Help desk
< February 21	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 23 >

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.

February 22

Points of Light, non profit founded by George H W Bush

Natalye Paquin is the current CEO and has been the CEO of Points of Light since September of 2017.

Please correct this as you continue to list Tracie Hoover as the CEO. Tracie Hoover left Points of Light in 2017. This can be verified by going to the Points of Light web site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C0:CA7F:1B60:6C82:DBC3:E159:1568 (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please offer any suggestions for changes to that article on its talk page, Talk:Points of Light. 331dot (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When you post on Talk:Points of Light, please also provide a URL for the proper web site page. If you're not making the change because you have a conflict of interest, you can use the {{request edit}} template to ask for help. GoingBatty (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There have been multiple failed attempts to log in to your account from a new device

I assume I can ignore this warning, as I have 2FA enabled? Sorry for being ignorant. —valereee (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, now it's telling me there have been nine attempts. Very weird. Did I get famous somehow? —valereee (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lol..12 attempts. Clearly someone thinks I'm a problem. —valereee (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valereee and anyone else - I have received four email notifications of failed login attempts over four hours. The web notification says that there have been 18 attempts. I don't think that anyone thinks that you (V) are a problem. I think that someone is a problem and is trying to cause a problem. I think that someone is trying to log in through multiple established accounts, probably by guessing at dumb passwords. I do not have 2FA, but I have a strong password that I remember, largely because I haven't changed it, and because no one else would think of it. I have checked my User Contributions, and all of the edits are those that I have made. My advice to anyone is to check your User Contributions frequently. If you see any edits that you did not make, either your password has been compromised, or your little sister or crazy uncle is using your computer. If your password has been compromised, change it. As to what to do about the relative, see Deuteronomy 5:17. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to use photo

I have permission to use a photo but I dont know how to do the declaration of consent message. Can someone help me please? Golffan233 (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You having the permission is meaningless, as you're not the one hosting the image. Wikipedia is the one who would require the permission, and we won't actively seek such permission. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 03:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The person who owns the photo gave me permission but I do not know how to fill out the declaration of consent template. Golffan233 (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could get the owner to create their own Wikipedia account, and then they could use WP:File Upload Wizard and answer the questions. GoingBatty (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Golffan233: What we need is an appropriate license (specifically, CC-BY-SA) from the owner of the copyright of the photo. That's not merely "permission", and it isn't from the "owner of the photo". The photographer owns the copyright, and CC-BY-SA gives everybody the right to use the image, not just us. These are not merely our silly rules. A real license is required by law, and broad reusability is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. -Arch dude (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I should clarify that the photographer is giving me permission. I know I need WP:declaration of consent template is confusing. i dont know what part I need to fill out. Golffan233 (talk) 06:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the one the declaration of consent applies to because you do not own the image copyright. You filling it out is a waste of time. The copyright holder needs to be the one to do it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 08:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Golffan233. This article gives some good advice: Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. I understand what you're saying: the learning curve for managing consent is difficult, especially so for someone who isn't really interested in Wikipedia, only photography :-) – it's one reason many articles do not have enough/any photos. I can see the comments above are not very helpful and I especially don't really agree with the comment "You filling it out is a waste of time. The copyright holder needs to be the one to do it." My approach is to do the drafting for the copyright owner, give them the least possible work to do and get them to send off the consent I have prepared (which is compulsory -- you can't).

This is because most of my photographer friends won't go near this because it's so complex. Since you say "the person who owns the photo gave me permission", and assuming that you mean also that the person owns the copyright, I would recommend choosing the CC-BY licence (the most often used) for him/her and copying, then pasting into a word processing appn and filling in the licence in the article, Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Yours might look like the following (the text you would complete is shown in orange).

Before I give the details, some notes:
1. If you know the purpose and subject of the image, I recommend you give the photo a comprehensive name that properly describes what it's about – the copyright owner will no doubt agree with it.
2. I usually upload the image just before the owner sends the consent.
3. Usually one of the OTRS volunteers will get back and ask the copyright owner to confirm what has been put on the Commons page. It can sometimes get complicated, so I usually add the note shown below at the end of the consent (but part of it) – and I check it and respond to OTRS.
4. Remember you can't send the consent; it has to be from thecopyright owner's e-mail address.

Dear Wikimedia e-mail response team member,

I hereby affirm that I, [The copyright owner's name], am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following image:

• Give the photo a comprehensive name that properly describes what it's about.jpg

which my colleague has provisionally uploaded at: Give the Commons URL].

I also affirm that I have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free licence: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the licence and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related websites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the licence chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Sender’s name: [The copyright owner's name]

Sender’s authority: Sole copyright owner

Date: February 23, 2021

For any follow-up such as confirmation of the OTRS action, please do not reply to me but instead REPLY TO MY COLLEAGUE, [Golffan233, INSERT YOUR REAL NAME]: [INSERT YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS]. I authorise him to take any necessary action on my behalf. — [The copyright owner's name]

Golffan233, I send the above as an attachment to an e-mail to the copyright owner. The e-mail itself reads as follows:

Subject: Instructions for sending your copyright consent to Wikimedia

1. Please open the attachment and copy all of the text.

2. Paste the text into a new blank e-mail.

3. Address the e-mail to: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org — with me as a cc: [Golffan233, INSERT YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS]

4. For the e-mail Subject, copy/paste or type this exactly: Declaration of consent for re-use of image
(It must be exactly this wording to get through their automated system to a specialised Wikipedia volunteer; otherwise it gets into a manual-handling queue that is often rather long, which leaves the copyright status in doubt for that time and may trigger an automated deletion.)

