Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 783

Archive 780

Archive 781

Archive 782

Archive 783

Archive 784

Archive 785

→

Archive 790

LOST DRAFTS

Hello, I have been working on two drafts over the past week and recently my computer crashed and now i cannot find the drafts anywhere including in my sandbox. Where can i find these drafts? It stated that autosave was saving the entire time i was working on the articles. Please help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smurfidurf (talk • contribs) 21:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Smurfidurf: Wikipedia doesn't have an autosave feature. If you received a message saying that it was autosaved, you were using a different program. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Smurfidurf. Welcome to the Teahouse. You can find all your contributions at this link. Using this account, it appears you have only ever made four edits in total. The only draft you have worked on is at User:Smurfidurf/sandbox. I'm not sure what you mean by 'autosave' was on. I'd love there to be an autosave function here, but there isn't one here. Were you working on some other wiki? I'd be interested to know. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have an autosave facility. Your contributions saved to Wikipedia are listed at Special:Contributions/Smurfidurf. If you have been relying on a separate autosave facility on your computer you'll have to look on your computer, rather than here. In future you ought to save your draft regularly. Don't be confused by the misleading "Publish page" label on the button, when it really means "Save page". --David Biddulph (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Also, "Save early and often" is standard advice for any computer work. "Save early, save often, and never overwrite older saves" if you're dealing with potentially unstable or volatile work. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Jude Cole

Hi, sorry to bother you. Okay, so until just now Jude Cole was a copyvio of [1] added by coi (UPE?) editor User:Bandini5. I reverted it back to before the copyvio, but you need to go back further to get a viable article (maybe here) My questions are:

• Where should I revert to?
• What else do I need to do for the copyvio - and can you help me with it?

I have tried to read WP:Copyvio but got quite confused. Thanks, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Never mind on the first question, thanks User:SkyGazer 512 who already did the further reversion. GreyGreenWhy (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @GreyGreenWhy: Welcome to the Teahouse! First of all, how the heck nobody noticed that copyright vio for so long is surprising - thank you so much for reverting it! I've reverted to an even earlier revision - it looks like Bandini5 completely removed the useful content and replaced it with a copyright violation. What you can do is put {{copyvio-revdel}} on the page, and an administrator should come to it soon and hide the revisions that contain a copyright violation. For a quicker response, you may want to contact an administrator directly on their talk page, or post on the incidents admin noticeboard.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

User:SkyGazer 512 - Thanks, and done on the revdel tag. Given Bandini5 even came back in February this year to remove a coi tag from the article [2], is there anything we can do about them? Thank you, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

And now Mz7 has hidden the revisions that contain a copyright vio. =)--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 23:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I want to use a picture

hi, I want to use a picture I made for my wikipedia page. But I already uploaded on wikipedia on a other page I dont want to excist. Now I can't use the picture because 'there is already another page with the picture' the one that i want to be deleted. I tried to delete that page but it didn't. Can someone please help me? How can I upload my picture on the right page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elineotto (talk • contribs) 19:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

how to delete a file on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elineotto (talk • contribs) 19:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Elineotto, welcome to the Teahouse. An uploaded picture is not tied to a specific page. It can be used in zero, one, or more pages, e.g. with [[File:Stables in the Prins Willem-Alexander Manege.jpg|thumb|The stables in the Prins-Willem Alexander Manege]]. See more at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#How to place an image. You uploaded File:The stables in the Prins Willem-Alexander Manege.jpg to Wikipedia and it was deleted on your request with {{db-author}}. You uploaded commons:File:Stables in the Prins Willem-Alexander Manege.jpg to Wikimedia Commons. You have attempted to request deletion with {{db-author}} but Commons does not have that template. You can use {{SD|G7}} instead if you still want it to be deleted. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Elineotto: You really are determined to create a page to promote this riding school, aren't you? I must give you credit for persistence! This is the third time you have done so after the previous two versions on the identical topic were deleted under CSD A7 (i.e. speedily deleted as not meeting our notability criteria for organisations). I also note that recreation of the similarly-named Prins Willem-Alexander manege article was prevented by RHaworth last month. From your talk page it is clear that you have already been warned that these repeated attempts at promoting this riding school are disruptive. Not heeding the advice of the community is the kind of activity which users tend to find results in their accounts being blocked, no matter whether they act from the best or intentions, or not. Although I am about to put yet another speedy deletion notice on this article, I should at least point out (in a more positive note) that deleting an article - or not having one in the first place - does not in any way impact on whether an image relating to that topic remains on Wikimedia Commons. So your photo can remain there if you wish, providing it is your copyright, of course. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

HI yes I really want to make this page for a school project. If the page gets deleted the teacher won't grade it. @Nick Moyes:

