Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2020 November 30

= November 30 =

False Trigger warning
Hi,

While editing the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Autonomous_Zone I was given a Trigger Warning - that my edit may pose possible conflict of interest or it is self promotion.

My edit merely stated the facts. I added in a paragraph that outlined a actual example of a Temporary Autonomous Zone with a link to an article explaining how the event was designed as a Temporary Autonomous Zone.

How is this any different to the other 'Implementations' example on the same page - regarding the Cacophony Society with a link to an article explaining how it was an example of a Temporary Autonomous Zone?

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opoeian (talk • contribs) 01:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Opoeian, your edit to Temporary Autonomous Zone included a link to a page that had your Wikipedia username in the URL. My guess is that is what prompted the warning.  I see that you submitted a similar change in September to that page and it was reverted by Graywalls.  The primary issue here is that you might have a WP:COI with that source and adding that source to an article could be seen as WP:SELFPROMOTE.  A secondary issue is that blog entries are not WP:RS.  You have only three contribs thus far, two on the Temporary Autonomous Zone article and one here.  You might want to make some other contributions elsewhere on Wikipedia to learn what are acceptable contributions.  I realize that that Wikipedia has a fairly steep learning curve, and Please do not bite the newcomers is a part of the ethos, but I feel justified in at least nibbling at you here a bit. :-) Make some edits elsewhere, learn how things work, avoid conflicts of interest.  Cxbrx (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Please do not falsely edit ANY Wikipedia pages as people may need them, and it is just wrong to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.146.127.134 (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Possible vandalism at Jefferson (proposed Pacific state) article and map
Hello. Looking at Jefferson's page, the proposed state between Oregon and California, I found something weird. This "electoral" map in the article corresponds to the counties, in Oregon and California, listed in the article that should be interested to form this new state (see 20th and 21st century sections). And corresponds to the original 2016 version of the state map at the infobox. The southern Jeffersonian border with California encompasses the counties of Mendocino, Lake, Colusa, Sutter, Placer and El Dorado; just north of Sacramento. And this line is confirmed in the article. On June 7, 2020, a user uploaded a new version of the map and, after it, changed several parameters at the infobox. Just take a look to both version: original vs updated. Without any reason given for this update, Sutter County (the white recess in southern red border, next to Sacramento) is removed form Jefferson. And some Californian counties are added: Amador, Calaveras, Tuolumne, Mariposa and Stanislaus (see Cal county map).

Well, this addition, showing a sort of thumbs-up 👍 in the map, made me suspect vandalism. The expansion seems arbitrary: it is unexplained, unsourced and there is not a single word about, both in the article and in the discussion. Most of counties are rural and show similarities with Northern Californian counties but, apart from the strange shape that seems to stretch towards the Bay Area... In which way Stanislaus County (and its seat, Modesto) are related to Jefferston? And why, following the new shape, the rural counties of Mono and, above all, Alpine, that show more similarities to the others, have been excluded? To create a California Panhandle? Why, again, Sutter County was removed? With a couple of random edits (Commons for map, here for infobox), without any reason given and any source added, a user made this change that should be investigated. And if you try to flip upside-down the map you'll see, clearly, a "thumbs-up" gesture. Highlighted by the providential removal of Sutter County (without its shape the arm is highlighted), the addition of Stanislaus (the thumb), Mariposa (the rest of the fist) counties, and the exclusion of Alpine and Mono counties, that would have deformed the hand.

I didn't do any revert in the article because, assuming good faith, it should be a valid edit: this could be a real initiative of the Jefferson State Movement (I dunno the name of the organization, sorry) and can have a satirical significance, deliberately provocative, or factual: I read the meaning of the XX flag and a "thumbs-up" shaped state should match their style. But the removal of a county that could be interested and related (Sutter), the addition of a unrelated one (Stanislaus) just to form the thumb, and other oddities, leave me perplexed. Anyway: it could be the slowness of my PC, but the official Jeffersonian website (this) isn't working, so I can't control their official map. So, I report this weird fact here but I take no action, assuming the good faith of the user who updated the map and the infobox, including a thorough update of area, population etc (another thing that makes me think of good faith). If the Jefferson website works on your computers, you can check the map. In case of vandalism I recommend to ask to some Commons' user to rollback this file to the original version and to revert this edits.

My 2 cents: if this new map turns out to be a fake, the user who updated it should have visited (in good faith) an unofficial/satirical/fake Jefferson-related website. Thank you for the interest and sorry if my report was wrong. In that case, the new counties should be added in the article. Good bye and good work. --95.244.204.125 (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're better off discussing this at that article's talk page. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  02:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

How Do I Make see newly created page (ANTLIVE)
How do I make Antlive wiki page available for public. I created a page but can not see it?

