Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 903

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 900 Archive 901 Archive 902 Archive 903 Archive 904 Archive 905 → Archive 910

May 6 2010 Flash Crash

Hi Actually all the Flash Crash pages are incorrect because the explanations are unverifiable and even though sources such as Bloomberg News are used as references that's not good enough. This flash crash has never been correctly explained. It was not caused by traders. The cause is a computer program embedded in the 1 minute boxes of the Dow Index found on trading platforms. I would like to edit all explanations for flash crashes on Wikipedia. The longer these unverified explanations are on the site the more people come to believe they're true.

I would like to explain the May 6 2010 Flash Crash and many other big stock market moves since. Can I use charts with explanations of the code on Wikipedia site? I need help doing this.20:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Something to think about (talk)

How do I put my explanation for the May 6 2010 Flash Crash? Can I put charts with explanations?

You don't. GMGtalk 20:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@Something to think about: I believe you have asked this question before under other usernames (see here, here, and here). I thought we had been abundantly clear with you/all of you that you may not use Wikipedia to promote your pet theory. Please go somewhere else and build your own website or something. How much plainer do we need to be? If you do attempt to edit Wikipedia to promote theories which are not based upon sound, reliable, independent sources, you may be blocked from editing and a sock puppet investigation may be launched to block any and all accounts that you operate. I realise this must be frustrating for you, but understand that no matter how many accounts you try to create, Wikipedia is not interested in your discoveries until such time as other people have taken note of them and written about them. Then we'll be interested, but not until. I apologise for being blunt, but it would appear that the message is not getting through to you. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Something to think about. Are you the same user as Think about normal, who posted WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 891#The 2010 Flash Crash explanations are all incorrect and I can prove it but breaking thru the media wall and "expert" explanations is very difficult? As was explained there, original research is never acceptable in a Wikipedia article. If you think the sources for the current article are unreliable (as sources), you can open a discussion on Talk:Flash crash - but that would have to be about the reliability of the sources, not about their content. The only way your theories could be mentioned in the Wikipedia article is if they have been published by a reliable source.--ColinFine (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Edits declined

I'm Always Editing And My Edits Are Being Declined — Preceding unsigned comment added by BONGINKOSI (talk • contribs) 14:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@BONGINKOSI: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume this refers to your edits to Whoonga. Your edits were removed by DocWatson42 who gave the following reason: "Undoing unconstructive edit—the primary term is/was already being used in the article, and the secondary one was already included." So it seems to me that the information you attempted to add was already present. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
What happened at Whoonga is perfectly normal, BONGINKOSI: see BRD. If you disagree with DocWatson42, your next step is to open a discussion on the talk page Talk:Whoonga, to try to reach a consensus with them and other editors to make your change. --ColinFine (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@BONGINKOSI: I'm quite willing to discuss the reasons for my edit to Whoonga. —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit

Can Someone Help Me How To Edit Please — Preceding unsigned comment added by BONGINKOSI (talk • contribs) 18:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@BONGINKOSI: If you haven't already, you may want to use the new user tutorial(click those words to get there), which I think will help to answer many of your questions and help you learn to edit. 331dot (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@BONGINKOSI: See also the resources here. —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

One million articles?

Does anyone know, out of curiosity, when the English Wikipedia reached 1 million articles? Was it sometime in 2007? Stephengonzalez100 (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Stephengonzalez100: See Wikipedia:Millionth article FAQ. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Upload album cover

I just created Story of Me and as I’m a mobile user, I’m unable/unsure to upload photos. I need to upload the album cover for the album, but I can’t. Would someone be able to help out?

Thanks!

– Joesimnett (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Joesimnett. Assuming that you talking about uploading a non-free album cover to add to the main infobox of the article, you can try asking for help at Wikipedia:Files for upload. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Photos

I have images from a personal album that were taken in the 1950’s(some in the 1940's and 1960's) that were not marked with any copyright notice.  The images were taken in the USA, Canada and Europe. In this case can the photos be uploaded ? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kajinka! (talk • contribs) 20:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kajinka!: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure for what purpose you want to upload images, but as I understand it, it would depend on where the image was taken and the copyright laws of wherever you took it. Not every country(for example) permits images of buildings or things visible from public to be in the public domain(leaving aside the year it was taken). You might want to see some of the links and tutorials located at WP:IMAGE, or wait for someone with more knowledge to post here. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kajinka! (talk • contribs) 21:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@Kajinka!: Welcome! Copyright is generally owned by the person who took the photograph. If they were taken by you, and never previously published, then you can release them under a free license. If they were taken by a family member, either living or deceased, you might obtain the photographer's permission, or be able to release the images as an heir to the creator. To get more definitive answers on specifics, you can pose questions at Commons:Village pump/Copyright (Wikimedia Commons is the central media repository that allows images and files to be used by all other Wikimedia projects, including other language Wikipedias. See Commons:Licensing for the types of files that can be uploaded). --Animalparty! (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you I will read a little more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.205.221.138 (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Storage