• @Elineotto: Please tell your teacher to read Wikipedia:Education_program/Educators and engage the community at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard. They should also put up a course page. Uncoordinated school projects often end up frustrating everyone (instructor, students, Wikipedia community), because creating new Wikipedia articles is a much harder task than usually thought. In particular, grading on whatever sticks (If the page gets deleted the teacher won't grade it.) is a bad idea because none can guarantee that a given page will not be deleted or edited by another member of the community. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Elineotto: Thank you for your explanation. It all makes sense now, though I see you managed to get yourself blocked by ignoring our advice and creating yet another version of this article. Rather than comment further here, I have left this message on your Talk Page which I invite you to show to your teacher in the hope that they will appreciate the trouble their ignorance has caused us all. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

True Information

How do I know if what I am putting in the articles are true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bopit1998 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Bopit1998. Cite a reliable source every time. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia does not rely on editor knowledge. You summarize, paraphrase, and cite a professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic source to support any claim you add. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Is exemplifying in a math article original research ?

A mathematical formula is exactly the sum of its all possible examples.

An affirmation like (x+y=y+x) is nothing else than an abbreviation for (1+1=1+1) and (1+2=2+1) and (1+3=3+1) and (2+3=3+2) and so on.

Exemplifying, in mathematics, is just like choosing a cake on a plate, normally the closest to you. You are not the chef but a humble client. I personally not see exemplifying as original research.

Please, I very need help in this issue ! Thanks-full, Nboyku (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nboyku, welcome to the Teahouse. Like Wikipedia:No original research#Routine calculations, it depends how complicated it is and other editors may disagree, both about whether it's original research and whether the example is correct. There may also be concerns about relevance. Do you have a real example in mind? I don't think anyone would say it's original research to state that 1+2=2+1 is an example of x+y=y+x. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll add to PrimeHunter's reply that whenever someone asks for citations, it's the duty of those who wish to keep challenged content to provide them: WP:MINREF. There is no point in arguing does something need citations or not if citations have already been asked for, or if it's likely that they will be. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter, I understand the complexity point (if you are in a three star restaurant you are not a humble client, but you have to respect eating rules), I totally agree. Finnusertop, the rule you say is really deep, make plenty of sense, the user asking input is the god around here; I totally agree, thanks !

The example I have placed is : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_species#A_simple_example_%E2%80%93_labeling_the_Fano_plane The reason that I had was to bring back on earth the "fancy" stuff in the article. The theory in the article is exposed in one a "fancy" book and tenth of "kitchen" article that are the result of a collective organized work. Personally I consider the article misinforms. It is not fair for someone to read the article, to eventually pay an expensive book and finally, after spending time and money, to discover in the "kitchen" writings some "fundamental bijection" between species and good old permutation groups. This is my reason for exemplifying. It is the simple and effective way to warn to the reader.

Let now suppose that someone ask me to cite; I will have to decline, to retract the example and then to retaliate with about twenty citing requests (as fancy the main book is, the article reaches the sky). It's the end of the article.

Whatever will be, thank you for assisting, it helps me a lot to bring some order in my thoughts. Nboyku (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Deducing from (x+y=y+x) that (1+2=2+1) is not original research, because it is obvious. However, the material at Combinatorial_species#A_simple_example_–_labeling_the_Fano_plane is very far from obvious. It is, to me, totally incomprehensible. If it is to be kept in the article, it needs to cite at least one source – maybe https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01202372/document would do?. Anyway, the proper place for this discussion is not here, it is the article's talk page. Maproom (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Nboyku, I replied at Talk:Combinatorial_species#Warning with specifics on this and related issues another editor already addressed to you there. Here, I will only add

Please think 20! times before following through on your threat to "retaliate with about twenty citing requests" to "end the article" when you lose your fight - that would be a childish reaction to a simple citation request and treated as such. Math articles frequently summarize a few authoritative reliable sources without repetitive inline citations; however, a specific example taken from a text would best be cited inline for copyright issues, as well as credibility. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 10:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

thank you Maproom, thank you Paulscrawl, I have already the replacement plan for the actual example with a well documented one, the case occurs. (better than retaliate, huh ?) It will be less "juicy" but it will bring to light the good old permutation groups.Nboyku (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Just chiming in about the "routine calculations" exception. My understandings is that it was originally intended for really basic article writing, such as computing a percentage of wins for a basketball team from the number of games won and lost, but it was stretched to include any simple calculation where "simple" is understood in the context of the article. For instance, this portion of our article about the ideal gas law is probably not "simple" to an average person, but it would be considered "simple" in the context of the intended audience in that part of the article (that derivation appears in pretty much every textbook about statistical physics).

