Contact bellevuehallfame for complet resmue on David Beckman. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.4.86.185 (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we need to? Is he applying for a job here? I don't know of anyone who is hiring. --Jayron32 03:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@50.4.86.185: I'm not sure if you can get a job with the Wikimedia Foundation, albeit you can take a look at our Job Center if you want to help... —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 04:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought David Beckham wants to be the next James Bond...--ukexpat (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but if he doesn't land that, he will take Wikipedia editor as next best thing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This request was passed from a Cite error help page
Help me to troubleshoot the error while editing the content: Antonov An-32:Variants:
the editing is showing some errors
-- Zainraw (talk | edits), 10 September 2015‎

Please do NOT include your request inside hidden text mark up <!-- like this --> - which I have now removed - as it hides your question

Please sign all posts on talk pages with 4 tildes ( ~~~~ ) which will add your signature and a timestamp

The problem at Antonov An-32 was that you had removed the closing </ref> symbol from the end of the previous reference, I have added it back - Arjayay (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is generally not accepted uploading non-free use images of people, however I've seen plenty of "promotional photos" on various articles. I'm asking specifically about images like this where the markings clearly show that the photo was distributed by the artist and company to promote the band. Although these seem reasonably common, they don't seem to meet criteria in the upload wizard. Are they just a throwback to an earlier time when the criteria was looser? Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided leads to a amazonaws.com site, not to Wikipedia. Do you see that picture displayed in Wikipedia? --CiaPan (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Doctorhawkes. At one time Wikjipedia took the position that since publicity photos were distributed by the copyright owner with the intent of being widely reproduced, they were acceptable to use here. We no longer take that position, and any such photos should either have been qualified under our current fair use criteria, or else deleted. If you find such an image on Wikipedia, please let someone know so the image can be re-tagged if it qualifies for fair use, or removed. DES ^(talk) 11:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected as much. Thanks. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am having problems after uploading images in Wikimedia Commons. I have uploaded a number of photographs over the years and the majority of these have been deleted even though I have given public domain license. The feedback I have had back is very confusing and is really frustrating. The initial Wizard to upload in Wikimedia Commons photographs is very friendly but editing the copyright information is very unfriendly. The latest photograph I have uploaded and received notification that it will be deleted, is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Akiba_Israel_Wertheimer.jpg&diff=0&oldid=680232061 have I made the correct alterations to the licence?

Look forward to hearing from you. MrArmstrong2 (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MrArmstrong2:: When you are making photographies of sculptures and other works of art, the copyright of these works of art applies to the photographies. These are not just your copyright. Also, I think you've been vague at giving the sources of images you upload. Does this help? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The example you have given, a picture of a rabbi with some Hebrew text, appears to be a reproduction of a page of a published book. You have to consider the copyright of that book. I judge from the style of the printing that it was published before 1923 and is therefore in the public domain. But you have not given a publication date, and it may well get deleted from CommonsEnglish Wikipedia as being possibly in breach of copyright. When you fill in the form (which I agree is quite user-hostile), you need to supply the publication date, and state why you believe it is out of copyright. Maproom (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is the copyright laws that are a confusing mess not Wikipedia Commons. Read through these two links (slowly and several times) Copyright rules, Copyright rules by subject matter & Credit line. Wikimedia Commons help desk is a better place to ask for any more advices as they are more familiar with image copyright. Yet, the basics are easy once you grasp the proper meaning of public domain and how to give the image due provenance, etc. Agree with Maproom above but invest a bit of time in understanding copyright to avoid these problems in the future.--Aspro (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrArmstrong2. Looking at your user page at the Commons, I see you've received lots of copyright tags about deletions of your image uploads but no explanations, and so you've continued to labor under misunderstandings about what it makes a work yours, such that it would be correct to say "own work", and the corresponding issue of thinking you own the copyright and can release it, when it was never yours to begin with. This is not a common misunderstanding, but taking a screenshot of a photograph from a book, scanning it yourself, finding a photograph, the act of uploading it, photographing a copyrighted work (without any significant alteration, addition, etc., which can create a secondary copyright; explaining this is beyond the scope here), etc. creates no copyright in you and does not in any way make it your "own work". Thinking that it does is akin to thinking that if you take a famous book and manually re-type it, you become its author and own its copyright.