How much GB's of data is all of Wikipedia worth? Stephengonzalez100 (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

About this much, as of 2010. Or about 12gb as of 2015. GMGtalk 01:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Stephengonzalez100: According to WP:DUMP "Current revisions only, no talk or user pages; [...] is approximately 14 GB compressed (expands to over 58 GB when decompressed).". If you include all the history it is terabytes of data. RudolfRed (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Review my new article

I have updated the article in this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Agaram_InfoTech_Private_Limited.. Please go through the same and give me your valuable feedback.. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karthik Dev81 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

No references means no approval possible. David notMD (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Karthik Dev81. You updated it by copying and pasting copyrighted content from the company's own profile at indiamart.com. A company's own writing about itself is worthless as evidence of notability. The majority of an article's content should be verified by citation to secondary sources, written by third parties to a topic, that have no connection to the subject – for example, a mainstream newspaper article written by a reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter. Such sources are also needed in order to demonstrate that the topic is notable.

The infringing content was also blatantly promotional market speak, that has no place in a Wikipedia article, and would have been properly removed even if it wasn't a copy-paste of non-free writing. You must not engage in plagiarism, nor violate copyright again. I will leave a note on your talk page about this issue. One other issue is that based on your edits, I assume you are connected with this topic – you are here writing about it because of your insider connection to it, so please comply with WP:PAID before editing the draft further.

As to the draft, I'm not sure the types of sources, with the depth of coverage we need to construct an encylopedia article, exist. Unless they do, no acceptable article will be possible. I'm not saying that is the case, but it seems likely here. So, consider whether you want to spend more of your valuable time on this. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Why the ip address in Wikipedia is always tracked for any user who edited anonymously

I am wondering why does Wikipedia track ip address, then all without any accounts would be afraid to add information. What about the spirit of Wikipedia of open universal knowledge when their is a privacy concern. Rocky 734 (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Rocky 734. I understand this is because the license which Wikipedia uses requires attribution. Without a username, the content authored by the IP is attributed to the IP address. If someone has privacy concerns, they can create an account and login. —teb728 t c 05:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

It is also useful in perma-banning users who consistently vandalize. Brick6900 (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

It should be noted that IP's are not universally consistently issued in the same manner as experienced by everyone. My IP is issued at the time entry is made into WP and on occasion the IP will change during WP activities. I am not of the mind set that use of an IP is an invasion of my privacy as it seems that WP administrators have access to that information as automatically generated within the WP system. As WP endorses the use of an IP address as an identifier then use of an IP as my identifier is not in violation of WP standards. I do believe that it is a violation of good taste to indicate to those that do use an IP as an identifier what is not available to such a WP participant since I already understand that by using an IP identifier either WP cannot or does not want to make it possible to have what is available to those WP participants that do so with a registered user name. Although there is the possibility to misunderstand, I am not as invested in WP as are all participants and wish to keep it that way. This declaration in itself may be viewed by some as being disruptive. That is unfortunate and displays the nuances that can be found in WP. It is particularly interesting when a WP contributor addresses their concern for how someone is editing differently than the registered contributor as probably not doing so in their language of origin. Mental agility has its scenarios.104.35.236.49 (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Copyright of local municipality images in California?

I think that data produced by cities in California is free to copy and redistribute. First, is this true. Second, can someone provide a reference that I can use when uploading images (not my own but from a California city) to WikiMedia that will get me through the process? Ilgamoot (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ilgamoot! When uploading content produced by a city or the state of California you should use the {{PD-CAGov}} license template. That template says that public records of California ...state, county, and municipal government agencies... are in the public domain, subject to some exceptions. To show that the content you are uploading is in the public domain, you should indicate the source (preferably using a link) along with the license tag. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
How does WP reconcile public domain and original research? Is there a strategy tree in its sue and policies when concerning how the various types of information found in government sources is and is not appropriate for WP activities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.35.236.49 (talk) 11:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps what you are asking about is the policy that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a repository of documents or a publisher of original thought. So even if information is in the public domain, we don't use it unless it is encyclopedic. The policy against original research says we do not publish facts or conclusions which are not attributable to a published reliable source. If information published in a reliable source is encyclopedic, I don't see how original research would be an issue. —teb728 t c 13:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Drafts

How do I save a draft page without publishing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drken1 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The publish button doesn't publish to mainspace, but merely saves the draft. It used to be labelled save but the WMF changed the label and confused everybody. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drken1 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I am having an issue with Rms125a@hotmail.com, what should I do?

It seems like a simple issue, his edit [0] had two errors which I pointed out [1] [2] [4]. But he refuses to fix them, instead pointing me [3] toward ANI! Does that mean he wants to get blocked? I do not want him to get blocked, I just want him (or someone else) to fix the issues with the edit.

