Wikipedia:Teahouse

Hoary, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Extended conformed user

How can i become Extended Conformed User????-- 🍁 Mujtaba 🌴 00:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mujtaba!. I believe you'll find the answer to your question at WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED, but basically you need to have made at least 500 edit and have been a registered editor for 30 days. You should be automatically granted that particular status the first time you edit after satisfying both those conditions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

According to WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED, you have to have at least 500 edits and making an edit after a 30 day tenure. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 00:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Can i become Extended conformed after making 500 edits.-- 🍁 Mujtaba 🌴 00:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, since you have already past the 30 day tenure, you just need 500 edits and you should automatically be granted extended confirmed user rights. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 00:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, for telling me.-- 🍁 Mujtaba 🌴 01:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Plz link

Plz link the rules and is it required to read all of them right away or should I just start editing thanks Firebirtu (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Firebirtu - Welcome; if you want to see the rules of Wikipedia seek out WP:PILLARS which are the basic principals of Wikipedia. And its not required to read all of the rules before editing, but the principals may help guide you while editing on Wikipeida. If you want you can go straight ahead into editing. If you have anymore question feel free to ask more! Hope this helped! Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 00:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Identifying a Tertiary Source

Is this a tertiary source? Why/Why not? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Asking for help for a new user

Greetings, I have Signpost WikiProject Desk on my watchlist. Recent unconstructive (error) edits were done there by user Moredecai serveral times. I did notify on their talk page here and added Moredecai to my watchlist.

Today:

1. User Moredecai moved from sandbox to Draft:I have a challenge for you; and our future is our children's which looks like a copy of a Signpost WikiProject Desk page. Question: Should this page be deleted?
2. On my own user page, Moredecai posted a question similiar to some of the disruptive signing previously done at the Signpost WikiProject Desk page (which were reverted). Question: Is it correct that we are not allowed to update another user's User page?
3. More confusing edits at Signpost WikiProject Desk page.

Last, if another editor with more experience could help User Moredecai please? I don't know if the above are intentional edits or just newbie mistakes. I am assuming good-faith. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Query regarding tags

Dear Team, I feel this article has multiple issues , tone is very promotional and lots of NPOV issues, also most of the references are not independent reliable sources like Youtube, imdb , facebook and other press releases. Have a look Saurabh_Malik I have added a tag of improving citations but I also suspect subjects notability. Kindly guide me with tag name, I should use in such condition ? However if I am wrong kindly educate me on it. Thanks and Regards Catrat999 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

{{Notability}} – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that most of the sources named are unreliable. However, there are cases when YouTube is reliable and videos csn be used for sources, such as a TV news station uploading news stories onto their channel. Just a note. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Can I add images, and how many?

I have just submitted an entry for a living artist. He would like to include images of some of his works in the Wikipedia entry. I have not been able to find guidance on how much material I can include/what size limits there are. I would be most grateful for guidance. Thank you. SueJ 18:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SueJenkins (talk • contribs)

He can upload as many images of his work as he likes to Wikimedia Commons, as long as he does so with a suitable copyright licence. (I see that the image now at Robert Beck (painter) has been uploaded without a suitable licence, and will be deleted in a few days if one is not received.) In my experience, images over 4.7MB are problematical; but that information may be out of date.

As for how many of his works can be presented in the article – I don't know of any guidelines, but I would guess that four would be acceptable, and ten would be too many. Maproom (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

SueJenkins - Welcome! And to answer your question I would suggest checking out WP:UPIMAGE for uploading anything used for fair use in copyright. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 19:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Only use images that help the reader to understand something about the topic. 10, five, or even two portraits of a person do not help the reader where one would suffice. The images need to be relevant to the text that accompanies them in the article. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Still not quite sure the right way to say thank you without bombarding you, but want you both, Adog104 and Maproom, to know I am deeply grateful for the advice. I have now (I hope) resubmitted Robert Beck's self portrait to Wiki Commons with the appropriate permission statement. SueJ 19:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SueJenkins (talk • contribs)

SueJenkins, your signature appears to be broken, hence the "unsigned comment" tags. Make sure that the "Treat the above as wiki markup" box is unchecked in the signature section of your preferences. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Cordless Larry. I have now found the box and removed the tick. SueJ (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi SueJenkins. Just to add on to what the others have posted above, adding images is basically the same as adding textual context in that there has to be a good contextual reason for doing per WP:IUP#Adding images to articles. Wikipedia articles are not intended to be image galleries so even freely licensed images should probably be added with care. Moreover, Wikipedia article's are not owned by the subjects they are written about any more than they are owned by those who edit or create them. So, the fact that the artist would like to include more images in the article is not really relevant at all. Wikipedia is a collaborative project so you may find it necessary to establish a consensus for including such images on the article's talk page. Finally, if you are connected to the artist in anyway, then you likely have a conflict of interest when it comes to that particular article. COI editing is not something expressly prohibited by Wikipedia, but it is something highly discouraged. If you do have a COI, then please take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for more information. The Wikipedia article about the artist is only intended to reflect what independent reliable sources have said; it's not intended to be an quasi-personal website for the artist to use for promotion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Direct quotes from subjective sources

I posted a question here about COI and the page AWA Lighting Designers maybe a week or two back and got a very helpful reply. I overhauled references and did my best to use mostly independent sources, and quantitative or purely factual ones. After submitting to AfC, the page was declined and I observed the reviewer's suggestions. Now, upon re-review, the page has been tagged for notability issues. Part of this may be because the most extensive features on the subject appear in hard-copy books or subscription journals, to which I cannot link directly and which the reviewer therefore cannot read easily.

This seems to be the nature of the field--the restriction and specificity of these kinds of publications and to whom they circulate--and it is part of the reason I'm interested in adding this page. The presence of architectural lighting design on Wikipedia is slim, and this could be a first step in addressing that gap in the knowledge. I'm a new user of Wikipedia, so I figured it makes sense to start with what I know; but I am currently working a paid position at AWA, which doesn't help. Anyway, seeing as notability became an issue the second time around, I thought I might take direct quotes from the unseen and hard-copy sources this time. I just want to make sure that's a permissible step, since I see it rather infrequently in Wikipedia articles. Thanks for all your tips, and any general suggestions regarding issues I may not have touched on are welcome too!

Camnelson15 (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Camnelson15. Offline sources are perfectly acceptable, and should help to establish notability as much as equivalent online sources. Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS and Wikipedia:Offline sources on this. Of course, it's difficult for reviewers and other editors to judge a source if they don't have access to it, so your idea to use quotes is a good one. These needn't be included in the article text, but can be added to the citations to make clear how the source text supports the article content. How to do this is described in Wikipedia:Offline sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Great, thank you, I'll do that!