The linked section (Combinatorial_species#A_simple_example_–_labeling_the_Fano_plane) seems obscure to me, but the real question is whether it is a well-known example used everywhere in the field. If it is not, then you absolutely have to cite it or remove it. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Tigraan. I am working on it and I appreciate your criteria. Anyway, I have just remember another aspect. The main book constantly leaves to the reader a heavy load of tasks (not routine ones) in proving theorems and propositions, either by explicit inviting the reader or by transforming them in not solved exercises. Right now the wiki article contains affirmations that are not documented - since they are left to the reader, and not documentable - because this would imply either SYNTH or OR.

thanks for your time. I have rechecked and the derivation chain ( X⁷/PSL(2,7)a )'" = ( X⁶/S₄d )" = ( X.P₄^bic )' = L₄ + P₄^bic is explicitly mentioned in literature, exactly in two steps like in my example, together with the cycle indices. I even did not a syntheses by using transitivity. I wonder what is more obscuring, leaving them like that or adding a picture (that is in the spirit of the area) and bringing Fano and Klein to help.Nboyku (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

There is a huge difference in reading say... 100 pages of biography of Karlheinz Stockhausen compared to 100 pages of Galois theory. For the first one needs 2 days and tools like glasses, maybe a sun hat? and at the end of the day the reader is more connected to the world.For the second, the time is maybe 2 months, (could be weeks or years)and the reading tools are paper, pencil, maybe a computer... it took a century for someone to read for the first time this theory. And, at the and of the month, the reader is more disconnected to the world. Nboyku (talk) 03:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Are there social media managers here ?

Yes I know, they are everywhere, but are there many ? How to deal with it ?Nboyku (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nboyku. I imagine that you are referring to paid editors who are here to promote their clients. Yes, this is a problem on Wikipedia, and such editors are blocked or even banned if they repeatedly violate our policies and guidelines. Please read WP:PAID and WP:COI for a basic overview of how we deal with this threat to the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Kris Kristofferson

Nelson and Kristofferson continued their partnership, and added Waylon Jennings and Johnny Cash to form the supergroup The Highwaymen. Their first album, "Highwayman", was a huge success, and the supergroup continued working together for a time. The single from the album, also entitled "Highwayman", written by tunesmith Jim Webb and previously recorded by Glen Campbell for his 1979 "Highwayman" album, was awarded the ACM's single of the year in 1985.[24] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kemajic (talk • contribs) 04:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kemajic and welcome to the Teahouse.

You just copied a couple of sentences from Kris Kristofferson article. When you copy material from one part of WP to another, you are still required to provide attribution, as covered in WP:COPYWITHIN. It's considered sufficient to mention the source article in the edit summary, but it can be done better than that.

But aside from copying those sentences here, you did not ask a question. Is there something we can help you with? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Article being changed to what seems promotional with referencing problems

Hello. This article Chris Clarke (advertising executive) has recently been extensively changed by what appears to be a single-use account plus some non-registered editors. The changes seem to be highly focused on promoting the individual and his business acumen. Also the edits are not being well done what with broken links and sources, plus the addition of information that appears to directly contradict existing media reports. For example, this article clearly states that "Nitro has 300 employees and offices in New York, London and Shanghai" but the editor has in various edits put the number of employees at 700 or 900. Likewise this article was written after the subject left the company, does not mention him, and seems irrelevant to the page but the editor continues to add back reference to the event.

I did a reversing at 00:58 UTC on 1 June 2018 and supported it in depth on the talk page. Subsequently the user re-edited the page with a different, but similar, set of edits.

I would love some help from a moderator. And if I am off base then happy to learn why. Otherwise it would seem appropriate to revert back to the last known version that was supported by outside references. Thank you, NYFly (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll leave other editors to answer your question, but one question for you is whether there is any connection between User:NYFly and User:Nyfly2, both of whom have been editing the article in question? If so, please read the policy on sock puppetry. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

No, absolutely none. I am User:NYFly. Have edited on business, politics, sport, publishing. The other user User:Nyfly2 was created just days ago, apparently for the express purpose of changing this article. And, I assume, out of some dislike of the edits I was doing. NYFly (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

In which case it sounds as if User:Nyfly2 is a violation of WP:Username policy. Perhaps an admin may take a view. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. NYFly (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I should have said from square one that if you want help from an admin the place to report the problem is WP:ANI. There does seem to be prima facie evidence of disruptive editing, edit-warring, username policy violation, sockpuppetry, and a legal threat, so there is plenty for an admin to look at. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

For the time being you don't need to go to WP:ANI, as User:Nyfly2 has been blocked indefinitely & the IP for a week, but you may need to keep an eye open for a reappearance with a new identity. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you will do. NYFly (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

All the sources cited in the article (except maybe the last, which I can't access from here) are based on press releases. I've nominated it for deletion. Maproom (talk) 07:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Question about moving/renaming a page (for a shopping centre)

Hi Teahouse friends,

There is a page for Tuggeranong Hyperdome. The Hyperdome has recently been renamed to "South Point". On the talkpage, someone raised the question whether the page should be renamed/moved. What would be the relevant rule for this case? A redirect? The Hyperdome has had a long history, even though it's been renamed I suspect people will still continue to call it "the Hyperdome" for some time. Thank you for your advice, I'm sorry if this is a very obvious query! SunnyBoi (talk) 07:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is for articles to be named as what the subject is usually called, not as its official name. See e.g. Tony Blair. Maproom (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)@SunnyBoi: When you move a page, by default it leaves a redirect targeting the new page. I cannot imagine a case of name change where it would be desirable to avoid the redirect (except if another topic with the same name makes a case for a disambiguation page).