Does somebody have a user manual for this guy? ;)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josip_Pe%C4%8Dari%C4%87&diff=881750316&oldid=881749271

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josip_Pe%C4%8Dari%C4%87&diff=881757875&oldid=881757714

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Josip_Pe%C4%8Dari%C4%87&oldid=881760753#Rms125a@hotmail.com,_you_are_being_very_difficult_to_work_with

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Notrium&oldid=881758507

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Serbian_genocide&oldid=881758413 Notrium (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Notrium. Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry you've had to wait a long time for a reply here. The awkward or convoluted questions often take more time before someone picks them up. I think I had hoped someone else would!
Anyway, let's start off by accepting that both of you are acting in good faith in the edits you are making. And no, RMS isn't out to get himself blocked, and neither are you, clearly. Sometimes one or both editors can become entrenched in the belief in their editing and uses threats of ANI or blocks as a way to discourage or intimidate another editor from challenging them, and that can be frustrating. More so if they have also introduced errors at the same time. Accusing them of misunderstanding issues is rarely the best way to respond - trying as best as you can to work cooperatively is the best way, and you do appeared to have tried that. At other times, editors don't appreciate the serious errors they themselves have introduced.
Now, I am not familiar with the topic or political issues involved at all, but clearly we have a notable living person with strong, possibly extreme or objectionable political views. So treading carefully, and making small edits one step at a time is always the best way. Equally, correcting another editors changes should also be done piecemeal if they object to complete reversal, as appears to have happened here. I have to say that I think the other editor was absolutely right to revert your edit because, as explained in their edit summary, it served to remove your inclusion of the name of Branimir Glavaš in a list of convicted war criminals. That page clearly shows his conviction was rescinded on procedural grounds, and he appears to be awaiting retrial. If it's genuinely significant to the article to include this person, you should try to find more careful and nuanced ways of including his name. X supports convicted war criminals A and B, as well as person C, whose conviction was rescinded in 2010 on procedural grounds. But if it isn't critical to the article, steer well clear of adding too much detail if other examples already work fine. I fear you have focused on minor subsequent errors introduced by RMS without appreciating the impact of your much larger mistake in asserting a current criminal conviction of a living person.
Some of your own edits and summaries did not seem as neutral as one might expect from a reasonable editor, (see here). If the publication is not relevant to a list, why did you not remove the publication, and not just the supporting reference? That seems odd to me. We should not be censoring objectionable content if it neutrally demonstrates that the person has published objectionable views (your implication, not mine). Had I seen that edit, and then your subsequent one, I, too, might have reverted you. I really wouldn't worry that my reverting action removed other legitimate improved content you'd added if it were necessary to speedily remove statements that contravene our BLP policies. If you then reinstated that edit I, too, would be pretty irritated. OK, so in doing my best endeavours to manage the page's content I might accidentally introduce an insensitive or incorrect term, like Serbian genocide, but then to be accused of clearly not knowing what I was talking about (even if true) is likely to make me irritated when all I tried to do from the start was to remove a libellous accusation. (until or unless person C is reconvicted, we can't ever call them a war criminal). Can you not see why RMS was irritated with you, and what your initial mistake was that he was addressing? Because you reinserted it he became impatient with you
I think you should be able to reinsert the non-contentious content, and I suggest doing so one edit at a time, with a clear edit summary explaining why each one is being put back in. Leave time for other editors to make further edits or reversal, before adding others. Most importantly, steer clear of uncited and controversial statements of the type discussed above, or accusing other editors of not understanding stuff. Gently explain the issues so that they can understand your every reason and action. Your diff (4), addressing RMS, was made here on the talk page of a DAB article - not the best place to continue a conversation, and totally irrelevant to other editors and the page itself. Keep them to editors' own talk pages, please. But as the link added by RMS going to that DAB page now needs resolving, I see no reason for you not to properly link to the right one.
Another editor cannot unilaterally demand that you never edit a page, but they can warn you that conflicts over editing (especially if they deem it to be non-neutral in manner) can lead to that editor being taken to WP:ANI, where both editors' actions will come under scrutiny.
I hope I've understood the gist of what has gone on in edits you've shown us. In summary, I side with RMS's actions, but recognise he was a bit sharp with you, and that you didn't appreciate quite why your edits were not acceptable. You did also introduce bad edits to the DAB page which RMS reverted and warned you about. If you can be a little more careful in future, far more neutral in all that you edit, and a little less sharp in return, I think you'll be fine. Does my response make sense or seem reasonable to you? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Nick Moyes, thank you for replying. You probably misunderstood some details, but they are presumably unimportant so we do not have to discuss them.
If I understood you (and I am not sure in this ;), the main thing I did wrong was reverting Robert's edit, because apparently reverts should be reserved to edits that are vandalistic or wholly wrong, and people might get offended if you revert their edits? I must say that I did not think like that before, and I personally (I think?) would not be offended if somebody reverted an edit of mine that is partly wrong, because I see it as an opportunity to correct my edit. But I will keep in mind in the future that it is (?) better not to revert good faith edits. Notrium (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Notrium: Unfortunately, you have completely misundertood the issue. My point - and RMS's initially - was that you violated our WP:BLP policy by adding in someone's name and calling them a convicted war criminal! RMS rightly reverted you because it is currently untrue. Did you not read his edit summary? That conviction is currently rescinded (cancelled), so what made you think it was ok to say it? All the rest of the concerns over your editing - and RMS's (and perhaps even mine now!) stem from your original bad edit, and your failure to see that. You reverted RMS's good faith edit that contained only minor errors, but reinstated your appallingly bad one which violated one of our key policies about making unfounded accusations about living people that were not, at that time, and in the eyes of the law, true! Is that any clearer? Nick Moyes (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh. Well, the issue is clear now, I think. I had thought when reverting Robert's edit that bad grammar and that issue with "Serbian genocide" trumps Glavaš' overturned conviction, but I know now that that stuff is really important. Thanks. Notrium (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
All you needed to have done was to go in and change the DAB link to go to the right page. You can sill do that - just don't revert edits wholesale in future without very good cause. I thank you for acknowledging my detailed reply. It took me 2 hours to understand the issues yesterday and to formulate a considered reply. Glad to know it was worthwhile, if it helps you in the future. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Programming