Camnelson15 (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

biog of living person - how to change after death

Hi

What are the changes to be made to a BLP after death - I can't find any guidelines. Thank you Eartha78 (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there are any particular guidelines, Eartha78. Reliably sourced information about their death should be added, but not speculation or unconfirmed reports (unless that speculation has itself been written about in reliable sources). WP:BDP says that the BLP policy "can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside." --ColinFine (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)]

Really useful answer - thanks so much -- Eartha78 (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Are foreign language sources ok?

I find that often times foreign language wikipedias have a lot more on a particular subject than their English counterparts - is it ok for me to take their sources/information even if the citations are not in English? Anonymiscellaneous (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

It is not only ok, it is an excellent way to improve English Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Translation has some advice. Maproom (talk) 08:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

As long as the source meets WP:Identifying reliable sources, language is not an issue. That usually excludes pretty much any site with "Wiki" in their name. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You need to be able to read the foreign language well enough to be certain that the cited sources fully support the information you are adding - the standards of referencing on some language wikipedias is not as strict as on en.Wikipedia. - Arjayay (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Wildlife Photography Contest

Hi again! I was wondering, you see, I wanted to apply for the Wikipedia wildlife photography contest and have some pictures of wildlife and noticed that it meets the criteria issued by Wikipedia. I wish to participate in it and don't know how to and where to post the pictures. Please help me!

--Amy2563 (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Amy2563 and Welcome to the Teahouse! While I have no direct knowledge of a specific Wikipedia wildlife photography contest, I see there is a Photo challenge at Wikimedia Commons that may interest you. For info on uploading pix, see here. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat confusingly, I think that link should be to Commons:Commons:Photo challenge, JoeHebda and Amy2563. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Boy Erased

I reviewed Draft:Boy Erased and declined it as a coatrack article really as much about gay conversion therapy as about the book. I received the following comment from User:Computationsaysno :

Hi, I appreciate the concerns about "coat-racking" however this book is all about gay conversion therapy and those who have practiced this "therapy". The book includes a timeline of the practice. To omit this content is to not actually cover the book which would be worse. The news articles talk about the book and the practice - they are inseparable.

My own opinion, which is consistent with my interpretation of the coatrack essay, is that gay conversion therapy should have and does have its own article, and that the article on the book doesn’t need to provide that detail. What do other experienced editors think? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

To not include a snapshot of the legal status of the practice (one brief paragraph), and that it is disreputable practice by mainstream authorities (another paragraph) would be an omission to covering the subject as do the news stories on this book. If I took out all mentions and all sources that mention it, there would be essentially no article to speak of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computationsaysno (talk • contribs) 02:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to remove references to sources that discuss the broader issue, Computationsaysno, but the content of the article should be almost exclusively about the book. Readers can find out more about so-called gay conversion therapy by following a link to that article. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The proposed article is about the book. The "Background" section is not about the book at all, it is pure coatracking and should be removed. Computationsaysno: have you considered contributing directly to the article Conversion therapy? Maproom (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I have zero interest in dealing with changing the gay conversion therapy article. The book is all about gay conversion therapy and it's current state in the US, some summary is certainly needed and what little about this complex issue was presented was pulled from the main conversion therapy article in hopes to have a summary. I have trimmed it down a bit but I believe that does a disservice to the sources about the book which all touch on the broader issues. As I add in more interviews with the author about the book that might change things to appease whoever cares that much. Computationsaysno

Reflist

What is the difference between {{Reflist|30em}} and {{Reflist}}? TheDwellerCamp (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The former arranges the references in columns (30 ems wide, I guess?), and the latter arranges them in one column. Maproom (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. TheDwellerCamp (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

When you include a quote from a newspaper/magazine article...

Do you mention the name of the author of that article? For example, if you're including a quote from an article in The New York Times, do you preface the quote with something like "According to an article in The New York times"? Or do you have to preface the quote with the name of the article's author such as: "According to John Doe of The New York Times"? Lupine453 (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Lupine453; name them. WP:MOSQUOTE#Attribution says "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote. However, attribution is unnecessary with quotations that are clearly from the person discussed in the article or section. When preceding a quotation with its attribution, avoid characterizing it in a biased manner." Whether or not is is necessary to mention the newspaper in the main text will depend on the circumstances. --ColinFine (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine Lupine453 (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Customizing username look on pages

I would like to make my username look cool like other users' when I reply on a talk page, sign my questions, etc. How do I do that?

Aspiring Wikipedian, WIKIswagmaster842 18:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I would recommend visiting WP:SIGTUT for customizing your signature, as that's what I used to create my current signature and H:Color for color help. Hope this helped! Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 19:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WIKIswagmaster842 and Welcome to the Teahouse! – Yes, Signature tutorial, recommended by Adog104 gives many good examples and is the best way to learn about signatures. For even more, the Signatures article goes even deeper into sig usage. Cheers! — JoeHebda • (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, WIKIswagmaster842. Please remember that this is a project to build an encyclopedia, and contributions to encyclopedia articles always come first. You have 74 edits here and I have over 40,000. I do not say this to imply that I am "better" than you, but just more experienced. I am just pointing out that a good reputation on Wikipedia is built based on writing and improving encyclopedia articles, not on fancy signatures. I have one, but I have spent almost no time thinking about it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft: PK Floats

I reviewed Draft: PK Floats and declined it, citing both tone issues and notability issues. The author, User:Krokel, then said on my talk page:

I could use some advice on how to remove to promotional tone of the page I submitted for review on PK Floats. I had 4 references to various news articles added to give more information on some of the events that happened. Any advice so I can make a good article is greatly appreciated.

First, I am glad to see someone ask how to rework an article. Second, would any other experienced editors care to advise either on how to remove promotional language in general or on the tone of this draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Krokel, my advice to you is to avoid non-neutral language like "an unfortunate aviation accident" since no aviation accident is ever described as "fortunate", and "breathed new life" with regards to a company, since companies do not breathe, and are not alive. When writing in Wikipedia's voice, we must be rigorously neutral. Do not mention people by their first names or as "Mr." since we use surnames only after first mention. These issues of tone can be resolved easily by copyediting.

The much more serious problem is that the draft article makes a variety of claims that are not supported by references to reliable, independent sources. A Wikipedia article should include nothing based on an individual editor's personal experience, and should simply summarize what the reliable, independent sources say. A large majority of the content of this draft is unreferenced, and must either be properly referenced or removed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Help with my user page

Hi. I'm having a bit of formatting trouble with what will eventually be my userpage. I'm using my sandbox to test how the user page will look before I actually update my user page with all the changes. I have a bunch of userboxes sorted into Hidden templates, but when I click "show", the userboxes mess up how everything below them looks. Is there any way I can fix this? Please let me know if I'm being unclear. Also - is the "more cowbell" template I have on the page okay, or is that an example of an inappropriate use of a template? Thanks! Bulbajer (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Bulbajer and Welcome to the Teahouse! – There is User page design center that helped me starting out & setting up my own user page. Cheers! — JoeHebda • (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I had skimmed that page prior to posting here, but I gave it another look and I found what I needed. Thanks a bunch! Bulbajer (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Suggest me improvements!