However, see above and WP:COMMONNAME: we do not move pages just because the official name changed. Check recent mention in newspapers etc. to see if the new name has really caught up in popularity (I have not done my research and cannot express any informed opinion on the subject). If you are fairly sure that the good call is to move the page, do it (see Help:Move if needed); if you want more input, follow the process at WP:RM#CM.

(All this being said, are you sure the topic of that page meets the notability guidelines, e.g. WP:ORG? If not, the page should simply be redirected/merged to the parent company.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Jaspal Atwal

I hope you don’t mind, but would anybody please review my draft about Jaspal Atwal, a guy that’s been in the news a lot, especially with the India trip Trudeau made in February. I do would like to see it an article. I do also have a question: if the submission is accepted and it becomes an article, would I be the article creator or the reviewer would? Thank you. —AtwalForever (talk) 05:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello AtwalForever and welcome to the Teahouse.

You have already submitted your draft for review and need to wait for the process to proceed, so to speak, at its own pace. My only comment is that "convicted murderer" is not a profession, so I suggest rewording your opening so that the murder conviction is covered, but not as a primary identification.

Also, between your user name and the draft name, we have an obvious case where adherence to Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest policy is needed. Ideally, you should disclose on both your user page and on the talk page of the draft what sort of connection you have to the subject.

If the reviewer moves the article into its final location when accepting it, you will still be identified as the article's creator. Most of the time, who created an article is given very little notice. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello AtwalForever. Your draft calls this person a "convicted murderer" but the reference for that claim says that he was convicted of attempted murder. That is a serious error that must be corrected. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Hello LovelyGirl7's sockpuppet number what even now, you are gonna be banned (again) soon so this request is not gonna do anything.  Nixinova  T  C  08:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

  @Nixinova: Please file a proper WP:SPI case (rather than the "quick CheckUser request" that you placed despite the instructions Use this section [for any] situation that does not involve sock puppetry), assuming you have behavioral evidence. If you do not have that evidence, don't make accusations. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

My new draft | need reference help

My draft: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Plague_Inc._the_Board_game

———

Please help me find references aka sources please!

Searching of a person on social media. Bank Sinatra (lucifer sanders) Hazelnut00 (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

What are "probably good edits"?

I was looking at the user contributions page, and there's a box labeled "Hide probably good edits". What is this?Namenamenamenamename (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Not explained at Help:User contributions, so perhaps worth asking at Help talk:User contributions. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Namenamenamenamename, welcome to the Teahouse. It's part of the feature ORES (Objective Revision Evaluation Service) which tries to automatically review edits. See mw:ORES review tool#Using ORES. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

User:PrimeHunter, thanks.Namenamenamenamename (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I have added it to point 5 at Help:User contributions#Parts of the page and their purposes.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Good and constructive edits include:

• Fixing typos
• Verifying references
• Adding sourced content — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fair-8828 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Links to Wikipedia in other languages - are these valid ways to make an entry no longer an orphan? If so, how, since the links are not being recognized as internal ones...

I am still trying to figure out how to solve some problems I am encountering, especially regarding getting rid of the redirect that still goes through my sandbox, but I am doing my best to learn. I still have to figure out how to address the problems with the text itself. One is that the links are to the German Wikipedia site which apparently don't count to prevent the text from having orphan status. Is there any other way? I have added tons of links to it. Will the German site not be seen as compliance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mischtmail (talk • contribs) 08:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, again, Mischtmail. I assume this is still about Robin Curtis (scholar): it's always helpful to link the article in question.