I have been learning how to code in PHP but it seems like i loose interest at some point. Now, my Question is, What is Really the best way to learn Programming? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clefticman (talk • contribs) 17:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Clefticman. I'm afraid we can't help you here. The Teahouse is only a forum for assisting editors struggling to work with Wikipedia. Maybe try Googling for what you want? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

What to do when someone keeps adding original research?

Hello, a user keeps adding original research to the Dyson (company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_(company) page. Under History, HQ moving to singapore. I've had to undo it multiple times over a couple of weeks. Is there some way to stop them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:C827:CA00:399E:2212:364:167E (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

You can request page protection, which prevents IP editors from editing the article, but then you wouldn't be able to edit it either. More info here. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Question

I had a question whilst editing wikipedia.

What do you do if you wanted to investigate a sockpuppet, but you dont know what is the sockmaster?

This is related to my actions im doing on this site.

--TheWinRat (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The account registered first is considered the master.
If this is about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harshch881 there's no case for either user to answer.
  • There are about 600 million speakers of Hindi. Two people writing in Hindi is likely just a coincidence.
  • Even if the two users in question are the same person, or are working together, they have not done anything "to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies." (WP:SOCK)
Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Thewinrat: Welcome to the Teahouse. Further to what Cabayi says above, I am really confused by your actions; they don't seem very reasonable to me. Perhaps I'm missing something blindingly obvious, so can you explain, please? Two minutes after posting here, you reported two different new users at WP:SPI (see here). Each editor had only one ever made one or two edits each, and each created new drafts (Draft:Himachal Abhi Abhi and Draft:Mahalaxmi municipile) They were created half an hour apart and both in Hindi. As I believe there are more than two Hindi-speakers in the world, is it not unreasonable for two such editors to coincide and make the mistake of posting a non-English article at roughly the same time? I fail to see why, at this time, you would conclude they were related as sockpuppets? The article contents seem totally unrelated, so I can't see how you'd conclude sockpuppetry just from seeing two consecutive entries on the Page Curation report. To me, your question here, and then immediately afterwards at SPI, just wastes volunteer time and suggests a serious lack of understanding by you of how parts of Wikipedia work. Before reporting and accusing editors, you should acquire far more evidence yourself - especially that which shows similar activity patterns before accusing brand new editors of sockpuppetry. You'll have seen that we have an editor interaction tool to compare the activities of two or more editors, and perhaps you should look at older SPI reports to see how others have gathered their suspicions together before reporting them. How do you think an immediate SPI notice on their userpages is going to make people feel welcome as new editors here? Because I have looked at your talkpage and have seen others editors expressing concerns about your lack of understanding in certain areas of Wikipedia, I am going to paste a copy of this reply directly on your talk page, and advise you to step back before reporting more editors in this way. Please read: WP:CIR. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

our hamlet has changed our website address - need help changing it on Wilkipedia

it is presently under "Gray, Saskatchewan" our new website address is https://www.hamletofgray.com/

Would someone kindly change it, I have no idea how to do it

regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamlet of gray (talk • contribs) 20:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Hamlet of gray. Welcome to the Teahouse. Actually, the weblink was fine. I have however moved it to a new 'External links' section. Please don't ever try to use this account - or give access to anyone else - to edit the Gray, Saskatchewan page. This is simply because we don't usernames that suggest shared userage or that promote any group or organisation. Something like "Sue at Gray Hamlet" would be fine. You'd simply just abandon this account completely, and create a new one. It would be nice if someone could add a bit more encyclopaedic content and some independent references, too. Hope this helps, Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse header

Cup of tea and bourbon biscuit for Hildeoc!

