline citations with ref tags.--Charles (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Pdf documentation from National Register of Historic places - what to do with it

Hello again. while working on my article on Brow Monument [2] it was suggested that I contact the national register people to see if they had the nomination papers for the monument. they finally got back to me with 23 pages of pdf documentation. This is all very interesting stuff that includes old photos and maps and the nomination information itself. However, all of it is on an in-house server in Washington DC to which the public does not/can not have easy access. it took me over a week to get the files. Any suggestions as to how to handle this pile of information? I believe that the article includes most of the pertinent data (but i'll look over the pdfs to see if there is something missing) but I think the pdfs are extremely useful to anyone wanting to do serious research It is all department of Interior documentation so there should be no problem of it being in the public domain.Abearfellow (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

My main suggestion is to contact User talk:Doncram, who is extremely knowledgeable about the subject.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If you aren't aware of it, you may wish to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Most of my NRHP work has been in Connecticut; I've been fortunate that much of the NRHP material is online, but that doesn't seem to be the case for Arizona (see map). At that link note the following:

It is highly recommended that every NRHP article use the official NRHP Inventory/Nomination document as a source about the listing. They often include primary research information including description of the condition of a property at the time the document was written and secondary research information about the historical importance of the place. They are provided by the Federal government but are often written by state or local government staff or by private consultants or other parties who have not transferred copyright. As such, they are generally not in the public domain, even though most U.S. Federal government works are.

(emphasis added). The material you have may be in the public domain but do not automatically assume so.

Material does NOT have to be online to use it in an article. It must be referenced, and online references are desirable, but they do not have to be.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, well thanks for the vote of personal confidence i guess. :) Sphilbrick is doing fine with what he's said already. Yes, the NRHP nomination documents are generally very interesting and it seems helpful to link them into Wikipedia articles on the individual places, as I happened to do for this Colorado NRHP article today. The National Park Service is only part way through making them available online in linkable form through their search system here. You can search for the Brow Monument one there, but find your way only to a discouraging "Not yet digitized" PDF file, ironic since you happen to know they have that one digitized. But they will get around to making them all available for Arizona sometime soon I hope. Colorado and California ones were recently all made available; Utah and a bunch of other states have been available for a while. For now, the best thing you can do is use the document you have to add information to the article, and cite from it as if it is an entirely offline source. Eventually a url to the document can be added. Does this help? --doncram 00:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This thread was continued over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Brow Monument NRHP documentation. This thread is done, here at Teahouse/Questions. --doncram 22:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

How do you discipline a problematic user

Hi all,

How do you discipline a user who evinces a complete incompetence in a subject? I found a User:Aarghdvaark who is promoting a position that is at odds with the mainstream understanding of a particular subject: galaxy rotation curves. He appears to be under the misapprehension that there is a controversy in the community over whether galaxy rotation curves can be accounted for by dark matter. He has gone as far as to misinterpret papers to spin them to say precisely the opposite of what they are saying. I cited a paper that clearly stated that dark matter simulations which are state of the art show that baryonic matter follows the dark matter, but he seems to think that because feedback mechanisms are not well-understood (which was the primary focus of the paper but irrelevant to the point being made) that he can therefore say that it is a simple assumption that baryonic matter follows dark matter. It's rather alarming.

Is there a way to impeach editors who are clearly incompetent and show such incompetence that interaction with them is a waste of time?

Junjunone (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Why not to talk to them about it on their talk page, or get an administrator in to help? Content disputes like this are usually best solved through discussion. 109.153.79.43 (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I tried to talk to them on their talk page, but they were extremely hostile and seemed to simply react badly to the point that they probably didn't know what they were talking about. I asked at the Administrator's noticeboard, but they told me third opinion was a better place to go. Unfortunately, to get a proper third opinion, an expert would be required in the subject. Do you know of any way Wikipedia can get experts to comment? Junjunone (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Junjunone and welcome to Teahouse. You could try asking on the talk page atWikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy. Possibly an expert will see it and come by to help. Have you tried Third opinion? Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy who might not be considered formal experts, but are quite conversant in the subject matter. Galaxy rotation curve is not all that complicated a subject, it doesn't really take an expert to weight in on a content dispute.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm the problematic user. I would be wary about treating Junjunone as a new user, despite his comments such as "I hope I did this correctly" etc. at his request for me to be banned Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Topic ban User:Aarghdvaark and his seemingly naive way of asking for help above. His post here asking for help was at 17:27. His request for me to be topic banned was at 17:34. His pages start on the 4 Sep 2012, but he knows how to apply the vandalism tag, he's found Jimbo's talk page, and he knows about topic bans. It took me a lot longer than 2 weeks to find my way around. He also fundamentally disagrees with the way Wikipedia operates and thinks that experts (such as himself) should be the ones to edit articles. Aarghdvaark (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Junjunone and Aarghdvaark. Have a seat, sip some tea, and let's work this out in a rational, polite manner, shall we? What we have here is a content dispute. Wikipedia has many ways to deal with content disputes, including the Request for Comment process, the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and various other resources described on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I suggest that you look over these methods and see which one works best for you. Junjunone, I also suggest that you immediately and completely stop anything that looks like personal attacks, as making such attacks will only hurt you. Attacking other editors will never support you effectively. Assume good faith, respect your fellow editors, and keep trying to improve Wikipedia. If you stay true to these beliefs, you will learn everything else you need to know as a matter of course. Happy editing! Ebikeguy (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Good call, though I've opened a bottle of Shiraz wine instead and am sipping that. Thanks. Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Help needed