To take your concerns in order:

• I see another editor has blanked your sandbox for you
• Being an orphan is nothing to do with the links in the article: it is about whether other articles contain links to that one. If you pick "What links here", you will see that there are quite a few links to the article, but not one of them is from a Wikipedia article. Probably some of the articles linked from the Curtis one could reasonably refer to her (maybe some already do) and so be linked back to it.
• Links to articles in the German Wikipedia should be wikilinks rather than external links. You can format them as [[:de:Medienwissenschaft]], which appears as de:Medienwissenschaft. But better is to use the template {{ill}}, which uses (and flags) the foreign link as long as there isn't an English article; but if somebody creates an English article, it will link to that with no intervention needed. See WP:ILL for more.
• External links are not allowed in the body of articles: if they are appropriate, they should go in an "External Links" section at the end - but there are strong restrictions on their use at all: see WP:EL. It is certainly not appropriate to have an external link to the website of a collaborator, except possibly as a citation to verify the claim that they worked together (though an independent source would be better)
• Not what you asked about, but in my opinion there are far too many works listed. This is not an academic directory, it is an encyclopaedia, and an article is not so much about what somebody has done, as about what independent commentators have written about her. There should be a selected bibliography, but the bulk of the article should be about her and her work (based on independent commentaries), not lists of works. --ColinFine (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Reputable source?

I was thinking about writing an article about a NASA engineer that worked on the first service mission of the Hubble Space Telescope “Joseph H. Rothenberg” that had a presentation at my college a few days ago. One of the sources is NASA and since NASA is a company (although owned by state) I’m wondering if it’s a reputable source. I also have another source, his bio. But I’m just wondering if someone could have a problem with the source being NASA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Witext (talk • contribs) 13:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Witext: Welcome to the Teahouse! Yes it's reliable, but it's probably a primary source which you need to use with care. You may also read WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:YFA. Thanks. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 13:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Witext: As always with questions such as "is source X reliable", the answer is "it depends". For instance NASA's website would be fine to source John Doe worked at the 1960-1970 FooSpace program, but it would certainly not be fine to source NASA is the most prestigious aerospace institution in the world. So for your purpose it is probably a good source.

Also, unlike what Abelmoschus Esculentus said above, when it comes to history of space programs etc. NASA's website should reasonably viewed as a secondary source, not a primary one, since whoever wrote it probably summarized historical information found in internal reports and the like (which would be the primary sources). When it comes to cutting-edge space announcements, NASA is a primary source though (since they are the one doing the stuff they communicate about). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Question

Did somebody mention tea?

Why am I invited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emzyhowster (talk • contribs) 16:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Emzyhowster! And welcome to the Teahouse! New users are invited here automatically by a bot. Why? Well because new users often have many questions that they would like to ask. We are here to answer those questions – and serve tea, of course. If you want to know how these invites are sent exactly, see: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts/Database reports/Automated invites. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Signature problem

Hi all, I made a custom signature that I like, but is too long to go in the box provided in my preferences. Is there anything I can do besides copy and paste it each time, like I am doing for this question? Thanks! ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯talk19:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, you could try writing the signature out in one of your userspace pages and then putting it in the signature box via WP:substitution, like at User:Jared/signature. I haven't tried it myself, so I'm not sure if it would be that simple though. --Habst (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Basilosauridae and welcome to the Teahouse. You could use Habst's suggestion for experimentation and recording past signatures (as in Jared's example), but it's not an allowed approach for live signatures which must not involve transclusions. The text box in your Preferences will take signature markup text that is up to 254 characters long (I forget exactly why it's not 255). Your current sig exceeds that by quite a bit. You will have to, just like everyone else, use your creativity to find a way to cram an interesting-looking signature code into that box. There's a penalty for longer usernames because the username has to appear 3 times in the signing code. Four times, if you want to include a contribs link. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Basilosauridae: [[User:Basilosauridae|<span style="background-color:black;color:#ADFF2F"><sup>†</sup></span><span style="color:#00FA9A">Basilosauridae</span>]][[User talk:Basilosauridae|<span style="background-color:black;color:#ADFF2F">❯❯❯</span><span style="color:#00FA9A">talk</span>]] works (251 characters). It's visually a bit long, but it fits in the box. is still too long, but I’ve corrected the errors with unbalanced tags (I think) Dairy {talk} 23:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

It cannot be saved in the signature field with "Treat the above as wiki markup" due to unbalanced span tags. Trying to save it gives "Invalid raw signature. Check HTML tags." Basilosauridae's attempt has the same error and cannot be saved if it's shortened. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Whoops, I missed that. With the </span> it's only 4 characters over, so shortening it shouldn't require too much compromise. I corrected my above comment so at least it's a reference to work from. Dairy {talk} 23:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Wait, nope, there’s more. 18 characters over. Dairy {talk} 00:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, thanks for your feedback. I guess its back to the drawing board on this one. Basilosauridae (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Final result. B^) Thanks again everyone.^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 00:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I thought that giving up on the separate styling of the dagger might be something to try. Glad to see you worked it out. Congratulations on a fine-looking sig. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

That leaves room for changing the "Talk" color if you want: ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

jmcgnh- Wait, did you say transclusions are not allowed ? Could you point out some policy supporting it... I personally use the transclusion method....but I have never any encountered opposition. — FR ⁺ 11:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The guideline is at WP:Signatures#Transclusion of templates (or other pages). --David Biddulph (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@FR30799386: (Do we still call you "Force Radical"?) You are subst'ing, not transcluding. Thanks to DB for pointing to the guideline. The signature field in your preferences is protected in ways that this file in your userspace is not. And, while allowed, it is not allowed to use substitution to produce signatures that exceed the length limitations. Your file is longer, but the 'noinclude' directives prevent the sig from violating. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

How can I submit one of my draft for review without the "send your article for review" template ?