Hi, how can the excess spacing above the header of this page be reduced to default? I tried to fix that, but it didn't work.--Hildeoc (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hildeoc: The problem seems to be the newlines after the #ifeq's at the top, which effectively create blank lines. I commented them out thus. —teb728 t c 21:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd love to see the Teahouse page appear without any wasted space, especially if it means the yellow "Skip to the bottom" link appears on the first page, which it doesn't always do. That said, I think this is really a discussion to be more usefully had at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse - that's the place for hosts to discuss how we manage and maintain the Teahouse without interfering with supporting new editors. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Teb728: Thanks a lot! But, as those lines seem to only cause trouble, wouldn't it be better then to actually remove them? @Nick Moyes: What exactly do you mean by "hosts" here?--Hildeoc (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
'Host' is the name given to the volunteers here at the Teahouse who give their time to help new and inexperienced editors. It's not a formal permission, or anything like that. We'll even bring you a cup of tea, like this one, if you ask nicely! Nick Moyes (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, thanks then!--Hildeoc (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Hildeoc: What the lines do is add a small lock icon to the upper left corner of the page when and only when the page is protected against vandalism. My change did not remove the lines but only the newlines following them. —teb728 t c 20:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to A to edit or present information on a major discovery in the art world

In an effort to finalize this project - I suddenly have been given notice by Muninnbot (automated editor Bot) about a claim without reference or citation about HANDWRITTEN CITATION SIDENOTES (posted in red on the article under Museum Archive Description). There is a photo and video reference of these notes to be posted but have not yet been referenced. The photo is in wiki commons media to library [1] The video is preexisting and used in the article as a citation as well. How do I clear this? and add to the citations?

Also under References at very the bottom of the page, I can neither edit in source mode or Visual mode (it says I can edit in source mode, not true) I need to add and adjust the information but there is a warning notice that it is created in a template. Confusing. BARRY BARON (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, BARRY BARON. Wikipedia summarizes what published, reliable sources say about a topic, and therefore unpublished handwritten notes are not acceptable as a source in a Wikipedia article, even if the notes have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Your draft article looks to me like Original research, and as a matter of policy, Wikipedia does not publish original research. Perhaps you might want to submit your work to a journal of art history instead. It is difficult for me to imagine that information about the color scheme of a destroyed painting requires a separate article. Instead, once this "major discovery" is published elsewhere, it can be described briefly in Saint Matthew and the Angel. As for the problem you are having with reference formatting, please read and study Referencing for beginners. We use inline references in the body of the article, and refererences are edited there in the body of the article or draft. The wiki software automatically pulls those references out of the body of the article if they are properly formatted, and displays them for the reader at the right place at the bottom of the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "English: The East German museum supplied handwritten side note clarify the description written by Hans Posse written in 1909 of the color description of Caravaggio's St Matthew and the Angel" (PDF). May 2018.

What Muninnbot did was move your Teahouse query from the present list to the Archive. It's still there (you linked back to it) but now less likely to be seen by any editor visiting Teahouse. From looking at your Contributions you have been working on (and asking at Teahouse about) a draft in your Sandbox. There are still key questions about whether this rests on unpublished references, even if those include materials in a museum collection. In my own opinion, a better path would be to create an article for an art magazine. Only after that was published would it be a reference for Wikipedia. And, sadly, the information you have would then be more appropriate as a new section in the existing Wikipedia article about the painting in question. All this is the same as Cullen has already written. David notMD (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

  • @David notMD: Your first sentence is not entirely true: Munninbot did not archive the thread (Lowercase sigmabot III did) but merely provided an automatic notification of such archival. Also, the thread name is the default one that pops when you click "create a new thread" in the Munninbot notification, so the fact that BARRY BARON linked to it does not necessarily mean they read it or understood the process fully. TigraanClick here to contact me 13:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

REFERENCES: You do not type the reference under References. Refs get inserted in the text. The program automatically numbers with a superscript in the text and adds the reference to the list. References coming later in the article get automatically renumbered. David notMD (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