Their confirmation

At the bottom of your consent I have included an authorisation for any post-lodgement confirmations or queries to be sent to me. Usually there is only one, asking for what the volunteer has done to be checked and confirmed. If there are more, it can get complicated. If they overlook the authorisation and a volunteer e-mails you with words to the effect that he/she has "made the necessary modifications to the file pages" and asking you to "please verify", check whether they have cc'd me too. If they have, I'll check the pages and let them know, with a cc to you.

Golffan233, I guess by now you can probably see how things can get complicated! And this is the much simplified version (the result of dozens of small improvements, many achieved by asking the copyright owners their preferences, what was difficult, etc). I hope this helps!

PS: It's a good idea to open an account, so I/we can "ping" you, among other benefits.

Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 13:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SCHolar44: I was unaware that CC-BY was the most commonly used license here. I thought CC-BY-SA was more common. Where can we verify this? -Arch dude (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Arch dude! When I prepared some notes (on which the suggestion above is based) a year ago, I had found an authoritative (Wikipedia) source. Can't immediately remember where, but I'll mull it over during the day; then I'll sleep on it – that should do the trick. Will get back. Thank you for your help in the past. Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 03:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Diesel Sports Club

Hi, I am the founder of the organization and all of our information is verifiable, can I not create a page about us? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjmccray (talk • contribs) 03:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has the sports club been written about, in depth, by third-party sources with editorial oversight and no direct connexion to the club? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 03:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have been featured in other publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjmccray (talk • contribs) 04:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wjmccray: our goal is to have an article for every notable subject, and every article must be about a subject that is notable by our definition. Please see WP:NCORP. If your subject is not notable we cannot accept an article, and if n article somehow makes its way into Wikipedia, we will delete it. See WP:AMOUNT. -Arch dude (talk) 04:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wjmccray, as the founder of the group, you have a glaring Conflict of interest and must comply with the mandatory Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure with your very next edits. If you want to try writing a successful draft, please be aware that you are taking on a task that results in failure for a very large percentage of COI editors. Writing a successful new article is a daunting task for most new editors who don't even have a COI. Please read Your first article and internalize the core content policy of the Neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a venue to promote or advertise your organization in any way, so do not try. Use the Articles for Creation process to review your draft. Do not try to circumvent review of your work by experienced, uninvolved editors. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the details. I'm really just trying to document our history for future generations. I wouldn't mind paying someone to add our organization's info and history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjmccray (talk • contribs) 21:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help passing GA

The page Chromatica, a page I reviewed to be a good article, recently passed. Now I need to list the article as such. I'm following what WP:GAN/I#PASS says but I'm still confused on what to do. versacespace talk to me 06:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VersaceSpace It looks okay to me, the bot has added the GA tag to the article in edit, and Talk:Chromatica is correctly tagged as a GA too. Is there something in particular that you think hasn't been done? Joseph2302 (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph2302 doesn't it need to be tagged as a GA in WikiProjects? versacespace talk to me 14:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VersaceSpace Yes, the WPs do need to be updated to GA. Looks like this was done by DAP389 here. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a living person and appears to have no references.

I have already provide three references of news portal then why decline my article on behalf of no references ? please help to provide reliable source and remove this tag[[1]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitchandelbjp (talk • contribs) 07:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ankitchandelbjp, your article hasn't been declined. It exists in the main space. There isn't much coverage of the person mentioned in the article although if you searched hard enough you could find some more information. SenatorLEVI 08:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ankitchandelbjp: The Ankit Singh Chandel article has been nominated for deletion. You may contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankit Singh Chandel. If you are Ankit Chandel or have any personal or professional relationship with Chandel, then you have a conflict of interest that you need to disclose on your user page using the {{UserboxCOI}} template. GoingBatty (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need someone to fix a talk page layout

I do not know what I did wrong, but after my edits Talk:Regensburg lecture has all its text centered. Could someone fix this by putting the layout back to normal? Veverve (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed with this edit.-Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Coppa Italia finals/archive2

Hi! I nominate the List of Coppa Italia finals for Featured List, but some mistakes have been made. Nobody has answered me, but someone has read the page. What I can do? I would like an answer for know if they are for or against. Dr Salvus (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Route map

Hello. A user asked me this "I want for you to go to the draft: csx altenheim subdivision and make a route map based on the mileposts table." I don't really know how to do that, so I told them I'd ask around, unable to find a solution myself. Any help/explanation would be appreciated. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 15:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EDG 543: take a look at Wikipedia:Route diagram template. It explains {{routemap}} and provides a worked example. -Arch dude (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

A new article I created was deleted for copyright. The public references were referencing a public obituary (which I helped write) and was published at my request by one of those sites (and copied without permission by the other). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrujis (talk • contribs) 16:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dbrujis. First of all, I'm guessing from your username that you are a relative of Marcos Brujis: I'm sorry for your loss. As for the obituary, at the bottom of that page it says "© 2021 Legacy.com All rights Reserved", and in the absence of any other formal notification, Wikipedia regards that as definitive. If you own the copyright to the whole text (unlikely, if you "helped write" it) then you have the legal power to license it in terms that Wikipedia will accept; but only the copyright holder may do so.