Hi, I would like to know how submit one of my draft for review without the "send your article for review" template.

I would like to submit this draft for review : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Holly_Van_Hart But, the submit draft form isn't appearing so I am not sure how to submit it correctly...

Here's an example of the form I am talking about (check the bottom of the page): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Eliya_Cioccolato

Thank you in advance ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbabeux (talk • contribs) 15:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Gbabeux, I've added the submit button to your draft so that you can submit it when you're ready. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Finnusertop, Can I add the template you have just added myself on other drafts I want to submit or only admins/staff of wikipedia can do that ? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbabeux (talk • contribs) 16:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

To submit your draft for review add {{subst:submit}}. To add the submit button for future submission, add {{subst:AFC draft}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hello Gbabeux and welcome to the Teahouse.

There are two different ways to get the result.

1. You can add the text {{subst:AFC draft}} at the top of your draft. This will give you a submit button.
2. You can add the text {{subst:submit}} at the top of your draft. This has the same effect as clicking on the above-mentioned submit button.

Anyone can add these substitutions, but if someone other then the original contributor does it, they should add the |user= parameter to tell the system who should be considered the contributor (and who should get the review notices, etc). — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Correcting/Adding factual information to a Wikipedia entry about my workplace

I submitted some changes to correct information in the entry about Borough of Manhattan Community College (BMCC). Although I am currently employed by the college, I was not asked to do this and was a Wikipedia editor before taking this position. There is information on the page that needs to be corrected, yet my correction/updates were rejected because of my connection to the college, so there is currently out-of-date information on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CynthiaBlayer (talk • contribs) 13:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@CynthiaBlayer: Welcome to the Teahouse! Conflict of interest editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. See WP:COI. Thanks. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 13:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

While that is true, we should welcome corrections where articles contain out-of-date information - it's just that those corrections should be suggested on the relevant talk page rather than being implemented directly. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CynthiaBlayer. You can find instructions for requesting changes to the article at Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request. I believe that you also need to make a formal declaration about your employer, by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: If, as CynthiaBlayer clearly states in their original post, they are not editing Wikipedia as part of their work duties, they certainly are not bound to make the paid editing disclosure. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's outing to make the simple observation that the name of this editor matches the name of an employee listed as an employee in the public relations office of the article the editor has been editing so I think it's very possible that this is paid editing. ElKevbo (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

New to wiki and editing

Hello I am half of the band Ilya and wanted to correct and add to our wiki page. I spent quite a while correcting the name of our business and all the genres of music that were the absolute opposite to our sound as well as adding links. I also added the latest digital Ilya releases on bandcamp. After publishing and within a second I received a message from someone called Oshwah that said he had removed all my changes and they were all back to how the page originally was. Is Oshwah a robot as this was so quickly done? I did send him a message (I assume its a him?). Anyway ... I then went a re-did it all again and most of it has not been taken down ... just the music genres are back to all the ones that are not like our music :~P So I will have another go at this again and see what happens! I suppose I could have been someone having a laugh and adding what ever I want :~P Anyway ... Wikipedia is a great site :~) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JojoSwan (talk • contribs) 21:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@JojoSwan: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Oshwah is not a bot, but an experienced and knowledgeable Wikipedia editor and administrator. They, like many users, were likely monitoring the Recent Changes feed or otherwise were following the page for changes. They correctly reverted your edits, as they were not appropriate. You have what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest(please click that link to read more). As such, you should not directly edit the article about your band, instead suggesting changes as edit requests on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah I see ... yes i can do that :~) Thank you that is very gracious of you :~) .... So I will read 'conflict of interests' and then I will see who I can send the corrections to. Thanks for your reply. Most appreciated. Have to go to bed now though as up at 4am. Will do next week :~) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JojoSwan (talk • contribs) 21:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Next week is fine, Wikipedia has no deadline. If you have corrections to suggest, a recommended method is to list them on the "Talk page" of the article (there's a link to it from near the top left corner of the article). Your suggestions are more likely to be accepted if you include references to published articles that support them, so that people can tell you're not just "someone having a laugh". Maproom (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Acoustic Highway

Hello! My article, "Acoustic Highway" was recently accepted in the "Stub-class" category and I would like to improve it. Can you suggest some edits to make it better. Also, on the article "talk" page, I requested help in putting up a picture of the album cover, but to date I have had no input from anyone. In the past, when I've tried to post album covers, I was told that it is copyright infringement, yet I see other album articles using the album cover in the article? Is there a way to use the album cover on the article page?