User:BARRY BARON - It appears that you have been working off and on for about two months on an effort to use Wikipedia as your journal of first publication for your findings (and your sister's findings) about the color scheme of a painting that was destroyed in World War Two. You apparently have an incorrect concept of what Wikipedia is and is meant to be and what sorts of knowledge Wikipedia is used to publish. If your research has already been published in an art journal, then it can be summarized in Wikipedia. However, it doesn't appear that your research has been previously published. If it hasn't been previously published, Wikipedia is not the medium for you to use to communicate your findings. It appears that this will disappoint you, but that it is what Wikipedia is and is not, and we are not the medium that you are looking for. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@BARRY BARON: Please note that handwritten notes like File:Handwritten notes german museum hans posse.pdf, no matter how they are referenced or formatted within Wikipedia, are considered primary sources, and must be used with extreme care, if at all, as explained in the policies on Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Previously unpublished notes should not be discussed for the first time on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or novel research. And just in case you are writing about a topic or person with which you have close professional or personal connections, please see Wikipedia's guidelines on conflicts of interest. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
BARRY BARON, an encyclopedia article consists of information paraphrased from reliable secondary sources. Please name the reliable secondary sources that support your userspace draft. If these sources do not exist, I would suggest that your continued posting here about your draft is becoming tendentious. You've been told multiple times by multiple editors in multiple ways that you need secondary sources. You've been pointed repeatedly to reference help in case you don't know what "secondary" means. I'd strongly suggest that you stop wasting others time. Please do not revisit this subject here unless or until you have secondary sources. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I think I may understand your problem with understanding what we are telling you, BARRY BARON. Yes in limited circumstances, you may use primary sources to verify facts. However, the qualification to have an article on Wikipedia is not verifiability, it is notability. You cannot use primary sources to show notability. So again, unless you have multiple (generally at least three) reliable, independent secondary sources that discuss in detail the concept you are writing about, you do not have an article. Further, you cannot take what one source says and what another source says and draw a conclusion from that. That is WP:OR, in particular WP:SYNTH. In my humble opinion, what you need to do is formally organize your research, get it published by a museum or university, and then, when and if that paper is reviewed in a trusted academic journal, then, and only then, you can use the review (only) to show notability. A white paper does not show notability either. We summarize here what others have written about. Period. John from Idegon (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Properly creating a new page

I’m creating a Wikipedia for a person and IMDb is not a reliable source I see. How do I go about adding the appropriate sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DawnPiercy916 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

You can do so by reading this page and this page. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 04:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit

I'm Editing My Pages And Are Being Speedy Deleted I Don't Know Why... — Preceding unsigned comment added by BONGINKOSI (talk • contribs) 16:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Try reading the explanations on your user talk page. The words in blue are wikilinks to further information. And please remember that in English we don't start every word with a capital letter; that makes sentences difficult to read. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
You created the article Bonginkosi Moloi today (presumably about yourself) and it was tagged a few minutes later with a Speedy deletion. The reason given was that none of the information you wrote suggested that Bonginkosi Moloi meets Wikipedia's definition of notability. Part of this was no references. An editor has provided more explanation on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@David notMD:. It was not me that created the article Bonginkosi Moloi, and the article was not about me. I twice changed the indentation to show that you were replying to the OP, not to me, but twice you have changed the indentation back. Is there any reason why you don't want to stick to the accepted practice on indentation? --David Biddulph (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm guessing that DavidnotMD's was referring to the OP when he wrote "you". As for the indentation, I think some people automatically assume that a new post means they must add another level of indentation even though it's not really that automatic. Perhaps some feel that indenting each new post makes the thread easier to follow since it's easier to distinguish between posts; however, that does seem to increase the chance of there being a misunderstanding like seems to have happened here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines does say that indentation should be in accordance with Help:Using talk pages#Indentation, and that after editors have been alerted to specific aspects of these guidelines (such as indentation, sectioning, and signatures), they are expected to make a reasonable effort to follow those conventions. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I am more informed now. David notMD (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy Page vandalised please edit

referrred to as a bastard murderer in the first sentence, above his picture are the words murderer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firegenetics (talk • contribs) 10:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Firegenetics. Edits reverted and IP vandal now temporarily blocked by an adminstrator. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

do interviews count as articles?

Hi, I am a member of incorporated as a non-profit organization. Our core goal is to advance the role of women in the agricultural industry. As part of this, we are implementing a project called "Champions" which highlights the women, men and organizations who are working actively to advance women. The project consists of interviews which are posted on our webpage https://mbwomeninagnfood.wixsite.com/mwaf/champions and our social media. The question is whether this page or the individual interviews can be published in Wikipedia and, if so, how are the editors going to verify the content of the interviews? Thank you for your help. I don't require the answer specific to a mobile device. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgLadiesinWpg (talk • contribs) 22:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@AgLadiesinWpg: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't mean to disappoint you, but Wikipedia is not for publishing original research or source material like interviews. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that are notable as defined by Wikipedia. Your own website and social media are the proper places for interviews.
I would note that you should probably change your username; I will shortly post instructions on your user talk page about how. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@AgLadiesinWpg: I am going to very slightly disagree with what 331dot has said, and point out that if you wish to upload what you deem to be 'significant' interviews with potentially notable people, or about potentially notable topics, you may upload those media at Wikimedia Commons. We accept videos, just as we do static images. But you would need to select and edit those interviews with care, releasing those videos under a CC-BY-SA licence for commercial re-use, ensuring they are in an acceptable format such as .webm or .ogg format, and possibly ensuring that the participants have clearly granted permission for their interview to be released (see this example). But, that said, interviews by people can't be used to establish notability about those people, but they may be appropriate to use to support some topics. I would advise great care in trying to use videos, but we are not averse to them, per se. (I've got three videos I either feature in, or have created and uploaded, on my own user page, but none of these make me a notable person!) If the person being interviewed can be shown to meet our notability criteria, then there is no reason not to have a video of them speaking about their work in that article. In fact, I would encourage it. But article content should not be based upon what a person actually says about themselves. There may also be circumstances where adding a link to a video interview might be appropriate within "External links", but it really will depend upon circumstances. I'm not sure if this clarifies things, or muddies the water! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough- though my assumption was that the OP wanted to post the interviews directly here as a web host or something("interviews as articles"). Thanks for your insight. 331dot (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both so much for your help. It has given me a lot to consider. Question: the interviews are not on video, they are text. Does it make a difference somehow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgLadiesinWpg (talk • contribs) 15:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@AgLadiesinWpg: My apologies if I misunderstood your question. I should have said that we don't base our selection of notable people based upon what they say about themselves - whether on video interviews (my assumption) or in writing. These would be regarded as Primary Sources and might tend to present only what a person wants to say (or even pretend) about themselves. Somebody else writing about that person in a respected newspaper, book or organisational website (but not blogs and the like) would be deemed a secondary source, and that would be far more acceptable to us. That's not to say that some detail in interviews can't be used at all, but they wouldn't contribute towards notability. Being an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia only wants to present information on topics that others have deemed 'notable' by other writing in-depth about them. Local newspapers and insider business magazines are unlikely to be sufficient. There are millions of really worthy people out there who have done great things (and I'm sure I must be one of them!), but they'll will never reach Wikipedia's criteria for notability. That doesn't detract in any way from their efforts. Understanding our WP:N criteria is key to not wasting effort in writing about topics that simply won't get accepted. But don't let me put you off in any way from genuinely redressing the gender imbalance here on Wikipedia. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Sajal Chakraborty aka Bhagoban.

