Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 99

Archive 95

←

Archive 97

Archive 98

Archive 99

Archive 100

Archive 101

→

Archive 105

Posting New Userboxes

Is there any page where users can post the new userboxes they create? I just made this, but I don't know where to store it.

 Miss Bono (zootalk) 14:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Miss Bono, I have moved your User:Miss_Bono/sandbox4 to User:Miss_Bono/Userboxes/iPod U2 edition. You may tag User:Miss_Bono/sandbox4 for WP:CSD#U1 or just blank the page. I suggest that the best place to advertise your userbox might be somewhere in the U2 WikiProject area (User:Moxy might have a suggestion as to where it can go in there). It may also be useful to add it to any list or category of userboxes you may find for people with iPods. Technical 13 (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Great Answer Again

How can I add to my Teahouse Host Profile my new badge for great answer?  Miss Bono (zootalk) 13:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Miss Bono. I believe you would go to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host landing#Miss Bono, click edit next to your name and then in the field for the |description=, add sometheing about this – maybe words to the effect: "I am proud to have received a great answer badge for my work at the [[WP:TH/Q|Teahouse question forum]]!" Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Miss Bono, you go to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host landing#Miss Bono, click edit next to your name and then set |answer=yes Technical 13 (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

School articles

I do understand that in schools, it is common etiquette to politely greet the teachers by adding "Ms./Mrs./Mr./Mdm./etc." to the front of their name. The same applies for any other formal place or event, right? But I note that we have never addressed subjects in our articles as "Mr./Mrs." something, instead just referring to them by their name. That is, after all, encyclopedic fashion. So, is it the same for school articles? When talking about a school's principal, vice-principal, staff, etc., should we drop the fancy honorifics? Is there any policy/essay on this matter? Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so.  Miss Bono (zootalk) 13:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

What, do you not think there's such an essay, or do you not think we should drop the honorifics? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

not dropping the honorifics :) Sorry for being late...lol...  Miss Bono (zootalk) 14:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The relevent part of the MOS is WP:LASTNAME (see also WP:HONORIFIC). Basically, we don't use honorifics except in very specific cases - schoolteachers are not one of those cases. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks a lot. Got lots of schoolteacher honorifics to remove now... Let's get crackin. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Yes, Yes, and WP:MOS - WP:LASTNAME - WP:HONORIFIC Technical 13 (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Changing username to signature

How do I change my username to my signature in an edit that I have submitted? JC-QPCS (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi JC-QPCS. As far as edits to articles are concerned, you can't (and there's no need to do so anyway). You can make your signature appear on talkpages (such as this one) by adding four tildes (~~~~), as you have done above. You can change the appearance of your signature on such pages in your preferences. If you'd like to change your username altogether, you can do so at this page - such an action might be advisable, since your current username sort of skirts the boundaries of what's acceptable under the username policy; we don't generally allow usernames that represent organisations, even by initials. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I need to contact an administrator regarding my username. The email contacts given on this website are not working for me 'unknown address'. Is there another way I can contact an administrator?

JCinfo 09:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You're talking to an admin now - but what you really need is a bureaucrat, and I'm not one, I'm afraid. The best person to contact would be MBisanz (leave him a message here) - he's the 'crat who effected your username change, and is also highly experienced in username changes and the related policies. I'd suggest dropping him a line. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

for cullen328 (please ignore my last question)

(embarrassed again) As I was leaving the page after asking where to find your answer, i saw my question in the right hand column,clicked on it and found your answer . . . thanks for your answer, I appreciate it. (navigation around here is not really that transparent (to me, anyway).... thanks again akhoohaAkhooha (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It's okay. :D --Ushau97 (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

how do i see tearoom answers? (for cullen328)

Hi Cullen328, Got a message that you had answered my question about photos in the Teahouse. This is embarrassing, but I've been back to the Teahouse and can't figure out how to find your answer (also looked on your talk page) ---- where do I look for your answer? akhoohaAkhooha (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Your question has been answered below at the section How to upload photo to article?. Click #How to upload photo to article? if you want to go there directly. --Ushau97 (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

photos of paintings I personally own

I suspect it's a topic covered many times before, so just point me in the right direction...

I personally own some original paintings by Gene Davis (1920-1985). Thus, he hasn't been dead 50 or 80 years, and the paintings are not 100 years old or before 1923, etc. Prints/posters of these paintings are available for sale, though -- interesting.

May I put high-resolution photos, photos I personally have taken, into the Wikimedia Commons? I assume the copyright I'm relinquishing is that of the photos, not of the paintings themselves. I also assume that doing this may curtail my own ability to "sell" photos/posters of these paintings, but I'm fine with that.