The reason I'm fairly certain you have this misunderstanding, and as I've said it's really not uncommon, is because I've looked at some of your uploads, like File:Walter Myers - portrait.JPG. I know that's not your "Own work", and that you're not the "author" as you've marked it, because the photograph is from the 1890s, and I presume you're younger than about 130. For that, the source is where you found it; the author is the person who took the photograph (sometimes its okay to list this as unknown); and if it wasn't in the public domain because of age (it probably but not definitely is), the only person who could release it would be its copyright owner – typically the person who actually took the photograph, although not always. There is is a way you could be the copyright owner, even though this would still not make you the author. For example, if the photograph was taken by your grandmother, and you are the sole heir of her estate. But that's just a theoretical example, for understanding. The fact that you stated you were the author and it was your own work makes it extremely likely this is part and parcel of the same misunderstanding.

So, unfortunately, every aspect of that upload is wrong. If you had provided the source and author, it's likely we could easily determine whether it actually is in the pubic domain because of age of publication – and could fix it – but right now it is a presumptive copyright violation.

Turning to your recent upload here, did you take that photograph (you, clicking the button of the camera) and then add the Hebrew text to it? If not, where did you find it or take it from? Who is the actual author? How are you situated with respect to this image such that you own the copyright and therefore have the authority to provide a copyright release as you have? Tell us the details and we can advise if there is a way to fix it. As with the other image, this too is a presumptive copyright violation. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No funcionan mis emails. Soy Tetranol35 - Nila López y cuando estaba por editar mi página me cortaron bruscamente y Wikipedia no me da ahora la opción de recuperar mi cuenta. (...)

miniatura — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.120.178.181 (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Este es el idioma Inglés de Wikipedia . Si desea que el idioma español de Wikipedia , hay que ir a http://es.wikipedia.org --Jayron32 11:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to get the page history view and editor contribution view to show timestamps in UTC instead of my local timezone? I frequently want to compare an edit timestamp with a signature timestamp (eg to see if an editor's last vandalism was after a certain warning was given); currently, signature timestamps are invariably in UTC while edit history and user contribs timestamps are always shown in my local timezone (currently set to London on my system, which is UTC+1). This leads to more errors on my part than it should. GoldenRing (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: The used time zone is not determined by your computer but by your setting at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. And Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets has the option "Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time." PrimeHunter (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Many thanks. GoldenRing (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know more about the product called " Omega Q Plus Resveratrol" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.230.104.37 (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 4 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck.--ukexpat (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have an article about that product, nor is it even mentioned in any other articles, so we can't help you, sorry. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen many Chinese Pinyin contains 'ü' in wikipedia, sometimes in a computer that cannot display it correctly. So is it necessary to replace it into yu(like lü into lyu), like Chinese Guojiabiaozhun(National Standard) GBT 28039-2011? But I have to say it's not used that frequently in Pinyin... --Axmaxmaxm3 (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to edit personal details which are being shared on an individuals page that i represent, it is not in the public interest for this information to be shared. Other individuals of the same profession do not have such details shared. There is also the question of security risks for the individuals family which is the reason they have asked for it to be removed.

The problem is other people keep adding this information after it is removed. How can one go about stopping this action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadhilli (talk • contribs) 15:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be Muhammad al-Yaqoubi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).--ukexpat (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you represent Muhammad al-Yaqoubi, you have a conflict of interest, and ought not to be editing the article about him. However the information you have been removing is not mentioned in the source cited in its support, so I have not restored it to the article. Moreover, that source is about a "Shaykh Ibrahim al-Ya`qoubi", and says that he is dead; so I assume it is about a different man anyway. Note that "not in the public interest for this information to be shared" is not regarded in Wikipedia as a reason for not sharing it, but lack of published evidence is so regarded, particularly in articles about a living person. Maproom (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I now realise that Shaykh Ibrahim al-Ya`qoub was the father of Muhammad al-Yaqoubi, and that the source was cited in support of Ibrahim's death. The information you have been removing was misleadingly inserted immediately before the link to the reference. As the inserted material was about a living person, and was unsupported by any reference, it should be removed. Maproom (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, yes there is no issue with that Shaykh Ibrahim al-Yaqoubi, he was Shaykh Muhammad's father and has his own page, he has passed away. I understand a bit more about the whole system now, i think i was naive at first and many of the editors are less then helpful all they do is delete rather then offer advice. So it seems everything accessible on the internet can be put on here, this is good to know for future events. I still don't understand how relevant details can be added when they are in fact important but just not on the internet, for instance a part of Muhammad Al-Yaqoubis career is missing. There seems to be no way of a adding such material, which i find confusing. Same with books, unless they are accessible on the internet but surely the best part of books is that one can hold them rather then download and read of a screen. Shadhilli (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)shadhilli[reply]