how can i create a blp in wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by BHAGOBAN (talk • contribs) 11:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

BHAGOBAN Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. From your username, I gather that you want to write about yourself; this is strongly discouraged. Please read the autobiography policy written at WP:AUTO. Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves. Wikipedia articles must be written in a neutral point of view; this is usually difficult for people when writing about themselves, as we all naturally write favorably about ourselves. If you meet the notability guidelines for biographies written at WP:BIO, or more specific ones for certain fields like musicians, someone will eventually taken note of you and write about you. Also understand that it is not necessarily desirable to have a Wikipedia article about yourself; see this link. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

New contributor, not sure what happens next

Hi, I've drafted my first article and submitted it for review and hopefully approval but a few days have passed and I'm not sure what to expect next. How long would it usually take to receive feedback? Apologies if the guidance is on here and I've missed it, I'm still finding my way around. Many Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMyll (talk • contribs) 10:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

No, you haven't submitted it for review. The way to do so is with the button labelled "Submit your draft for review!". I see that you were also trying to declare a conflict of interest, so you need to read WP:COI, and (if appropriate) WP:PAID. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying David - I'll try again. I do need to declare an (unpaid) interest and have read the guidance on that however, I hope I've written the content from an unbiased perspective using references and sources in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMyll (talk • contribs) 12:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I followed the pathway again to create a new article from the link here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents - "Create a new article" and I can't actually see any button labelled "Submit your draft for review" I only have a "Publish" option. Apologies if it's somewhere obvious and I'm just missing it but I'd be grateful for further guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMyll (talk • contribs) 12:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Please sign your posts with ~~~~, or alternatively click the Signature button on the screen located above the edit window(it looks like a scribble) so we know who wrote what. In the context you speak of, "publish" is equivalent to "save" and does not mean you draft is "published to Wikipedia". I think what you are speaking of is different than your draft located at User:MMyll/sandbox/The Zangwills, which has the "submit your draft for review" button in blue near the top. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Submitting draft for review

Hi All

I have just completed my first article and clicked on the "Submit your draft for review" button. Is there a way I can check if it has been submitted and see the progress of the review?

Excited to be part of the community?

Thanks in advance,

Ewan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewan Menzies (talk • contribs) 21:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ewan Menzies and welcome to the Teahouse.
Your draft has formatted its references in a completely unmaintainable way. Please see referencing for beginners for an introduction to proper citations.
At first glance, this D4 stuff seems to be a hoax. Too many broad, vague claims. Until the references are cleaned up, I don't intend to give it another look. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 22:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Ewan Menzies, if this is about User:Ewan Menzies/sandbox, it has not yet been submitted for review. What happened when you clicked the button? —teb728 t c 22:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
What - if any - is your connection to D4 or CTAG? David notMD (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

jmcgnh thanks for your feedback this is very helpful. I will look at the help guide and make corrections. I can see why you might say it is a hoax, many over the last 20 years who have heard about it have said this is too good to be true. Never-the-less Alan Fowler the creator has over 30 successful case studies from organisations like Martin Currie Investments, Northern Ireland Water, Central Government, Buckinghamshire Hospital Trust, and BTHealth Care Group. D4 was referenced in the Business Scotland Magazine (page 61) last month. More importantly, we are in the early stages of backing from a well-known professor at Edinburgh University. How would you suggest I amend the wording to let readers see this is genuine? (I understand if you do not want to read it at this time:)