it saids its a draft or does not exist a=but I see where its created, I want to make Antlive page Live for public — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antlive1970 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You have created an item in the draft space which has not yet been submitted for review. However, if you were to do so it would almost certainly be declined. The most important issue is that it is not properly sourced. Biographical articles cannot be accepted into the encyclopedia without proper sourcing. It is also doubtful that the subject passes the notability guidelines. Please see WP:REFB for the guidelines on how to correctly add citations. Further, autobiographical articles are not encouraged and may not always be a good idea. There is a lot of boldtext in the draft which should be removed other than bolding of the subject name at the first mention. Please also review WP:COI for more information about manging a conflict of interest. Some links will be left at your talk page; please study them carefully before proceeding further. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added a submit button to your draft. Howewer, if it were to be submitted right now, it would probbably be rejected quickly, as the "Biography" section is unsourced in its entirity. Wikipedia is not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. This appears to be an autobiography, if so, please be advised that a Wikipedia article may not nessesarely be desireable. What I have noticed apart from that:


 * The current draft makes excessive use of bolface. Please reduce it to what is nessesary under MOS:BOLD.
 * You can create internal links, in its simplest form, by putting the name in square brackets: Example creates Example.
 * The "Biography" section currently uses double line breaks in source to force a certain line length. Please don't do that, let the browser handle that automatically. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In addition to the useful information above, the tone is also inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It needs to be more neutral, and written less like a fan article. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  02:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

User Contributions
Hello, I am reasonably new to Wikipedia and went into my User Contributions where I saw one of my changes had a +72 next to it. I do not know what this means nor do I know what it does, how does green positive numbers help me on Wiki? Secondly, is there a way to see your total amount of green positive points? I am not sure and would love some info, regards anon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommiemac (talk • contribs) 10:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That number is not a points system; it simply reflects the number of bytes added with that particular edit, or if the number is red, the number of bytes removed. The number of bytes is roughly analogous with the number of characters the edit added, but not exactly. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I am curious however, is there a point system? or a way to see how your edits are doing, if they are popular?
 * Note: pings do not work unless you sign your talk page posts with four tildes like this: ~ To answer you, I'm not sure what you mean by "how your edits are doing". If you make an edit and it remains in the article, then it remains in the article.  Particular edits are not measured for popularity.  There are tools to measure the traffic to a particular article(though I don't know what those are off the top of my head) but not particular edits, unless users make talk page comments about particular edits. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , not really. You can see the number of pageviews (View history > pageviews) for a specific page or article, but not on edit-level. If someone reverts one of your edits, you get a notification, probably meaning that at least someone didn't like your edit. You can see a list of your edits at . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. Our focus here is on the encyclopaedia, not on editors. There are various ways that editors can acknowledge other editors, such as Thanks and Barnstars, but they are mostly unofficial. What matters is whether, according to consensus of editors, your edits improve Wikipedia or not: if they do, you will earn respect (though it will not necessarily get shown explicitly); if they don't, they will get removed, and you will probably get frustrated. --ColinFine ([[User

talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 10:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, my question is now closed.

Fair use audio file rejected
User talk:The Supermind

User uploaded File:S.M.I.L.A by Alexander Ozolin .mp3, used (as far as I can tell) Music sample info as instructed on Manual of Style/Music samples, added it to an article and got instantly reverted by 's bot.

This doesn't make sense to me. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * One possibility is that the rationale template Music sample info is very old and hasn't been modified to be recognized by the bot. Another possibility is that the bot recognizes that the rationale does not name the article--thus failing WP:NFCC. —teb728 t c 13:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You made the last major edits to Manual of Style/Music samples. You added Music sample info. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking closer, I see that the problem is that entered the wrong header on their non-free use rationale. They wrote:
 * Rationale of fair use for "S.M.I.L.A" audio sample
 * It should have been
 * Rationale of fair use for "Kiev Day and Night" sample
 * with the title of the article where the sample is used. I don't know whether it makes a difference, but they also used an h2 header, whereas the template would have generated an h3. —teb728 t c 18:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NFCC the rationale must contain a link to or the title of the article. At the time of removal, as teb728 points out, it did not. As it stands, the current use fails WP:NFCC anyway. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 01:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * identifies the problem: "Does not satisfy WP:NFCC. The song is trivially mentioned, not the subject of sourced critical commentary." However in contrast with his bot, it details the violation with WP:NFCC, without specific problem of the file.The Supermind (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Deployment evaluation tools
Google publishes statistics on IPv6 adoption among Google users. A graph of IPv6 adoption since 2008 and a map of IPv6 deployment by country are available.



Google publishes statistics on IPv6 adoption among Google users. A graph of IPv6 adoption since 2008 and a map of IPv6 deployment by country are available.

Akamai publishes by-country and by-network statistics on IPv6 adoption for traffic it sees on its global Content Distribution Network (CDN). This set of data also shows graphs for each country and network over time.

A global view into the history of the growing IPv6 routing tables can be obtained with the SixXS Ghost Route Hunter. This tool provided a list of all allocated IPv6 prefixes until 2014 and marks with colors the ones that were actually being announced into the Internet BGP tables. When a prefix was announced, it means that the ISP at least can receive IPv6 packets for their prefix.