Cross-posted from main project talk page. On the article Henry I of England : When you click this article the page logs out and is accompanied with other pages which show the beginnings of edits and it has things marked as protected without a logical reason. RCNesland 142.165.121.247 (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not seeing any problem accessing the article. Is this happening to you every time you try and access the page or did it just happen once? NtheP (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes welcome! Like NtheP, I can not recreate the scenario you describe. For example, the article you linked us to is not protected at all. Please elaborate further so we can provide an answer to your inquiry. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the TeaHouse. Without detailed knowledge of your setup it's hard to tell, but it's likely that this problem is related to an errant cache somewhere. There is a very small chance that one of the wikipedia caches was to blame, but it's much more likely to be either (a) a web browser issue or (b) an issue with a 'transparent' proxy in a school or workplace. If the problem persists measures than may fix the problem include: (1) reload the page (Cntl-F5) (2) restart your web browser (3) clear your web browsers cache and restart the web browser (4) try from a different machine (5) if you are access the internet from an institution (school, workplace, etc) complain to their networking people. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The best laid plans of mice and men ... RCNesland (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC) At first I posted a section on the Teahouse/talk page. I got a reply with a note that the item had been moved and yet a link that was provided took me to the same talk page where I had posted it. I replied on that page with a note that the problem was gone and that the section can be removed. I prefer to act under my user name rather than generate pseudo numerical user names. I enjoy working with the pedia and hope to not inconvenience others unnecesarily. Thank you for your interest. Sincerely; RCNesland (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add an eyewitness account of an "stub" article

I know how to use Wikipedia but know next to nothing on how to provide data to a stub article or if my data is acceptable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Lima_football_riot I was an eye witness to this massacre when I was 16 years old. I can write up what I remember of this event in my life and send it to someone. Roberto 99.27.97.79 (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Roberto, welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for coming by the Teahouse to ask this excellent question. Sadly, Wikipedia disallows the use of original research - and this includes oral history in most circumstances. So, this includes your eyewitness account of this terrible riot. Has anyone off of Wikipedia documented your experience? Perhaps it's been published in a book, or on a reliable website (i.e. news media, scholarly website) then you can link it on the talk page for editors to perhaps use if they can. But, right now, the best place to leave your experience is on the talk page of the article. I'm sorry that we can't have your unique and powerful experience on the article page :( SarahStierch (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

And to add to Sarah's point, it is not too late. If a reputable newspaper would have a reason to write an article about the event, and were to interview you for the article, then that article could be used.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

To further add, if your eye witnessed any of these events from a camera's view finder and you have pictures, this can be added. Because an image visually supports its own caption, it can at times be a doorway for the introduction of content. If you have any such images, I would be happy to assist you further. One additional thing. If you see a fact in the article that you are certain is false, you can challenge its validity, and I hope that you would! Here again, I will gladly assist if an issue like that ever strains your sense of propriety. Thank you for asking such a fine question. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Additionally - I don't know if this is common in Peru, but in the United States, there are a number of colleges and universities whose history departments conduct oral history interviews with people who witnessed or participated in notable events. If you were to be able to find such a place to give an interview, and they were to publish a transcript or a recording of the interview, then I suspect that would be a good citable source to suggest for incorporation into the article. (However, it might be good form to put the link out there on the article's talk page for others to make use of, rather than to add excerpts from an interview in which you were the interviewee.) KConWiki (talk) 03:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