David notMD thanks for your feedback. When I hit submit it just came back to the same submit screen? I am a Director of CTA Global Ltd, the company that bought the D4 IP. Is this ok? Thanks again, Ewan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewan Menzies (talk • contribs) 09:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  • "Submit your draft for review" should be in a dark blue background near the top of your draft. That submits. Confusingly, when you edit the draft, you click on "Publish" at the bottom, which only saves your edits to the document.
  • You position with CTA Global means you have what Wikipedia considers a paid relationship. See WP:PAID. Other editors here will explain that better than I.
  • As written, the article will be rejected for many reasons. One, but not the most important, is that you used a non-valid means of creating a reference list. See Help:Referencing for beginners
  • At the end of each comment, type four of ~. This adds your User name signature.
Hope this helps a bit, but my frank assessment is that what you wrote is not what Wikipedia is. Again, others will explain better. David notMD (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

new user

I recently joined Wikipedia. I wish to know how to create a page to introduce myself and my capabilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parpars (talk • contribs) 07:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

See WP:UP for a complete answer. Regards and Welcome!, Ariconte (talk) 07:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Shorter version: click the redlinked "Parpars" in your signature and write something about you and what you do/intend to do on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
As GGS wrote, your User page is a place to explain a bit about your background and you intentions as a Wikipedia editor. It is not a social media place, nor for any mention of business you do. Lastly, at the end of each comment, type four of ~. This 'signs' your comment with your User name. Welcome to Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Article Submission

Hi All,

Being a new user, I created biography page under my own user sandbox namespace. How can I create/transfer that user biography page to new one. Also, how to make that article public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anvika Mishra (talk • contribs) 12:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Anvika Mishra Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I will shortly add the appropriate information to allow you to submit the draft for review; however, it would be good if you worked to remove the promotional/puffery language from the draft(including but not limited to "Quite the multi tasker as is evident from the aforementioned", "Abhishek is enjoying his life and fulfilling his dreams with his passion", etc.) I would not submit it before doing that. You should also make sure that this person meets the notability guidelines for those in his field written at WP:NTRIATHLON.
I notice your username is similar to the name of the person you wrote about. What is your connection to them? 331dot (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Article? Issues involved--notability and conflict of interest. No one should be contributing to WP when that subject is you or your work. Is the subject (you) notable with secondary references to be included in an encyclopedic work? WP is not the place for an article that would be a resume.104.35.236.49 (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

331dot's point is that people are strongly advised against trying to create an article about themselves. see WP:AUTO. Your draft has been reviewed and rejected, with advice given by the reviewer. From a quick look, much of the content - while probably true - is without references. David notMD (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

plagerism

Am I allowed to copy and paste to facebook with wiki article at top of post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith1951 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I think so, provided you follow the requirements about attribution and licensing. See reusing Wikipedia content, Smith1951. --ColinFine (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Creating a page

Hello

I have looked at numerous Wikipedia pages and have found numerous ones that are company specific https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speck_Products https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skullcandy

As such, we want to create a similar page for PIVOT.

Do I do this in Sandbox and them select PUBLISH PAGE for a review?

Please advise. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KJ010110 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

You can try, KJ010110 - and whilst that would be the best way - from what I've seen at User:KJ010110/PIVOT, you will almost certainly be wasting your own time, as well as that of our volunteers in then assessing and probably immediately deleting it. I and others have already given you advice (see here) on the inadvisability of adding even a few sentences about PIVOT into the EFB page, yet now you want to create a whole encyclopaedia article all about it! In what way does your company's product meet our Notabilty criteria? Indeed, does even the parent company meet the criteria clearly laid out in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)? If you cannot find three or more detailed, in-depth independent sources that show the world in general - not the airline business - has taken note of the company or its product, then the answer is no, forget it. Wikipedia is not here to help you promote your employers business or products. Don't compare your company to other articles here - each is judged/retained/deleted on its own merits. Do follow advice previously given to you about declaring your conflict of interest, and don't try to write from an insider perspective. Leave it to non-involved editors by offering those links at WP:REQUESTED ARTICLES.
To be absolutely blunt, from what I can ascertain you've basically got a company making a load of fancy suction cups, quick release gizmos and nice sturdy cases to put airline electronic equipment in to keep them safe. That's reassuring to know next time I take a flight. But somehow that just isn't going to cut it here on this encyclopaedia, and I'm not quite sure why you think it would, or why you think you might receive different advice than that already given you?
And who, by the way is "we"? If this account has been created by the PR or Marketing Department of FlyBoys Inc. so that its staff can all have a go at promoting its PIVOT product range, then you are in serious breach of our policies on account use, and may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia only permits one individual to use one account name. Again, I invite you to read and act upon our two policies at WP:COI and WP:PAID, and give up trying to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform for non-notable products. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_903&oldid=882764451"