However, I think that the copyright is not relevant, because the obituary cannot be used directly in Wikipedia, as it would constitute original research. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a memorial site: a Wikipedia article about Brujis is subject to exactly the same criteria that would have applied when he was alive: both notability and biography of living persons (the latter applies to recently deceased people as well). If there are suitable independent reliable sources to establish his notability, then the article should be written based almost entirely on those independent sources; if there are not, then an article will not be accepted, however it is written. I'm sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion process gone wrong

I tried to candidate an article for the deletion process but something has gone wrong.

The discussion page has been created, but in the daily log the page does not appear to be created (right above the EMS Software).

I think something went wrong during the process, so I hope someone from the community can fix this since I'm not able to. --Darius Alnex (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Darius Alnex: I've reformatted the AFD page by following the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO, and the daily log now looks right. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I Write the CEO's Bio, Is it Likely to be Accepted?

Hello. The president and CEO of our well-known non-profit organization in the legal education industry has been told by numerous people in the industry that she should have a bio on Wikipedia. She is well-known in our industry. Prior to being named president and CEO, she was dean of a major U.S. law school.

I'd like to write this Wikipedia bio of our CEO. If I write her bio page and background simply as statements of fact--with no PR embellishments--could it be approved for publication? Or is it likely to be rejected out of hand?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PapaLu0823 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you work for this person, you need to follow the instructions for declaring your conflict of interest.

The first thing you need to do is forget everything you know about this person. Do some research, and do not write anything that is not backed up by previously published material about her. Cite sources for everything you put in the draft.

Use the articles for creation process. It's time consuming, but gives your draft a higher chance of being accepted. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every claim the article makes that could potentially be challenged for ANY reason what-so-ever requires a strong third-party source corroborating it. You are also obligated to disclose your relationship with the school as you work for them. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 18:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please also bear in mind that having a Wikipedia article isn't necessarily a good thing.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, carefully note that previously published material you use as a basis for your article must be published in resources independent of the CEO, as in, unconnected to the person and her company. See what constitutes a reliable source on Wikipedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi, I’m trying to find my help to a forum to apologise for and explain editing mistakes. Thanks for help. Ema--or (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no forum to apologize, and there is no need to apologize as long as you learned a lesson from your mistakes (whatever they may have been). In the future, just follow Wikipedia's guidelines. If you have questions about guidelines, you can ask here. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 19:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi (thanks), what about self-explanation? Even if I wait till much later (after things cool), I could still potentially benefit from the knowledge of the process. Thanks again! Ema--or (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't get the syntax right to add image from Commons

In editing Dirachma, I discovered an image from Commons in an article on another Wiki, and have been attempting to add it to the English article. Something about my syntax is defective, making the image invisible, the only indication of my edit being a slight change to the spacing of the lines in that section: diff. What should I do here?--Quisqualis (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Quisqualis: The image is showing for me on that page, so not sure why you can't see it. RudolfRed (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you are referring to File:Transactionsofro311888roy 0563.jpg RudolfRed (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I was expecting to find the image imbedded in the paragraph. Will read up on that.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Publication Question

I have drafted and attempted to publish information about an artist titled "Van Hoople". Whereas I have "Published" it I do not see that it shows up as published when I search for it. Please advise what I need to do to successfully complete the process. Thank you, Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Moersch (talk • contribs) 20:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bill Moersch: Draft:Van Hoople is unlikely to be approved. There are no reliable sources. Please see WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE, WP:GNG and WP:RS. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bill Moersch: Please note that "Publish Changes" should be interpreted to simply mean "save changes", it does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". I have added the appropriate information to allow you to submit your draft for review before formally placing it in the encyclopedia, but as Tim notes, if you submitted it now it would be rejected quickly. Please read what Tim suggests. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, this is confusing user interface. In Draft mode, publishing can mean two distinct things, and we should request a change text to Save changes while in Draft mode. Shushugah (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyers don't always think in terms of what makes sense to non-lawyers (I say that as . . . a lawyer), but rather what makes sense legally. The change from "save changes" to "publish changes" was made a the behest of the WMF's legal department, which was concerned that people did not realize when they hit "save changes" that the changes would immediately be publicly visible and that, by clicking that button people are "irrevocably agree[ing] to release [their] contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 00:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. The only thing that wording change has done is change the complaints from "I didn't know it would be publicly visible!" to "I don't want to publish this yet, it isn't ready!" —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 12:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]