Point me -- ResearcherQ (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome ResearcherQ! To answer your question as simply as possible; No. See Derivative work for a bit of an overview, but simply put, reproductions of a work do not revoke the copyright on a work, and ownership of a physical copy of the work does not make you the copyright owner. Indeed, that's what copyright means: the right to make a copy of a work. You don't own that right, the painter (or his designated survivor since he is dead) does. When you make a copy of an original work, one of two things can happen:

• If you make a faithful reproduction of the original, you create no new copyright of your own, that's because U.S. law recognizes the Threshold of originality in creating works: if you do nothing original, you create no new copyright. Some countries recognize the sweat of the brow doctrine, which holds that mere effort is enough to create copyright, U.S. law does not, however. So, your photograph of the painting would only have one copyright holder, and it isn't you. It's whoever holds the copyright on the original work. Since you don't own that copyright, you can't upload it to Wikimedia Commons.
• If you creatively modify the original work (even something as simple as this) you generate a new copyright on the copy you made, but the new copyright does not invalidate the old one, you merely now have created a new work which is dually copyright: to both yourself and the original copyright holder. Wikimedia Commons can still not accept this because both of you would need to grant permission.

I hope that helps. --Jayron32 01:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarity and succinctness (hoping my question was similarly succinct). I also own paintings that are more than 100 years old, where their painter has been dead more than 80 years. The above rules don't apply, as I understand my reading, right? Thanks in advance -- ResearcherQ (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You're good, and I can't predict the outcomes of my questions (despite really trying), so let me capture what I have...

• First condition: I own the painting, I took the photo, painter is dead 28 years, painting is young. Are there written permissions I might obtain from the estate (the presumed copyright holder) that will allow me to freely upload?
• Second condition: I own a 100+ year old painting, I took its photo, painter is dead 80+ years. Free to go, right?
• New condition: I own a painting, I took its photo, the painter is alive, the painting is young, the subject of the painting is a famous person dead 50+ years. What written permissions do I need -- the painter only?

Thanks in advance -- ResearcherQ (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

These are good questions, but you'd do better to ask questions in the specific at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions which is staffed by volunteers who specialize in answering exactly these kinds of questions. --Jayron32 03:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• First condition - If the estate is the copyright holder, yes. The permissions remain the same as the last question.
• Second condition: I am not sure. You may want to ask someone who knows the exact year the painting goes/went into the public domain. As Jayron said, Wikipedia:Media copyright questions would be a good place to ask.
• New condition - Yes. In short, the painter must grant permission for anyone to use,copy, modify, and sell it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

These are all great answers. As a painter myself, I sell the object, not the right to reproduce (and benefit from) the image. Somehow I can't imagine the copyright holder will want a high resolution, freely available image uploaded to Wikimedia, particularly considering Davis was a well-known artist! Sionk (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all -- I've headed over to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions with these -- ResearcherQ (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

keep in mind that pre-1978 works, without a copyright notice on painting, could be Public Domain. see [1]. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 18:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

In addition to what Slowking4 posted, in America prior to 1978, if the only physical embodiment of the work was transferred and there was not a written agreement to the contrary, then the copyright was transferred. In other words, if you don't just own a print of a painting, but you own the painting and there are no other copies and you have had it since before 1978, then you are the copyright holder. See Pushman v. New York Graphic Society. (This case was repealed by the Copyright Act of 1976.) --B (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Blog as reference?

Wondering if I can use it for a Wiki page if the blog is full of 3rd party info like video interviews, links to official articles and documentation and such? Superfly94 (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Superfly, and welcome to Wikipedia. Generally, blogs are considered as unreliable sources here. Arctic Kangaroo 16:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Superfly 94. I agree with Arctic Kangaroo that a big majority of blogs are not considered reliable sources. They are self published and lack professional editing and fact checking. One exception is a blog by a professional journalist that has editorial oversight and fact checking. Such a blog can be considered an online extension or supplement of the newspaper or magazine. Check carefully and seek the advice of other editors if there is any doubt. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I am skeptical that the blog itself will be considered reliable enough by the majority of editors on Wikipedia; however, you say it is full of links to official articles and documentation and I would wager to say that some of those things may be reliable enough. Technical 13 (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I only bring it up because the blog to which I am referring, http://www.examiningthewmscog.com/ has been used extensively in the past for the WMSCOG page but now it isn't. Specifically, I am hoping to use it to discuss any controversies as it has .pdfs of court cases in Korean that have been translated by a translation bureau into English. Superfly94 (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You could always link to the pdf. Blogs in general, not a good thing as far as veracity and reliabilityCoal town guy (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)