The integration of IPv6 on existing network infrastructure may be monitored from other sources, for example:
 * Regional Internet registries (RIR) IPv6 prefix allocation
 * IPv6 transit services
 * Japan ISP IPv6 services

IPv6 testing, evaluation, and certification
A few organizations are involved with international IPv6 test and evaluation, ranging from the United States Department of Defense to the University of New Hampshire.

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.144.68.4 (talk • contribs) 2020-11-30T12:41:06 (UTC)
 * The US DoD Joint Interoperability Test Command DoD IPv6 Product Certification Program
 * University of New Hampshire InterOperability Laboratory involvement in the IPv6 Ready Logo Program
 * SATSIX


 * What is your question regarding editing Wikipedia? --ColinFine (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Get stimulus
Good morning I am a retired senior citizen and I am on SSI I am trying to get the $2400 stimulus from the city I’m sure I qualify by being on SSI I am in dire need of utility food and home repair my garage has fell in on my vehicle can I please please get some help or can someone contact me and tell me which department do I contact for the stimulus this out there thank you so much and may God bless you and please stay safe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesse0334 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I'm sorry for your problems, but I'm afraid you have come to the wrong place: this is the help desk for people editing Wikipedia - nothing else - and probably nobody here can help you. I suggest you go to your city's website, or contact a local charity. --ColinFine (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

How to use good judgement? Any general rules?
Although I have I have reverted and reported a lot of bad edits, I also have made a lot of inappropriate decisions, especially with sockpuppet investigations, reports, and reverts for less-obvious cases. How to know what to do? Especially in reporting users for being vandalism-only and promotion-only. How to know if content has been blanked for no reason or has been blanked for good reason? How to know is it is unsourced or restated or obvious II? See my talk page. I need help. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. WP:AGF is the general rule, and judgement comes from experience.   If something has been blanked with no edit summary, then you may revert it and then ask the user for their reasons by starting a discussions on the article's talk page.  I suggest holding off on reporting users as vandalism only or promotion only until you have more experience with Wikipedia in general.  Perhaps ask for a mentor at WP:CVUA if fighting vandalism is something you are interested in. RudolfRed (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , another good method can also be just talking to the individual. Sure, the more-discrete socks will be able to talk to you without you picking any more of an indication, but vandals, bad-faith editors, undisclosed paid editors and less intelligent socks can be picked out from a conversation with them, while helping you filter those who just need a helping hand (or those who disagree firmly, in good faith, who can often be nudged to the light side) Nosebagbear (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Is is okay to report those who have only introduced spam links, or have solely inserted bad words multiple times, as vandalism-only accounts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4thfile4thrank (talk • contribs) 19:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The top-level rule is "be bold" (WP:BOLD). Use your best judgement, knowing that if others disagree they will revert you, which will lead to a discussion (WP:BRD). For reversions of bad edits, you might temper this a little for marginal cases by starting the discussion yourself on the talk page or user's talk page at the time you make the reversion. We have about 100,000 active editors in any 30-day period, and each of us does what we enjoy and what we want to do. I do not like controversy much, so I don't do a lot of bad-edit reversion. You may get better advice somewhere else, like at Wikipedia talk:Spam or Recent changes patrol. -Arch dude (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Photo Copyright or not?
I would enjoy offering my time to this project. I would like to add images of artworks (most created before 1965) for students to have high quality images of particular artists. The majority of these images come from already published photographs of the artworks from various auction houses (I have collected these images for years). I have read various article here but honestly I am lost on if these can be used due to any copyright issue. These pictures are already published/public but perhaps I still need permission (artist estate, auction house, both?). If this is of any importance, I usually download the image to my desktop, crop out the frame around the artwork and then screenshot the result. I state this because I would think the only metadata would be from that and I do not know if that may be a "no-no" also. Thank you for your time, I really would like to do this but want to do it correctly!

Questions:

1. Can I use freely available (non charge) images of artworks created before 1965? The images of the artwork were generally produce by various auction houses and have been freely distributed since.

2. If so, can I use a screen shot to remove any frame work from the picture?

3. If so do I need to state where the photographs came from and if so how?

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NightBird1029 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for asking about copyright. If you don't get an answer here, I suggest you ask at WP:MCQ, where the copyright experts hang out.  RudolfRed (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is some advise but perhaps others will also chip in. If you don't comply, then the images will most likely be deleted which wastes your time and that of editors who have to deal with them.
 * 1. Not necessarily and remember that freely distributed does not means freely licensed.
 * 2. It is preferable not to use a screenshot but just to crop the frame with an image editing program so you start with the best quality. However, non-free images will be reduced to a low resolution if they are considered too big.
 * 3. Absolutely you MUST state the original source so it can be reviewed by more experienced editors but it sounds like that may be difficult for older images you have saved especially if the sources are offline.
 * For you to use any of these images, each one must comply with all 10 non-free copyright criteria in the article you want to use them in. Generally you may be allowed to use one copyright image in articles to illustrate the artist's style but you will have to provide some sourced critical commentary about the image itself, which can often be described in prose. This is required to comply with criteria #8 of WP:NFCC. ww2censor (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)