Information in books but not on-line is still acceptable to be put in Wikipedia articles, you just have to cite the book as the source of the information. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok great, so I can add the books that have been written as long as I cite the books as a source of information it is fine. I am not sure about his early career if that has been cited in any books I will investigate. In regards to current projects how can I cite that. As in currently he is doing this and this? When one reads the article it appears that there is no current projects which is inaccurate. Shadhilli (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)shadhilli[reply]

Current projects are a little harder. Has anyone written about them? For example, an author may be working on a novel, but until someone else writes that he's working on a novel that information can't be in Wikipedia. However, if he says in an interview, "I'm working on my next novel, it's a love story between a witch and a vampire..." and that interview is published, then that information can go in Wikipedia. In the meantime though, please keep in mind what someone said earlier about your conflict of interest. The best way to handle it is to propose changes on the article talk page using a {{Request edit}}. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ONUnicorn: Official web sites of the subject can be used for non-controversial items. So, saying that they are working on another book/filme/etc. is not controversial and thus can be cited to their official web site. See WP:SELFPUB. Dismas|^(talk) 13:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information about a person's current projects can be referenced from their official web site or the like. That said, it should not be promotional in its tone. And again, it would be best if you do not add this info to the article directly since you have a conflict of interest. If you like, you can add it to the talk page for the article and let other editors who are unaffiliated with the subject, yet still watch the page, to make a determination on how/if to add that information to the article. Dismas|^(talk) 20:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shadhilli You wrote above that "So it seems everything accessible on the internet can be put on here, this is good to know for future events." That is not correct. Only facts that can be verified in reliable sources can be included in a Wikipedia article, whether the sources are online or offline. This generally means not blogs, tabloids, or personal web pages, and the like. Reliable sources are ones that have have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If the facts are at all controversial, the source should be independent of the subject. (Independent means not his own website or his own published books or comments, or a press release or the like, nor from any source directly associated with the subject, such as a relative or buisness partner.) If the source is offline, include at least enough detail that a reader could find the source, say in a library. If the source is online, please include a link, and also as much detail about the source as you can. That will help. DES ^(talk) 20:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone above mentioned that this user is Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi it is not i am just someone who follows his work, however I am trying to help ensure the page is a true representation . I understand completely about the promotional issue which is fine I just really wanted all relevant facts to be available on his page as it will help inform readers. Thank you all so much for your help. Shadhilli (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)shadhilli[reply]

Hi there - I am the marketing manager for Microsoft Movies & TV. I tried to edit the article but it was undone. There is customer confusion over whether we are called Microsoft Movies & TV or Movies & TV.

The name of the service is called Microsoft Movies & TV, which we explain in the official FAQ: xbox.com/video and the marketing page: microsoft.com/movies-and-tv

Movies & TV is the name of the Windows 10 playback app of ihch you can also watch your home videos. It is not the name of the video service that was formerly Zune and Xbox Video.

Can you please remove the redirect from Microsoft Movies & TV to Movies & TV and make the article name Microsoft Movies & TV?

Happy to be contacted directly to verify my role.