Please visit the article i made recently, it's named as Prince of Thorns related to a book. Please try to make it better and give me suggestions. Thanks a lotHighnessAtharva (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Among the useful links which you have deleted from your user talk page were a number pointing you at WP:Your first article. You also need to read about reliable sources and referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

User Group

Can Administrators have access to start new USER GROUP. Please answer me.-- 🍁 Mujtaba 🌴 12:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

New user groups must be approved by a wide community consensus, typically at the Village pump. For instance, there was a recent proposal at: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Unbundle the 'delete' userright from the administrator toolset. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

What user group do you have in mind, anyway? New ideas of this sort normally start at the Village Pump idea lab and then move to Village pump (policy). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, please see "Helper" section at Wikipedia:Village Pump (idea lab). I also gave this idea at Urdu wikipedia-- 🍁 Mujtaba 🌴 06:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC).

What sort of help would the helpers provide that regular editors cannot provide? We only need user groups in order to provide privileges. What privileges would the helpers have that regular editors don't have? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Do articles have to be a certain length?

Hi friends! I recently decided to try my hand at writing and editing articles. I picked a topic from the requested articles list and submitted a draft of the article, but it's rather short. Do articles have to be a certain length to be accepted or for the topic to be considered notable? I think I could flesh it out more with more research, but I'm not sure if it has to be any certain word/character count to start with. I was also being very careful to only include content I could directly cite from a solid source.

The draft is Draft:ARI Network Services for reference. Thanks!

Thanks! Abmare1415 (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Abmare1415 and Welcome to the Teahouse! The advice about Wikipedia article length is located here. In addition, for the lead section size, from Tips library, see here. Thanks for contributing. Cheers! :-) — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

But please note that length of the article is independent from notability. Many articles about notable topics start out as rather short - and it is of course possible to write long passages about topics that do not meet notability. Notability is about what others have written about the topic before you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisted 'Suntukan sa Ace Hardware' AfD discussion

Hello! The AfD was started last May 23, 2016. The initiator User:DGG said, "Attempted publicity for an imaginary event." and a 'pro-delete' User:SwisterTwister said 'no minimal notability'. So, non-notable sources, like for example, from 8List.ph, were removed, and added more references (from ABS-CBN, GMA Network, Philippine Daily Inquirer, CNN Philippines, FHM, and from offfical and verified Facebook page of Ace Hardware Philippines. After many improvements on May 26, I haven't read any comments from DGG. SwisterTwister, on May 27, only said my 'long comments' on afd page 'did not make the article notable' and I think, she did not even consider to visit or compare article then and after. Afd was relisted on May 31, but since then, I haven't read any comments from the initiator DGG and pro-delete SwisterTwister. I don't think DGG have the plans on reconsidering the article 'keep' or at least check its improvements. I have explained and fixed what I can. I have fixed the article's notability. Starting next week, I'll be busy on school and one day, I'll see my article deleted. What should I do? Can someone finalize the consensus? --Manila's PogingJuan 09:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, it appears at this point to be about evenly divided between Keep and Delete. It doesn't help to comment on contributors by labeling one of the!voters as "pro-Delete". However, if you are concerned that it will be deleted when you don't have time to deal with it, why don't you move it to user space or draft space now, and resubmit it after working on it? Robert McClenon (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

document ESAO | President of ESAO as an "Third reliable source" has to be adapted

Dear st170e, thanks for the revision of the document entitled "The European Society for Artificial Organs (ESAO)". I am writing this article on the behalf of the president of the ESAO, Prof Dr Thomas Groth (Email: <redacted>). Please confirm that Prof Dr Thomas Groth as the president of the ESAO is a "reliable source" you asked for. If so, please explain how we are able to finalize the ESAO article. Thanks for your cooperation in advance and best regards

  M. Rusu

mrusuMrusu (talk) 08:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Mrusu, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid you have some misunderstandings about Wikipedia. A "reliable source" is first and foremost a published source (it also needs to be from a publisher with a reputation for fact checking). A person, or any unpublished source, cannot be cited in Wikipedia.

Secondly, there is no such concept as "finalizing" a Wikipedia article: articles are always open to editing. Your role in developing the article should be limited to making suggestions (preferably with published reliable sources) on the article's talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Having now lookeed at Draft:The European Society for Artificial Organs (ESAO), I see further problems. Please read Referencing for beginners. Wikipedia has almost no interest in what the subject of an article says about themselves (or what their friends, relatives, associates or employees say about themselves). A Wikipedia article should be close to 100% based on what people who have no connection with the subject have published about the subject. It's a bit hard to tell because the references are all bare URLs with no identifying information like title, publisher, date etc; but it looks to me as if none of them are the sort of reliable independent sources we need: such as major newspapers or journals, or books from reputable publishers. It seems likely to me that, if the article is to be accepted, it needs to be rewritted completely, based entirely on what independent sources have published about the Society. --ColinFine (talk) 08:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

In my experience, questions about "finalizing" an article typically have two overlapping meanings, one of which is consistent with Wikipedia, and one of which is not. The first is getting a draft up to the state where its author or authors can expect it to be approved. The second is getting it 'approved' as the submission by the trade association or company that will have ownership of the article. It is used often enough in that sense that I will ask whether there is a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced articles, finding reliable sources

Still struggling to find reliable sources. Still surprised by the number of entries where nothing is sourced. For example, nothing at Margo Harshman is documented, so where does this information come from? Why doesn't it get flagged? This is a biography of a living person, too. Whatever the source is, I would like to use it.
–Vmavanti (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

That article was first written in 2006, when the rules about sourcing were much less strict than they are now. With five million articles, of which at least one million predate current strict sourcing rules, it is to be expected that not all of the articles that need flagging have been flagged. I have flagged that article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

How does articles get their grades?

Hello, I've created several articles in the last two months and all of them are classed as Start. Stub or with no class. Some articles I"ve created are no longer stubs in my opinion (I"ve read the critera) and some of them might be C-class, although I do't know for sure. So who gives them their class?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Bolter21,

Their associated Wiki-Projects assign classes so you would have to go to the wiki-project page to see the requirements and potentially submit them for review. If you can give me links to the articles that you have created I can help you out further.