redirection to layoff

hello Writ Keeper thanks for responding, in layoff article some information like benefits and the means of right sizing were not there in that page. I think those are important for any one who want to gain some concept on right sizing. So tell me what i can do now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srira4a2 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Srira, welcome to the Teahouse! I'm glad you accepted the invite. If there's information that you want to include, you should try to incorporate it into the Layoff article. Keep in mind, though, that on Wikipedia, all of the content in our articles must be verifiable; that is, they must be able to be backed by a reference to a reliable source. Citations to reliable sources are the only way we can be sure of the content of our article, so you should make sure that anything you add is supported by a source (even if it's not directly cited). One of the things about Wikipedia is that, as an encyclopedia, we don't host original research. Anyway, thanks, and good luck! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing

I have started a page about John J. Ensminger who is the published author of several books and many magazine articles but these references do not seem to satisfy the requirements of the reliable source requirement. I am at a loss for what to do to satisfy this requirement.King.parker3 (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey there, King, and welcome to the Teahouse! A related component to your problem is "notability." Just because an author is published, doesn't necessarily mean they're notable. Do you have access to any published reviews of the author's work? Such information would go a long way to establishing notability. Then a list of the author's work would be acceptable to include in the article, because you wouldn't be relying on the list as a source for the article. Hope this helps! --McDoobAU93 03:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi King.parker3. I don't think you can satisfy our notability requirements with this article, or if you can, it looks like a very close call. Don't let this discourage you, next time when searching for a topic to write about keep in the front of your mind that you are looking for a topic that has multiple, independent, reliable, published sources written about it, so you are sure to not have this problem again. You can still enjoy his books, but he does not appear to be a subject sufficiently notable for an article – most people in the world are not. I have looked for sources and have not found much to work from. I have also noted that all of his books I can find are self-published. For example, The Darkness Of 10,000 Stars is published through Xlibris a print-on-demand publisher; Police and Military Dogs is printed by CRC Press which is another (see here); Service and Therapy Dogs is published by Charles C. Thomas, and though a bit cagier, they appear to be print-on-demand as well by their website. In any event, right now the article is only sourced to the author himself. To quote our policy on verifiability: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

is there someone at wiki to send my content to who can just create a page for me?

I have been trying to get a wiki page off the ground for almost a month. I am so busy that I am finding that I don't have the time to create a wiki page. I have an article written, references, photos, and everything needed to successful create a wiki page. Is there someone at wiki that I can send my article to, who can just set everything up for me? 66.211.252.82 (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! I understand your desire to have a Wikipage, but please keep in mind that Wikipedia should not be viewed as a tool for self promotion. Generally speaking, people with close affiliations to the subject matter of a specific Wikipedia page are considered to have a conflict of interest and are discouraged from editing such pages. If you are truly notable within your field, then it is usually a good idea to let someone who is interested in your work "discover" you and write up an article about you. However, if you feel strongly that you should be included in Wikipedia, you might want to find a Wikipedia article on a subject closely related to what makes you notable, then post a suggestion on the article's talk page giving the reasons why you think you should be included. I hope that helps! If you have any more questions, please post them here. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The above reply assumes the page is about yourself. Is that the case? If not then what is it about and are you personally connected to the subject? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah! Yes! Sorry if I misunderstood your original post. If the page is not about yourself, please accept my humble apologies and follow Theopolisme's excellent advice. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! You say you already have an article written -- if this is the case, then you could submit it here to be reviewed. Just an addendum, Theopolisme 21:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Tell me how to make references

Anybody please do tell me how to give references while writing some article.WaqarAhmedPK (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for stopping by at the Teahouse. References are actually quite easy to add: after the text where you want to add your reference, place the reference text in reference tags, like this:

<ref>some reference text</ref>

Of course, replace "some reference text" with your actual reference (name of a book with its author and page number, link to a website, etc), and place this whole thing at the end of the sentence / paragraph / whatever that needs to be referenced. After that, you just need to add a reference list to the bottom of the article, so that the references show up. To do this, make a new section at the bottom of the page (like ==References==) and, in that section, place the {{Reflist}} template. That will create a reference list that automatically updates itself.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 15:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If we want to talk privately with someone, what is the procedure which we should pursue?