I would like to get some help on linking this article to Craig Chaquico's page and also to, Jefferson Starship, and Starship pages. Any help, will be greatly appreciated.Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Cheryl Fullerton. I have added links to the articles "Starship (band)", "Jefferson Starship", and "Craig Chaquico". Perhaps someone else can help you with your other concerns. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Teblick! Where are those links located? On the respective pages? I'm not seeing any on the article page.Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I communicated what I desire. I meant can Chaquico be added to the external links portion of the Jefferson Starship, and Starship page like Slick, Kantner, Balin, etc?

show v t e Jefferson Airplane (discography, members) · Jefferson Starship (discography, members) · Starship (discography, members) show v t e Paul Kantner show v t e Grace Slick show v t e Marty Balin show v t e Papa John Creach I tried to copy and paste this. Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Cheryl Fullerton. I have upgraded Acoustic Highway from stub grade to start grade. The article still needs improvements. Attribute praise of the album to music critics in the body of the article. Praise should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice, unless it is universal. As for the album cover, copyrighted material like that should not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, unless it is freely licensed. Instead, our policy on use of non-free images allows for uploading low-resolution images of album covers here on Wikipedia. See item #1 describing use of cover art. You must comply fully with all aspects of that policy. These images can be used only in one article, normally about the album in a case like this.

As for the external links, that is a matter of editorial judgment. Normally, a band article should have an external link to that band's website. Perhaps editors may decide to add external links to band member's websites. But my inclination would be to limit those links to the biographies of the various band members. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cheryl Fullerton External links are merely a list of links to webpages, not connected and external to Wikipedia, that may be of interest to the reader. Sort of like a further reading list. I think you mean the box right at the bottom of the page that links to all the other Wikipedia articles connected to the subject? That is information contained in a template. For instance, Craig Chaquico has a Jefferson Airplane template at the bottom of his article which has all the albums etc in it. However, he doesnt seem to have his own template. Slick, Kantner, and Balin etc do.(if you click on the V, that will show you the template itself; E is for editing it) I know pretty much nothing about templates,so can't be of much help, but I suspect you may need to build him a template first. Anyone...please feel free to corrrect me if I am wrong! Then it could be added to both the Acoustic Highway article, and the other Jefferson Airplane articles. Curdle (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all the good input to my questions, very helpful! If there is someone out there to help with the template building, I would like to hear from you! Thanks again!Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Need help with collapsing table sections, in template

Template:Lynching in the United States is getting too big. I know how to collapse a whole table, but I don’t know how to turn the first four rows into collapsed bars. Help appreciated. deisenbe (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Deisenbe. I'm not 100% certain - and the syntax does looks rather complex - but I think the information you need to achieve this might possibly be found at Template:Collapsible sections option. It suggests you'll need to use a different navbox template: Template:Navbox with collapsible groups. Do let me know if this is what you needed. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

That can be made to work. Though it isn’t just what I had in mind, and I’m pretty sure what I want to do (bars that don’t go all the way across) is possible, but I don’t think it’s a wise use of my inexpert time to figure it out. A sidebar seems nice, then I can stick a thumbnail in it. I’d put it on the talk page but it seems no one reads template talk pages and few follow their changes. deisenbe (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: Yeah, I was going to try to work it myself out before answering your question, but I also felt I was going to get into a very complicated pickle quite quickly. You might consider asking at Village Pump (technical) or Help desk, as these attract the far more technical questions and answers than we do here at the Teahouse, as our focus is mostly on supporting the newer editors in their work. Another way is to post on the relevant template talk page, but then to add a {{helpme}} template to swiftly attract the attention of one of the experienced on-call editors here. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

User:MRY2014

I think someone should do something...Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

That user was just blocked (indefinitely). Chris857 (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Watchlist

Do I need to Watchlist every page I edit? Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Goodness, Thegooduser, definitely not! I suggest you only watch the pages you are personally interested in as a topic, or where you feel you might want to keep an eye on a page because it is suffering repeated vandalism. One trick I've done is to make a copy of my main watchlist titles somwhere else, and then when my live watchlist is bloated with trivial pages I'm no longer interested in, I just paste the old list back into it. It saves an awful lot of individual clearing out in 'Preferences'. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Thegooduser. I am a less disciplined editor than our friend Nick Moyes, which is why I have 11,852 pages on my watchlist. I scan my watchlist often, looking for any signs of disruption. If highly experienced editors are involved, I assume that things are going well. I can detect telltale signs of possible disruptive editing, and I then look closer. Regards from the USA. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Alternative account

I have made an alternative account - User:Clockist for a week .I have put a banner on the user page of the account. Is it okay or I have to add anything more ? Kpgjhpjm (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Kpgjhpjm: It is fine as is, though in the interest of total transparency you should also mention it on your main account page. See for instance Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/Related_accounts for a couple of options. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

After 1 week , it's work will be done (Not used anymore) . So will I put a retired tag on it after I return to editing with my main account ? Kpgjhpjm (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Template experts

Hi, Good day. If you are a template expert and willing to help, let me know, I need you to check on the COI template (wiki code) I am working on if all is in place and the process to get it documented. I will contact you on your talk page for further info once I got the message that your hand has raised. Thanks in advance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Update- @Jmcgnh: has kindly responded to the above on my talk page. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

How to know if a image in subject has received permission for free use by copyright bearer?