Dominick8 (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Musmus • Zalafa • Musheirifa • Salem, Ma'ale Iron • Bayada, Ma'ale Iron • Giv'at Oz • Ein as-Sahala • Mu'awiya, Basma. All of these are within Wikiproject Israel. I"ll be offline for the next 15 hours maybe (sleep and do a final test), but I"ll appriciate any help with understanding this subject. Thanks--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Bolter21, All you have to do is list it on the WikiProject assessment page for the wikiproject that is associated with the article. For example, with Musmus, you would go to the talk page and locate the wikiproject(s) in which it lies, which would be wikiproject Israel and wikiproject Palestine. Follow the link to the respective wikiproject and on the wiki project's home page will be a link that takes you to the assessment page where you can list the article for reassessment. For Musmus, I located the assessment pages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel/Assessment & Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine/Assessment

I have previously asked what the importance of the classes assigned to articles. The usual answer that I have gotten is that it doesn't really matter. As an Articles for Creation reviewer, I have to assign classes to accepted articles, normally Start-Class or C-Class. (B-Class coming in as a new article is rare.) Can someone else explain whether and how the article classes actually matter, either within a project or in general? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Bolter21 and Robert McClenon – There are two Tips-of-the-Day that are helpful:

• Article quality assessments
• Article development

Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I've seen the first one, and the second one doesn't say anything new, and the first one doesn't say anything new. The first one isn't much help to an Articles For Creation reviewer in assessing articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Since starting to answer questions here, I've realised that some new editors take these ratings quite seriously, whereas I have come to pretty much ignore them. While I can see that they potentially play a role in helping WikiProject participants identify articles that need improvement, I'm not sure that they are actually used for this purpose, and many WikiProjects are themselves inactive. The exception are FA and, to a lesser extent, GA ratings, as those help articles make it to the front page. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: I'm not a new editor by most standards, but I still take assessments seriously. They are one of the most under exploited features of collaboration on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the system is not working (but is not totally broken so as to allow reinventing it). Assessments could ideally encourage editors to focus on quality instead of quantity (which in the post-5 million era is a cultural shift of focus that we need). I should add that the easiest way to "make it to the front page" is DYK, and DYK is in no way tied to assessment (except for GA and FA, which is an overshoot). Instead, DYK operates on rather dubious approximations of quality (like 5x expansion in size). The front page may be an untapped resource in terms of assessments after all. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, as someone who could probably be characterised as favouring quality of articles over quantity, I don't disagree that the assessments are under exploited, Finnusertop. I would like to treat them more seriously again, but I think we've collectively lost the culture of doing so. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Trying to make changes

Moved from the bottom, duplicate question removed, and header added by ColinFine (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

For some years I have attempted to make factual changes to entries in areas where I have some direct knowledge, hoping to clarify those entries. I have been blocked from making those entries and have no idea why. My only interest ha s been factual, usually to do with biographical or bibliographic details. Some of those errors have proliferated and been amplified via the web. Some cause me to waste time explaining to journalists and readers how the Wiki references are sometimes in error. Can you please tell me why you're refusing my changes ? I'm talking about errors of fact, not matters of opinion. My own entries have quite a few minor errors. While I can of course understand how you might be cautious where those entries are concerned, I haven't been allowed to make any changes in areas where I have no self-interest. Could you tell me how this problem can be resolved ? Yours, Michael Moorcock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.140.113.51 (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Michael, and welcome to the Teahouse. Without seeing specifics it's hard to know exactly what happened; but my guess is that either you added information without citing a reliable source, or your edit was not neutral in tone; so another editor reverted your edits ("Blocked" has a specific meaning in Wikipedia, but I doubt if anybody blocked you, i.e. forbade you from editing). You can always look at what edits have been made to an article by picking the "History" tab at the top, and my guess is that your edits were made, and then another editor reverted them for some reason: they should have given the reason in their edit summary, though they might have used Wikipedia jargon in doing so.

Many of our five million articles have been around for a long time, before we were as careful about sourcing as we are now; so it may be that an article you were editing is not well sourced: in principle, we would like to bring them all up to scratch, but we are only volunteers (several thousand of us). S the best we can do is to hold new edits to the higher standard that we aspire to.

When you say "my own entries", I'm guessing that you are referring to articles about you and your books. Wikipedia discourages (but does not forbid) people from editing articles about themselves and topics they have a connection with, because they may find it hard to write in a suitably neutral tone. It is usually best to make suggestions on the article's Talk page, and leave it to uninvolved editors to make the change. You are more likely to get that help if you provide a reliable published source for any information you are seeking to add - even more if it is a source unconnected with you. Please see WP:AUTOPROB for more information about this, and WP:COI for general information about editing with a conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

"Michael Moorcock": You write

For some years I have attempted to make factual changes to entries in areas where I have some direct knowledge, hoping to clarify those entries.

In almost all cases, direct knowledge doesn't count on Wikipedia: not yours, not mine, not Jimbo's, not anybody else's. If it's not supported by at least one reference to a reliable secondary source, it's not acceptable here; see WP:Verifiability.

Also, you're likely to be taken more seriously if you have a Wikipedia account and sign talk page entries with "~~~~", which the wiki software will turn into your username plus a timestamp. For example, though I don't doubt what you're saying (WP:AGF), the IP address you're posting from has contributed only this post plus its duplicate a couple of minutes later, which would not be a credible record for someone claiming to have been trying to edit "for some years". --Thnidu (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

As noted above, when he complains that he has repeatedly been blocked from making entries, ColinFine pointed out that there is no evidence that he was actually blocked in the precise Wikipedia sense. However, amusingly, User:Michael Moorcock is permanently blocked for impersonation because they are not Michael Moorcock. That can't be what the unregistered editor, who probably is Michael Moorcock, is complaining about. As is sometimes the case, vague complaints in the Teahouse or other help forums that do not specify what the problem is are seldom effective ways to get issues resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Inaccessible question on this page

As I read this page on my smartphone, I see at the end of the last section, #What is an in-lined citation and how to add that in my article., an unrelated question from an IP, signed "Michael Moorcock" in plain text and entered in duplicate. This question, which is about being unable to enter articles, has no section header and displays as the last paragraphs of the "in-lined citation" section.

I've seen this sort of thing before on many talk pages, and have always been able to edit the section it's attached to. I insert an appropriate section header and add a brief note to the appending poster. But when I tried to do that here, the appended paragraphs weren't visible in the edit window at all. And when I added a section header "???" to the end of the "in-lined citation" section in an attempt to make the addition visible and editable, the new header appeared above the section. (I then removed the test header.)

Evidently there's some formatting issue or bug here that's beyond my comprehension. Can someone please fix it? Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Thnidu. I have just moved that question to the top, and added a header (and answered it). I got an edit conflict when I tried to save it - I suspect that what you saw was an unexpected result of that edit conflict (though I could be wrong). --ColinFine (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Colin. --Thnidu (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

How to change an Infobox photo

Hello! I need to change an Infobox photo in article I created a while back. How do I do that? Thanks! MatzohboyMatzohboy (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Matzohboy. Copy the file name of the new photo and click the "edit" button at the top of the article. The template that generates the infobox will be near the top of the wikicode. Find the image parameter, and erase the old image file name and paste in the new file name. Explain what you have done in the edit summary box, and save the edit. The new photo should display. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Additive manufacturing and 3D Printing (again)

I reviewed Draft: Additive manufacturing and declined it because we already have an article on 3D Printing, and Additive manufacturing redirects to it. There was then discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_489#Draft:Additive_manufacturing_and_3D_Printing

I then received the following email from User:ImagineerMI:

Compiled with the contributions of volunteer professional colleagues from around the world, we seek restoration of the Additive Manufacturing (AM) page as a complement to the 3D Printing page.