Help please! RingerHere! (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

WElcome back, Ringer! If the person has email enabled, you can send them an email and talk that way. Just go to their talk page, and in the "Toolbox" menu on the left panel of the screen, there should be an "Email this user" link; you can use that to send htem an email through Wikipedia. You need to have email enabled, too; you can do so on the "My preferences" screen. If there isn't, then they don't have email enabled, and I don't think there's any way around that. I'd say that, in general, though, it's better to keep on-wiki things on-wiki by using their talk page (which is of course not private), unless there's a specific reason not to do so. But that's up to you and the person you're trying to talk to, so have at it, I suppose! :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey! A username "Voceditenore" gave me a friendly advice.

Comment: "Apart from the lack of notability, with no reliable independent sources, I am seriously concerned about this biography of a 17 year old which gives the complete date and place of birth, and names of parents and siblings with absoutely no sourcing for this. The only references in this article are to the subject's self-made and self-published YouTube videos. This article violates Wikipedia's policies on Biographies of living persons and is especially serious because the subject is a minor. This should probably be quick failed on those grounds alone. I urge the article's creator to withdraw this article and to read our advice at Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. - Voceditenore (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)"

Now I want my article to get published. Haider Rifaat is a very close friend of mine and I am making a page for him! Somehow, Voceditenore says that he is not notable when he is and the sources do not violate the wikipedia guidelines. His channel has above 3.4 million views and he is quite recognized. If I have done something wrong in my article, can someone please help me with my article to get it published! I really want it to get published! Can someone make it for me? Hre is the existing article of Haider Rifaat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Haider_Rifaat

THANKS! RingerHere! (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi RingerHere. I'm not a Teahouse host, but I'm the one who left the advice for you at Articles for creation/Haider Rifaat. "Notability" has a special meaning on Wikipedia. The criteria for notability here is whether people independent of the topic itself have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter. These have to be published by what we call reliable sources such as newspapers, magazine articles, and books where there is editorial control over the contents. Wikipedia does have articles about people who are primarily famous on YouTube. Dan Brown (YouTube) is an example. But he was winner of a YouTube award which was widely covered in the press and television news. Here's an example from the Washington Post. His award was also covered by CBS News, Fox News and CNN. And there was a lengthy article about him here in the Lincoln Journal Star and a feature article here on NPR. Those are the kinds of sources you need to establish enough notabilty for a Wikipedia article. Without them, the article will never be approved.

But the problem that most concerns me is that this article is publishing private information about a person who is under the age of 18, including the names of his relatives, without any reliable sources for this. Wikipedia works very hard to make sure that our biographies of living people do not violate the privacy of others and that any information about them in articles is impeccably sourced. If you haven't read it yet, I really encourage you to read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. I hope that helps. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

In addition, although I don't want to look like I'm piling on, I think you said the YouTube video don't have copyrights, but they do. I mentioned that it is possible to license a YouTube video in a way that it can be used here, but I checked on of his videos, and it wasn't licensed that way. It is subject to full copyright. Moreover, it incorporates the copyrights of others, and someone with more experience with derivative material should check to see if the videos themselves have copyright issues.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Re-submitting a previously rejected article

Hello! I have begun creating an article which was rejected (twice). I feel I have now updated the article to satisfy the suggestions of the editors. I hit edit, made changes, wrote a summary of the changes I made, and saved. Unlike other times I have made changes, there is no indication that the article is being reviewed again. Do I need to do something else to let the editors know I have changed the article? Thank you! (PS- for reference the article I was working on is for Brad Phillips (artist).)24.85.230.5 (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. To resubmit your article for review you need to add this code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article. This will add it to the list of those articles awaiting review. NtheP (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! 24.85.230.5 (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Loading my wikipedia entry onto Google Maps

A short while ago, maybe more than a month, I added coordinates to my wikipedia article on the Presbyterian Historical Society. It has yet to appear on the Wikipedia layer on google maps. Have I entered the data incorrectly to my wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_historical_society

Or does it take awhile for this information to appear on Google Maps?

Thanks

216.158.57.9 (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, nice to see someone else interested in WP:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. Bad news is, this is usual. I more often correct mistaken coords than insert new ones, but anyway yes, Google usually takes months, not merely weeks, to make their maps respond. I have occasionally used my Gmail account to complain on a Google Maps suggestion page about errors in Google's own database, and seen it fixed in weeks, but haven't tried that route when they fail to update their [W] marks. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