2001:4898:80E8:5:0:0:0:D0 (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read our quick guide for the minimum requirements for an article. We are not here to be an advertising platform for your products. Please also see the conflict of interest policy and the terms of use -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There is already a discussion regarding the move on the article's talk page here. You can contribute to that if you wish however, as TRPoD mentioned, you should not edit an article that you have a conflict of interest in. In addition, if you are in any way being paid to edit Wikipedia you must disclose that per the Terms of Use. --Stabila711 (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I already contributed to the discussion but as I said I tried to edit and was thrown back to the discussion you mentioned so it is an endless circle. I am not being paid to edit wikipedia, but I am disclosing that I work directly on the product so I can verify what is factually correct. The existing tab at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movies_%26_TV is factually incorrect in stating that "Movies & TV" is the name of the service. I am just trying to correct the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:80E8:2:0:0:0:73D (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Your edit was reverted because there is an ongoing discussion. Wikipedia runs off of community consensus. If the community cannot come to a consensus then there are other avenues that can be taken such as requesting a wider audience. In any case, you working directly on the product means you have a clear conflict of interest. While you can participate in the community discussion on the talk page you should never directly edit the article itself. Wikipedia articles should only be edited by third parties who have no direct involvement in the article's topic. --Stabila711 (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I read through the discussion about the name. One thing that will really really help your cause in that discussion is producing published sources that are independent of the company that use the full name. I.e. not the company's website, marketing materials, etc. and not press releases or articles that largely use press releases as their source. If you can demonstrate that the product is actually known to the world-at-large and actually referred to by the world-at-large as Microsoft Movies & TV, then, per WP:COMMONNAME, that is the correct name of the article. However, if that's not how the world-at-large refers to the product, then it belongs where it is. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait if theyre the marketing mamager for Microsoft Movies and Tv, their job is managing issues with the brand being out there or whatever and they are clearly editing the name here because that is part of their job and they are paid a salary for that so wouldnt that be considered paid editing? This question is really more for my understanding of this policy. Thanks Tortle (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly IS paid editing, of the clearest and most unambiguous sort. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedPenOfDoom, Stabila711, Tortle, and Orangemike: I have notified this user using {{uw-paid1}} (see also {{uw-paid2}}, {{uw-paid3}} and {{uw-paid4}}). I am mostly noting this because this template series is new, following the Orangemoody socking case, and this seemed like a good opportunity to advertise them to some regulars.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its not on Twinkle yet so I don't know where one would go to get that accomplished (Ill look into it). Thanks Tortle (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Im also writing for the Signpost right now so I might include a note about the addition of the templates. Thanks Tortle (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tortle. I always forget to think in terms of Twinkle because I don't use it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a little bit of experience in writing in c language. I want to make a good script on my own. In what language should I write a script to make it work on wikipedia? I am asking this because when I ran a script's code outside wikipedia, it gave an error message. Supdiop (Talk/Contribs) 20:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on what you want to do. Do you mean to edit Wikipedia via use of a bot? If so, see WP:BOT. Bot accounts must be approved since they can really muck things up for many articles in a very short period of time. Or are you trying to trawl through Wikipedia for information for your own use? If so, you probably want to download a database dump of Wikipedia to work with it offline. See WP:DUMP for more on that. Dismas|^(talk) 20:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make a script like one click archiver. I think it will be a good starting point. Supdiop (Talk/Contribs) 20:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you want to make a user script. User scripts run client-side and JavaScript is the only language. See Wikipedia:User scripts. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PrimeHunter, I did not know that Java and JavaScript are different, I always thought they were same. Supdiop (Talk/Contribs) 05:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm having a terrible time trying to add Bridget van Kralingen under the Business header. Could you sort out the coding, please? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Yoninah: You should be all set now. The last line of a table has to be |}. You only had } so the closing bracket was not associated with the other lines in the table script causing the script to break. --Stabila711 (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks so much! Yoninah (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Helpers, I am new to Wikipedia as far as submitting an article and am really confused. I have written two drafts on the new subject of Maj. Lenox R. Lohr and can't find either of them. I did ask for help and the person who answered said he/she had added a template for a "submit your draft" button and also kindly done a copy-edit. I am not finished with the submission and I cannot access it to make it complete, including sources and click on the submit button. What are the steps I must take? Thank you, James DohrenJames dohren (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @James dohren: Are you talking about Draft:Major_Lenox_Riley_Lohr? Or are you looking for a different draft? --Stabila711 (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@James dohren: Whenever you are logged in, the "Contributions" link at the top right of every page shows you the names of all the pages you have edited recently. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]