Content from the former Additive Manufacturing page was merged with the 3D Printing page ca 2013 without recognizing the often confusing origins of the technology and terminology, or the many nuanced but important distinctions.

Building on the Additive Manufacturing vs. 3D Printing paragraph, the newly reworked Additive Manufacturing page offers both concise and precise technical clarity, comprehending all 7 recognized additive processes.  Only 3 of the 7 are commonly considered 3D Printing.

If I have inadvertently violated any Wikipedia protocols, please help me navigate them in order that the AM page may be re-established.  Its simple exhaustively-cited content should be allowed to find its rightful place in service to any and all who may benefit from such a vital credible reference.

I then requested permission to post the email publicly, which was granted, with the following further comment:

As for the matter at hand…
Having garnered consensus among other individual technical expert collaborators from around the world, and hence believing the content was ready, it was my ignorance that prompted me to move the subject page from draft space to Wikipedia space.

If the next appropriate step is to move the proposed page to article talk, please do so and help me engage other individual experts in this field to expand the consensus.

Please note that 3D printing is a subset of Additive Manufacturing.  Hence, the current professional consensus is that Additive Manufacturing should have its own page as it once did – albeit with continuously evolving and improving content enabled by Wikipedia.

I have tried to explain that the place to discuss changes to an existing article is the article talk page. It appears to me, and I may be too harsh, that a trade association is attempting to assert article ownership and move their own version of the article into article space in place of the current version. I didn’t say that the next step is to move the proposed page to article talk, but to take discussion of the changes to article talk. Their own version can reasonably stay in draft space. They do seem to have the idea that there is some Wikipedia process for having an 'official' version of an article replace the current consensus version of an article.

Do any other experienced editors have any further comments, either on the proper role of trade associations, or on collaboration to improve this article, or advice for the two or more authors (who do appear to be editing as individuals) on behalf of the trade association? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

It is unclear to me what User:ImagineerMI is trying to do. There is already an article on 3D Printing, about the process commonly so called. Draft:Additive manufacturing seems to be about the same process. If it about something different, the draft fails to explain what the difference is, despite a specific request by Robert McClenon. ImagineerMI refers to "the current professional consensus", without any evidence or citation: that does nothing to persuade me. Maproom (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, but I think that I see two issues. The first is that ImagineerMI, and another editor in the same trade association, think that the term "3D Printing" only refers to three of the seven processes that they consider to be additive manufacturing. The second is that they would like the trade association's version of the article to be accepted as the "official" version. As to the first, if the other four processes are not adequately documented, they should be added to the article. As to the second, I am not sure, but they appear to be requesting to be given ownership of the article, and Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Change name?

How do you change your name? Is there a request center for that?

- Sincerely, MelcalcW. Melcalcimag (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Melcalcimag see Wikipedia:Changing username Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism or something similar?

Hi I think Ivan Johnson which I started copyediting may be a direct copy of all of this [1]. Suggestions on what to do? Edit heavily for anything not properly cited and see what happens? Thanks Myrtle the unsure. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

ps I took a break from copyediting for a couple of months and just back now so I might be a bit wiki-rusty with this sort of issue. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I rather suspect that the World Heritage Encyclopedia source is a copy of the Wikipedia article, judging by the look of it, Myrtlegroggins, rather than the other way around. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Ta muchly, Cordless Larry. That makes sense. Will edit out poorly cited information and adopt the encyclopaedic tone and keep the sense of the article in the spirit it is meant. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

How to thank users for their edits?

I've been thanked by a user for my edit, but I can't figure out how to thank someone else. Any assistance? FPTI (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC) Also, is there a way to add sections to my watchlist without re-editing the page, as I'm doing now? Is it just the star on top? FPTI (talk) 09:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

To thank another user, you can go the to "View History" tab on the article (left of the star for the watchlist and right of the edit source), find the edit you want to thank the editor for, select 'thank' next to the 'undo', and then press 'yes' for public thank. And although I believe there is no way to edit your watchlist to make sections, you can see what's on your watchlist based on what type of page you selected to watch by selecting the 'view and edit watchlist' or 'edit raw watchlist'. Hope this helped a bit! Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 10:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

How to post a writer biography

My article on Dwight Russel Micnhimer has been slated for speedy deletion citing that information already exists on wikipedia. but when i click on the existing information, it leads me to the article i have posted. Please help Godessofsmallthings (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I have moved the article to a draft, at Draft:Dwight_Russel_Micnhimer, to save it from deletion. At present it has no internal references to establish Micnhimer's notability. It does have some "references", but these are not cited anywhere in the article – I have not checked them to see if they meet Wikipedia's standards of independence and reliability. Maproom (talk) 09:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Related to adminship

How I can made an Admin? Jhony jhony ha ji (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You should read Wikipedia:Really simple guide to requests for adminship, and gain some experience at making quality edits. You might also like to read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, and Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates. Dbfirs 07:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

In the course of time, if you follow pages that have policy discussion, including this Teahouse, you will notice that some editors are systematically hostile to admins. You might conclude that being an admin is basically a thankless job of dealing largely with difficult editors. If so, I will agree. You might also conclude that it is one of the reasons why many of the regular editors here are not admins, because they have chosen not to request adminship. If you do decide that you want to be an admin, my advice would be to edit for at least six months and probably twelve before requesting adminship. That is my comment, and it is worth what you paid me for it. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jhony jhony ha ji. In addition to the good advice you've received so far, you might also find the short essay User:Dweller/Tips for aspiring future admins interesting. Dweller, the writer of the essay, is not only a very experienced editor, he's also an administrator, an oversighter and a bureaucrat. He might be a good person to ask specific questions about becoming an admin. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft Still Awaiting Review 20 Days Later?

I posted an article on Wiki and it was initially reviewed within 24 hours. It was declined and I made changes with help from some users at Teahouse and resubmitted the article right away.

It's now been waiting for a re-review for 20 days. Will it ever get reviewed again??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ramesh_(Persian_Singer)

Holly Dae (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but the review process has a large backlog at present – see the question immediately below this one. Maproom (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I guess I'll keep waiting...

Holly Dae (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Articles for creation backlog

Hi, just a heads up that the AfC pending submissions has been getting a bit backlogged the last couple of weeks after being kept under control for quite a while by the sterling effort of others (and a tiny bit of input from myself). So if any experienced editors who do not check AFC normally but have the experience could help knock a couple off the 1,091 currently pending that would be great. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, how do you start? 😉 I have been doing a little work on AfC, but instead of reviewing articles, I've been trying to get Draft:Big Star (horse) up to snuff. The horse is definitely notable, was part of the gold medal show jumping team at the London Olympics, but the creator seems to speak English as a second language. They do a good job on referencing and stuff, though.