For example half a year ago I adjusted Judson Memorial Church and Google still places it inside the nearby park. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I guess its just a waiting game. You can't fight the mighty google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.158.57.9 (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

problem w/ redirects

Wikipedia currently has 2 pages. 1) mixed marriage and 2) mixed marriage (play). I want my redirect to go to the second one. 204.50.179.136 (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Write [[Mixed Marriage (play)|Mixed Marriage]] to produce Mixed Marriage with no need for a redirect. See more at Wikipedia:Piped link. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. If you do want to use a redirect, you can simply replace the page contents with #REDIRECT [[Mixed Marriage (play)]]. That seemed to do what you are asking when I tried it in my sandbox. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

ö = oe

I'm not sure if this is a question or a suggestion, but ... While attempting a WP search for (for example) Willy Stoewer which is an Anglicization of Willy Stöwer, there should be a redirect, or something -- it would be cool if WP had a global algorithm. Anyway, would it be possible to manually do a redirect for [Stoewer = Stöwer]? ~EAF 74.60.29.141 (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC) 22:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Welcome to The Teahouse, EAF. Hosts, you are welcome to chime in, but so far as I know, Wikipedia isn't built in a way to make global redirect, but the idea is fascinating. You might consider proposing it at the village pump. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

...or would this be a "disambiguation" thing? -- Pardon my ignorance of WP-speak. Am I making sense, or should I clarify ~EAF 74.60.29.141 (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Your question is clear. Somebody has already created a redirect at Willy Stower in 2010. I made now made one at Willy Stoewer. Registered users can make redirects. See how at Wikipedia:Redirect. Creating an account has other benefits. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? Wikipedia has no system to automatically redirect to or from names with diacritics. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! EAF 74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

First timer, I am trying to write about my familie's colonial farm on here and I have no clue...

so I have put some thoughts together in a "sandbox" here and don't know what I should do from there... If you have a historical interest or background, I would be open to input... D R Geddy-Lamb (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

D R, welcome to the Teahouse. As the property is on the National Register it would appear to be notable enough to merit it's own article but there are two obstacles standing in the way at the moment. Firstly you have no references at the moment, I'm afraid oral history and personal recollections aren't good enough. Anything used on Wikipedia must be backed up by WP:reliable sources. The second problem is the tone, for obvious reasons you've written the draft in the first person ("I", "we") but it really needs to be written in a neutral tone, this normally entails writing the article in the third person ("it"). Sort those two problems out and there is the basis for a publishable article there. NtheP (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I am having trouble uploading some photos that I took.

I get meail messages from Wikipedia telling me that the file has been changed and when I click on the link they sent me I can see that they loaded to Commons. But it isn't on the page where I want the photo. How do I get the photo onto the appropriate page?Kmester (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kmester, welcome to the Teahouse! I can explain what happened, but I don't know the solution. What's happened is that all files should be in Commons, that way they can be accessed from all Wikimedia projects. Another Teahouse host will be able to explain how to change the code of the image on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam mugliston (talk • contribs)

Thank youKmester (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Kmester, as far as I can tell you have uploaded three images so far; File:RIT Mobius Quad in winter.jpg, File:Looking east at one corner of the engineering complex.jpg and File:Kate Gleason.tif. The first two are no problem and they have been tagged as potentially suitable to be transferred to Commons. Not that they have been yet but that they appear to be suitable candidates for transfer. If they are transferred to Commons this doesn't affect the way you use them at all, presumable you want to use them in the article Kate Gleason College of Engineering? In which case regardless of where the photos are you just add [[File:RIT Mobius Quad in winter.jpg]] or [[File:RIT Mobius Quad in winter.jpg]] to the KG College article and the images will be linked in.

The only problem file at the moment is the picture of Kate Gleason which is under discussion for deletion on the unusual grounds that despite it being an old photo there is no evidence at the moment that it has ever been published before, therefore it was not in the public domain in the US before 1/1/1923. You've stated that it's not from a published source and the original publication date is unknown - there needs to be some more information about the photo - has it ever been published in the past, if so when (A short definition of published is: A work is published when tangible copies of it are made available to the public at large. For a fuller explanation see Wikipedia:Public domain#Publication)? If there is no evidence of publication then it has to be treated as an unpublished work and the licence for publication will have to be changed to a Non-free use rationale. Annoying and bizarre as this may seem, that's the way copyright law works. If you have more information but aren't sure what to do with it come back here. NtheP (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kmester. Uploading an image and placing it on a page are separate processes. The latter is done by editing the page where you want the image. Help:Files#Using files and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial give general instructions but new users often have difficulties. We can give more specific help if you say which image you want displayed in which location on which page. Special:Contributions/Kmester shows the images you have uploaded. They haven't been copied to commons yet but it may happen later. It doesn't change how they are added to Wikipedia pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)