Over a month ago, I had sent a request for permission to the representative of the copyright bearer of an image for use in Wikipedia and asked him to email the photo and consent text from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_template to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, but I received no reply. Just today I noticed that the image in subject has been used in one of the Wikipedia articles. So I just want to check that the image has received the required permission for its use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adithya harish pergade (talk • contribs) 10:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

If you are referring to this file then it has not been uploaded to Commons. Perhaps one of our copyright experts can comment on its WP:fair use status? Dbfirs 11:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Dbfirs, Thankyou for replying to my question. Yes, that is exactly the file i am talking about. Can you help me help me find an expert opinion on the image's WP:fair use status — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adithya harish pergade (talk • contribs) 14:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair use is never possible for pictures of living people, as it's always possible to take a copyright-free alternative. See point 1 at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy. However, this picture has been published by the Indian government under their Government Open Data License, which means it's available for any use, commercial or non-commercial. Rojomoke (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou for replying Rojomoke, I clearly acknowledge the Government Open Data License of the govt. of India. But the website of origin of the image clearly states under their copyright policy(refer https://presidentofindia.nic.in/copyright-policy.htm ) that "The contents of this website may not be reproduced partially or fully, without due permission from The President of India, If referred to as a part of another publication, the source must be appropriately acknowledged. The contents of this website can not be used in any misleading or objectionable context." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adithya harish pergade (talk • contribs) 10:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Inline citation for math articles

This is my third question after 1: examples and 2: diagrams in math articles and hopefully the last one.

I have just learned that footnotes are not welcomed in mathematics :

AMS speaks about total elimination of foot notes : In this connection it might be remarked that an excessive number of footnotes sometimes gives the undesirable impression that the paper is being "written in the footnotes." Careful organization, however, always makes it possible to reduce the number and length of footnotes, even to eliminate them entirely, while MIT says clear, no footnotes : The citation is treated somewhat like a parenthetical remark within a sentence, but the reason for the citation must be immediately apparent. Footnotes are not used;

Indeed, the APA style applied to math looks really awkward if not confusing and misinforming. Thanks for answers Nboyku (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

By AMS do you mean American Mathematical Society? If so it's not really relevant. In the interests of consistency, Wikipedia uses its own internal style guide (the Manual of Style), rather than trying to conform to the thousands of subject-specific conventions out there. And the MOS very much does welcome footnote references. You should try to reference every individual statement in the article, even if that means having a footnote at the end of every sentence.

The parenthetical referencing you mention is Harvard style and can also be used in Wikipedia articles, but it's not common to. I'd stick with the standard footnote format. – Joe (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia editing, and I forgot to add an edit summary to some of my edits. Is it possible to retrospectively add edit summaries after publishing the changes? MrPrune (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Happens to the best of us, but you might like the an option in your preferences in the editing section called "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". As to your question: It's not possible to change the empty edit summary attached to a specific edit retrospectively, but you could make a dummy edit to explain your edits if you believe it's necessary. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Search engine indexing

Hi, I am wondering why a new article has not made it to search engines? It was added to the celebrities wikidata. I am son confused why I can find it here but no where else. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andredoone (talk • contribs) 15:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Andredoone, you have not started any new articles. The only new page you created was your user page, and those are deliberately not indexed for search engines. However, to answer the general question, new articles must first be marked patrolled before they will be indexed on search engines, which can take some time depending on the current backlog. Experienced editors with a history of creating appropriate new pages can request the autopatrolled user right, which removes that requirement from the pages they create. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok so after it is removed how do you get it to the portal. Very confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andredoone (talk • contribs) 15:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk pages

A question on commenting on talk. As I am not permitted to comment on the Jerusalem page, I put in a point that as Israel is a nation and their opponents are not. Israel calling it's capital should be in the heading. I got a warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KirinMagic (talk • contribs) 16:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, KirinMagic. You received the standard discretionary sanctions warning that any new editor who participates in discussions about the Israel/Palestine conflict gets. Be very careful about your contributions there, especially in stating or implying that the Palestinian Authority is a terrorist group. That is not a good idea and can lead to problems for you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)