I may try to review a different, non-horse draft, though. If I screw up, just tell me. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hi White Arabian Filly, I would say start by looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions and enable "Yet Another AFC Helper Script" under your permissions > gadgets > Editing section. Ideally we wont people accepting or declining submissions, but any improving is also a big help, anything that moves the articles forward, and/or gives feedback on what's still required to submitters. Just do what your comfortable with, I still avoid a lot as I'm not sure on all the various policies. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Right now I'm just going through the submissions and making minor copy edits (bolding titles, put refs outside punctuation, etc.) I don't know about running a script because it always uses a lot of data and I only have a limited amount on my phone. If copyedits, help, though, I can make plenty! White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Template visibility and header color

I'm trying to get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Lydia_Canaan to look and function like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Paul_McCartney_main but not only is the template info not visible on the Lydia Canaan page (just the header, but not the info as shown on template page itself), the header is also a violet color rather than the #F7E98E that the example I'm working with appears as (and it's important because want it to match the #F7E98E of the info box and other charts and tables). Can someone please help? Thank you in advance! WikiEditorial101 (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

* Update: A null edit purged the article and made the template visible. But I still need help with the color. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi WikiEditorial101! The documentation for {{Navbox musical artist}} lists a few different possible parameters that can be entered into the background field; each gives the navbox a different colour. I've changed it from singer_songwriter to solo_singer, which should return the desired colour. Thanks! /wiae /tlk 03:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC

Thank you so much! WikiEditorial101 (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC))

Author or blog?

I recently created an entry on the author of a viral blog from 2015, which was denied. Should I change my approach to the blog itself since that is the cultural reference people are more familiar with? SaladDayz (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Your draft was declined because you didn't provide independent reliable sources not associated with the author or the blog to attest to the notability of the author or the blog. You would almost certainly have also been declined if you had submitted an inadequately referenced article about the blog. Also, when you ask for help here, it helps you to provide a link to the page in question. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The draft is Draft: Jason Soroski. As I noted, the one reference that you provided wouldn't substantiate either Soroski or the blog. If the blog did "go viral", there may have been discussions of it in reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

editors, admins, everyone has to change.

I am writing this as I feel this issue is important. I do not spend time on wiki looking for chat areas and such, which is why I am not familiar with all the codes and such that is used and I do not know where the appropriate place is to post this. Most of my time is spent doing research and writing articles. In saying this, I recently posted out a new article, in no time I was, in my opinion bullied by an editor or admin whichever they are and this has happened before to me by the same person. I had six citations and was told I did not have enough and the article was not written the way they felt it should be. I am a ‘double’ doctorate degree researcher, I am sought after to do research and write for encyclopedia’s and universities. I do my work to the best of my ability, in many cases once I have the article posted I then go back and start re-editing, writing and changing to get it how it should be or better done if need be. When I write an article it will be finished from start to finish including the image. One article would take me 10 months to locate the photographer. On three articles I am trying to fix now, that I am not the creator of, I have had to contact Worldcat identifier as the information is so messed up it is not even funny. Worldcat has been fantastic in working with me to get these errors corrected. On one of those articles facebook has linked the wiki account to a facebook account to a band with the same name, I am now attempting to get facebook to fix that error. I am curious as to why anyone would post an article they did not do all the work for? I do not understand, why it would be expected someone else to come along and do the work? I will say I am frustrated at editors I have found are doing this that post out articles (I am now doing the research for two started by the same person) and they do not complete the article or any of the research? Please explain this to me? Most of these articles come onto the delete list or serious issues list and it is expected someone else clean it up and do the work? Why is this? All over wiki I have seen comments of how to handle harassment, I am unsure this is harassment I feel its bullying. Then there are those that are saying they are being abused, in most cases of human nature if it is dished out you will receive it in kind. Maybe its time everyone on wiki etc,… start with a different approach and ask an editor of an article ‘why they did such’ instead of jumping all over them or having it come across this way. I feel wiki has reached the point that they are going to have to consider outside people not being allowed to work on articles. It’s going to have to be the actual people that join wiki and do the research and it’s time articles are locked (all) of them so they cannot be tampered with after completion. This is the way it is in any other encyclopedia I have worked on, outside people are not permitted to touch let alone alter information in articles. I have reached my limit, once I fix up these two last articles …. I am gone from wiki, that’s it for me.T Heart (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, T Heart, but I'm not going to read a wall of text to find out in detail what you're saying. I get the feeling that what you're saying is "Wikipedia isn't like other places and it should be". I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is what it is, and indeed it isn't like many (or any) other places. Everybody is welcome to contribute here, be they a thirteen year old schoolchild or a multiple PhD: in either case, they need to learn how it works, and work accordingly.

Of course Wikipedia isn't perfect, either in content or in how it works, and contributions to either are welcome. But in either case, to make a change you need to achieve consensus. If you make a change to the content, and nobody disagrees, you have achieved consensus. If another editor does disagree, then it is up to the two (or more) editors involved to discuss it and reach consensus as to what should be there (we have procedures such as WP:BRD and WP:DR to help this. If you want a change in the way that Wikipedia works, the best place to make a suggestion is one or other department of the Village pump; but in order to make a change you will need to enrol other editors into supporting you, which is best done by making constructive suggestions supported by arguments, not by complaining that you don't like the way it is. But you might find it useful to look at perennial proposals first. (I'm sorry if I'm misrepresenting you, but as I said, I don't fancy reading such a screed). --ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Hi T Heart, sorry to hear your frustrated and yes bullying should never be tolerated. I assume your talking about Ted Leonard (musician) as its your most recent created article. However I'm confused as it has had hardly any other input by any others: an IP6 editor changed a category (I would have probably added it); a bot made some minor mark-up changes; and Tony1 made some minor stylistic changes I assume per WP:MOS and added a {{tone}}. If your upset by this little amount of collaboration then Wikipedia then maybe its just not for you as Wikipedia is fundamentally about collaboration. Also I'm surprised as although you have not touched many articles (20 from the stats) you've clearly made more edits to other articles than has been done to this one. I can only see you corresponded with Tony1 on their talk page at User_talk:Tony1#RE:_ted_leonard, and they responded to your question with the reason it was tagged in what appears to me to be a non-bulling or threatening manner. You responded in a slightly aggressive manner "how about cutting me some slack... ", and there response was also not bullying in any way. If you want to work on articles without interruption you should not work on them in the main space that is public and searchable, to work in the way you wish to I would suggest sub-pages of you user area until ready to 'publish' (e.g. User:Imasku/Ted Leonard (musician)). Also you can indicate your ongoing development by using Template:New page by adding {{New page}} to the top of the article. From looking at your articles you are doing good work, but if you don't want people editing 'your' articles then Wikipedia is not going to be for you - however from what I've seen of standard publishing, outside of blogs, writers would expect much more copy-editing than you had on this article. In summary in my opinion what you experienced was not bullying but a minor amount of copy-editing and feedback on the expected 'tone' here on Wikipedia. I hope you choose to stay as we need good content creators, and encourage you to create in your own area until happy to publish (move to the main space) and use {{New page}} to ward of others until ready. Wikipedia does have a bullying issue, but I would call this polite, in comparison I've woken to notification of hundreds of insulting messages across my pages and articles with language so insulting the admins had to permanently redact them from public view. I hope you will re-review Tony1's action of tagging as just the Wikipedia collaborative process and their comments as non-bullying, and that you choose to stay. If I've missed some other interactions please link so we can comment more specifically. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

