July 22

Hello. I am interested to learn how I might go about adding images from books to support articles. I love writing articles but as soon as I try to read pages like this Wikipedia:Non-free content my mind turns into cottage cheese and nothing goes in. Is there a really simplified Idiot's Guide for non-technical people like myself?

I am currently writing an article about Jennetta Vise, a British illustrator working from 1940s to 1980s. It would be great to be able to add an image to show her style, but there is nothing in Wikimedia and everything else is in books (e.g. https://archive.org/details/dli.scoerat.4418gaywaypicturedictionary/page/n3/mode/2up?q=%22Jennetta+Vise%22 ) Am I allowed to use an image from here?

Any help is hugely appreciated. BJCHK (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't add copyrighted images to Wikimedia Commons. Under narrow circumstances you can add low-resolution copies to Wikipedia (under the "fair use" provision of US copyright law) if there is no other way to illustrate the subject, but it's slightly frowned on, and the image may get removed. Scroll down the page you linked to Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images which goes into more detail. –jacobolus (t) 01:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying this would necessarily work in the long run, but you could try uploading an example of her art as non-free on WP (not Commons) arguing

WP:NFCI #7. But you can only do that after the article is in mainspace. Don't worry about resolution, a bot will fix if necessary. I love book titles like that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

You can't add copyrighted image to Wikimedia Commons isn't a correct statement at all and Commons actually hosts lots of copyrighted images. Any work released by its copyright holder under

public domain and is not longer protected by copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

This is just an example. Why do we call the region Moscow oblast but do not follow the same rule for the districts for instance Lotoshinsky District? Afil (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Afil: our generic advice would be to discuss this on the talk page of the affected article. In this case, I think you should get consensus (and maybe help) from interested editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia, and then work together on all the affected articles. -Arch dude (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to edit the Path 27 article to fix numerous deficiencies that were introduced en masse in a major edit on 16 December 2022. It feels like a daunting task to address many issues that were introduced at once. I'm inclined to make edits that fix issues one at a time, factual errors first and then issues of phrasing and relevance. I welcome any tips on how to proceed in a case like this. What do you do when faced with an edit that extensively reworked a page, and (trying to put it delicately here) not always for the better? Tom239 (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tom239. It would probably be a good idea to go to the Talk page of Nebulous2357, who made that major edit (and quite a few others since), and discuss with them what you think the "introduced deficiencies" are. You are both obviously deeply interested in the (rather technical) subject, so it would be better for you to come to an amicable concensus rather than to start reverting or changing obviously well meant (and extensive) edits without fully understanding their basis. The latter could lead to misunderstandings and ill feelings.

Given the nature of the subject, it seems likely that disputed facts will have to be worked through one at a time – wholescale reversions or other large-scale changes might muddy the waters beyond anyone's ability to clear them. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.140.169 (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greeting, Tom239! I received a notice in my inbox leading me to this conversation. True, I made the massive edit and subsequent revisions on that article, and did so through the sandbox. I'll keep a lookout on my Talk page for any deficiencies you may have identified on the article, and hope to settle on solutions to each. Remember, as 51.198.140.169 stated, this is a collaborative effort, and it doesn't have to involve only you and me, but every Wikipedia user out there. Still, that someone noticed my contribution is excellent!

Nebulous2357 (talk) 04:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to have my neck operated on by a recognized neurosurgeon Dr w y Musleh. There are more Dr Muslehs than I could shake a st. But to believe wikipedia they don't exist. 2601:1C2:4A00:B2A:1CF1:16BA:3FB6:CC6A (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles on subjects that are notable by our definition, (see

WP:BIAS, but I don't see that here.-Arch dude (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Precisely where does English-language Wikipedia say that no Muslims are involved in medicine? (If it's a Wikipedia of a different language, you'll have to raise the issue there.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably an absurd exaggeration after we didn't have articles about some specific people called Musleh. We don't organize medical people by religion but I guess most of Category:Arab physicians are muslims. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have a redirect from

Looks fine. I have created the redirect. {{replyto|SilverLocust}} (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why when I edit something and put what supposed to be there like if Phone is missing an E at the end the edit will be reverted Malaquia100 (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Malaquia100: You didn't change "Phon" to "Phone". You changed a correct birth name, clearly identified as the birth name, to a name the subject took later.[1] The name change is mentioned and sourced in the article.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of a sudden I'm getting emails on a Wikipedia page that I created years ago. All of a sudden someone has removed one of 3 photos of the late Lou Stathis. I'm the owner of all 3 photos. Why just take down one? They're all from different years in the 1980's. I'm not a constant user of Wikipedia, and I'd like to know what's going on. I'm elderly and do not understand most of the jargon. Also, all of a sudden, someone is sending me emails about a reproduction of my family's heirloom lithograph from the 1880's showing the Rialto fish market in Venice. It was accepted by Wikimedia decades ago. Why, all of a sudden, am I being bombarded with jargon and accusations? Can someone explain why this "problem" suddenly began showing up, years later? And, what the heck is "(talk)"? SavageRock (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SavageRock this seems to be a "problem" at Wikimedia Commons, where the images were uploaded, but I will do my best. "(talk)" is a page where messages can be posted. There are messages on Commons:User talk:SavageRock, your Commons talk page which say what has happened. It seems that Commons needed some more information from you in 2013 and 2023, you did not provide it and the images were deleted. You probably receive automatic emails when messages are added to your talk page. Unfortunately there is a lot of jargon, possibly relating to copyright law. Clicking on the link to the deleted file File:Lou in his office at High Times magazine, photo by Jeff Schalles.tif produces a note of the username of the deleter, User:Krd, so they may be able to advise you what to do. Otherwise you could ask at Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. TSventon (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

WP:VOLUNTEER run project. There's is no "official" Commons staff that checks and verifies file licensing when files are uploaded. Tons of files are uploaded daily to Commons and often many of these are things that, for whatever reason, Commons can't really host. In many cases, a file can go unnoticed for years until someone notices it (again for whatever reason) and assesses its licensing. If that person feels something is lacking, they may tag or otherwise nominate the file for deletion as explained here. The file is then reviewed by a Commons administrator, who then decides whether deletion is warranted. Since Commons tends to err on the side of caution when it comes to file licensing, files who's licensing can't be properly verified tend to be deleted as a precaution. Nothing in this process is 100% foolproof and nothing in this process in 100% non-reversible. Deleted files can be restored once their licensing issues have been resolved, and the easiest way to do so tends to be emailing VRT as I mentioned above. Commons and Wikipedia are separate projects with their own policies and guidelines. They're inter-connected in many ways because they're both Wikimedia Foundation projects, but they're still separate projects. Lots of Wikipedia users edit on Commons and vice versa, but Commons matters will need to be resolved on Commons. You can post a message c:User talk:Krd if you want to know more from the Commons administrator who deleted the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@TSventon and SavageRock: Small note: Link to the deleted file referenced above is c:File:Lou_in_his_office_at_High_Times_magazine,_photo_by_Jeff_Schalles.tif. The software treats links to nonexistant fole description pages the same as any other red link, and in particular, it doesn't check wether the file ever existed, and if so, where.

Looking into the details of that file, without having access to the deleted revisions over on commons, it seems that the file was deleted as missing permission. This happens, for example, if the |author= field or file exif data identifies a real name as the file copyright holder and it is not clear that the uploading account is owned by someone having that real name. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The file in question was titled "Lou in his office at High Times magazine, photo by Jeff Schalles.tif". For us to keep it on commons we would need permission from Jeff Schalles. The process has been outlined nicely above. Gbawden (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]