With regard to locking articles, peer-review and experts, I don't know if you have read the history of Wikipedia? It "began as a complementary project for Nupedia, a free online English-language encyclopedia project whose articles were written by experts and reviewed under a formal process". Nupedia started in March 9, 2000, Wikipedia on January 15, 2001 "Of the Nupedia articles that completed the review process, only two did so after 2001" and on September 26, 2003 Nupedia became "one of the greatest defunct websites [as] the strict control had limited the posting of articles."
Having evolved out of a strict system, which failed shortly after spawning Wikipedia, I cannot envisage much support for returning to that system. - Arjayay (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, T Heart. Just a tangential comment. You write of "completion" of an article. I have never created an article I would regard as "complete", and am always pleased when other editors improve my work. But I haven't created many articles, more of my time is spent trying to improve the work of others. I take a scrappy, piecemeal attitude to editing, and the way Wikipedia works suits editors with that attitude. I can understand that someone who prefers to work single-handed on something until it is incapable of further improvement will be uncomfortable here. Maproom (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I find it interesting all you did was hit Ted Leonard's article... I have 3 here. If Citations are not used how did this article ever get a good article award.... As I mentioned maybe it is time for wiki to get on one page for creating articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clint_Black. The places you asked for citations in Leonard's article they were already there, now they are there double which does not make sense to me, including the term so called puffery. I will now assume this above article will be losing it's good article award or be drastically changed to be acceptable. I have found way too many double standards on wiki... just depends whom you are in the article and your importance. I am through wishing everyone the best. Good Luck.T Heart (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I see that User:Imasku is right about Ted Leonard (musician) in one particular. There is a problem with duplicate references. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Double standards? We are all volunteers, and all human. You should not expect consistency. Maproom (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a catch 22, if I should not expect consistency, neither should anyone else (editors) and that is the position I was placed in... again wiki needs to get on one page for creating articles and not be decided by whom you are in importance. (Use of the word Citations which I was told we use References here and that of puffery). Again reference to the good article award for this article on this person, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clint_Black. Duplicate references, I was asked to re-add them again, so I did as asked, which tells me the editors asking did not even check to see if they were already there in the first place. I have worked on my last here, good luckT Heart (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Found the article back from a dead link but can't figure out how to change it

Hi,

I just can't figure out how to insert a dead link to an article that is still on the same external site but not the same url. The page in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_the_Pacific and the link I want to adjust is one of the reference section (South Pacific Leads the World in Obesity).

When I want to edit I see this:

References

Tried to figure it out by myself but couldn't and need some help.

Thanks!

Semelius Semelius (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Semelius. I'm not sure quite what you're asking (why would you want to insert a dead link?) but I think the point you need to understand is that references are not defined in the 'References' section (so there's no point in giving us that section). References are defined where they are used, in the text, and that is where you need to change any URL in a referenfe. See referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi ColineFine,

Thanks for your reply. I don't want to insert a dead link but fix it. The link points to a page that no longer exists because they moved the article to another page/url. So the article is still on their site but with another url. I would like to replace the dead url with the good one. Semelius (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something here, but you can simply copy and paste the new url over the old one. Would be worth checking other details (Title, Accessdate) are correct. DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Semelius. I believe you are attempting to fix the dead link reference by editing the 'References' section. In fact you've added a revised cite web there. Instead you should edit the entire article (click 'Edit' at the top of the page - to the right of 'Read') and change the inline cite web that sits just after "...fruit and vegetables." Then scroll down and remove the reference you added in "References" section. It is a bit puzzling how the references work until you've played with it awhile. Gab4gab (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

How can I create an article without violating the copyright notice?

My question is how could I create articles without speedy deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by SabirTech (talk • contribs) 10:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, SabirTech. The general answer to your last question is, By following Wikipedia policies. It's a bit difficult to be more specific without knowing what you have tried. But in response to the header, and to the information on your User and User talk pages, I'd say:

Do not copy copyright material into a Wikipedia article, even if you hold the copyright yourself. Articles should be based on publihsed sources, but should be rewritten in different words to avoid infringing copyright.

You are strongly discouraged from writing articles about your own projects. Please see COI.

Wikipedia has almost no interest in what the subject of an article, or their friends, relatives, employees, agents, or associates say about them. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have published about the subject. If people who have no connection with your company have published articles about the company, then Wikipedia may have an article on the company. The article should be based entirely on what those unconnected people have published.

Please read your first article for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Paraphrase, summarize, and then paraphrase again. (Citing your sources as well, of course). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Citing same source with different access dates

In editing Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories § Harassment by conspiracy theorists, I found that two refs in the second paragraph of the section were identical except for the access date. I put one of them into {{Cite news}} format as <ref name=Inquisitr>, but I couldn't figure out how to specify a different access date for the other one, which was now just <ref name=Inquisitr />. I put it into an HTML comment just after the ref, but how should it be done? Please {{ping}} me in replying. --Thnidu (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Thnidu: You don't need to worry about retaining the old accessdate. The important thing is that the source still serves to verify both statements. If that's true, then the latest accessdate is fine to use. If the source has changed, then Wikipedia should also be updated to reflect what the source now says, and the accessdate should be changed. For example, the Rotten Tomatoes score for a film might change from a 100% rating to an 80% rating when a new negative review is cataloged by their site. So, I'd change the Wikipedia article to reflect this and update the accessdate. If some other citation was using the Rotten Tomatoes citation for the film's runtime or release date (which presumably stayed the same), it'd be fine. I wouldn't have to track the various accessdates. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Mir Abdolrez Daryabeigi

I reviewed Draft:Mir Abdolrez Daryabeigi in January and declined it on notability grounds, because it had no references. It was then resubmitted twice and reviewed twice by User:SwisterTwister on notability grounds. User:Mirrezd then posted to my talk page:

I have submitted Mr. Daryabeigi's biography and have included citations to the sources:

Junbish-i Hunar-i Nawgarā-yi Īrān: Majmūʻah-i Ās̲ār-i Īrānī-i Mūzah-i Hunarhā-yi Muʻāṣir-i Tihrān = Iranian Modern Art Movement: The Iranian Collection of the Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art. Tehran: Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art, 1385 [2006]. 112-113. Print. This book gives a biography of Mr.Daryabeigi's life and discusses his art pieces that are in display at the Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art. The book is in Farsi & English.

"The Iranian: Artwork of the Day." The Iranian: Artwork of the Day. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 June 2016. <http://iranian.com/Arts/2000/April/desert.html>.

This website displays a piece of art that is on display permanently at the Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art.

I also included all of Mr. Daryabeigi achievements but SwisterTwister rejected the submission saying

"The article is not clear; if his works were permanently collected by major museums, then I can accept this....if not, then the Draft is not yet notable. If you respond, please give a simple and concise answer. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)".

What should I do?

My inclination at this point would be to accept (and to advise the author to resubmit for that purpose), but I would appreciate the advice of other experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I've fixed some formatting in your post. Use one or more colons at the very beginning of the paragraph for indentation, not spaces. An initial space makes the whole paragraph into preformatted text,

like this.

And SwisterTwister was incorrectly showing as a redlink because there's no space in their username. (Mirrezd, OTOH, hasn't made a User page.)

The draft also has formatting issues, but I'm not going to go into those.

--Thnidu (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not responsible for SwisterTwister presentation(Mirrezd)2602:301:77BA:41C0:453A:9ECD:2000:7683 (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I was trying to ask for advice to the author of the draft about the draft. However, the replies consist of criticisms of formatting. Does any experienced editor have any substantive comments about the draft with regard to whether its author can make its acceptance more likely? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mirrezd: I didn't mean anything about what SwisterTwister has said. See next paragraph.

@Robert McClenon: I was trying to explain some formatting issues, under the assumption (obviously mistaken, now that I've looked at your userpage) that you were an inexperienced Wikipedian, as Mirrezd is. We all make mistakes, especially when tired, and I apologize for mine in derailing the discussion, more serious than mere typos.--Thnidu (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Salvador Partners

I reviewed Draft: Salvador Partners twice, and declined it both times on grounds that it was promotional in language. It had been declined once before for notability reasons. User:Ivertu then posted to my talk page:

Hi, i believe i have been able to amend the wording as per your comments - my apologies, i have tried to replicate the style of submission from the stories from well known enties such as Samsung. i re read after your comments and, i hope made all of the relevant changes necessary. Kind Regards Lisa

It doesn’t appear to me that Ivertu has addressed my comments before resubmitting. The draft is still mostly about the management team and not about how the company is notable. I am not declining the submission a third time because I am asking for advice here. Can some other experienced editor please review and comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

If Ivertu wants this article approved, then it needs a complete and total rewrite. That mostly unreferenced list of company executives may be fine for the company website but not for a neutral, properly referenced encyclopedia article. Get rid of it. The source that provides the best overview of the company is a reprint of a press release, which is disturbing. Start with assembling a list of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and then neutrally summarize what those reliable sources say. If such coverage does not exist, then neither should a Wikipedia article about this company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Alternate account

On Wikipedia, I understand that sock puppetry should be taken very seriously and abide by WP:SOCK#LEGIT reasons if you want an alternate account. As such I want to start up an alternate account for the purpose of humorous userpage/security, just in case I'm asking this in advance if those reasons I've stated are ok to use an alternate account. Also can you have a completely different username rather than User (alt) or User (public) as long as you acknowledge that it is the alternate account of said user? Any answer will be great! Thank you in advance! Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 23:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by "humorous userpage/security"? I can't answer your question because I don't understand it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

There are a few alternate accounts used sparingly for humorous purposes by respected long term editors. I recall one such account producing a humorous voter's guide to ArbCom elections. Alternate accounts for security purposes are more common, and may be used by editors who travel frequently and must use insecure internet connections often. I am unaware of accounts combining both functions and suspect that opposition might result. Mixing a serious and a humorous purpose is tricky. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Adog104: Although it is recommended that your accounts have similar usernames, you should be fine using a completely different username for your alternative account as long as you acknowledge it somewhere, preferably with links (or with userboxes) on both user pages if the account isn't for privacy reasons. (I have an alternative account named "BrassicaSolanum", and I haven't had any problems with it yet...) CabbagePotato (talk) 08:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@CabbagePotato: // @Cullen328: // @Robert McClenon:; Thank you to all of you who answered my question. Also to Cullen and Robert sorry I didn't clarify enough, I meant I was going to use the user page of the alternate account in a humorous/joking way (sort of like what my user page is now, not a totally serious interface, but a serious account) and at the same time use it as a public editor for when I go editing mobile, public computers, public wifi, etc. (Note- the alt wouldn't be a good hand-bad hand thing or used jokingly, the alt would be with all good intentions and apply to WP:SOCK#LEGIT). Thank you all again for the answers! Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 15:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

How to request an article?

Suppose i do-not know well about a topic... so i think i should not create a new page on that... but i think it should be on wikipedia. Then how could i request for that article to the experts?

these are my 3 questions on editing today. thanks. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 08:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC) Copied and pasted the conversation in my talk page. Thanks.

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 07:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, RIT RAJARSHI. Please post your article idea at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Of course, volunteers monitor that page, and it may take a while for someone to get around to it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Could I upload image taken from a public museum?

Could I upload image taken from a public museum? Would it hamper the copyright? ( And what for a zoological garden,or a botanical etc )?

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, RIT RAJARSHI. You have asked an excellent question, and if you love visiting museums as much as I do, then I encourage you to upload as many museum photos as possible. What follows is a brief summary of a very complex area. First of all, please comply with the museum's photography policy for each specific exhibit. It is common that a museum may allow photography of its permanent collection but maybe not for some of its temporary exhibits. In general, photos of zoological or botanical topics are copyright free and OK to upload. The same applies to ancient and Renaissance art, and archeological objects. These items are not covered by copyright. On the other hand, contemporary art published and displayed since 1923 is usually copyrighted and cannot be uploaded in general. But great photography and public art paid for by the U.S. government is usually copyright free, which includes some (but not all) classic photos by Dorothea Lange and Ansel Adams. The bottom line is that the museum object that you photograph may (or may not) have an underlying copyright. You need to study the matter, verify the copyright status of each object you photograph, and be sure that you are not uploading any copyright violations. Feel free to ask more specific questions about particular objects here at the Teahouse at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC) @Cullen328: Thanks for your appreciation to the questions.

Edit button is Gone

Hi all

I'm trying to create a Bio page. It's my first time here. I was reviewed and declined because the refs were done wrong (my fault). They are corrected now by a very helpful wiki author. I'd like to add more refs now that I see how its done and also some images. The "edit button" on the article is gone. gone. There is only one on the "references" section.

Any ideas?

Thank you!

Jyprod (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jyprod. I assume that you are talking about Draft:Janni Younge. When I look at that draft, there is an edit button at the very top of the page, which allows editing of the entire draft. Please scroll to the very top of the draft. If you do not see that option, then you may have a browser problem. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This must be about Draft:Janni_Younge. As I see it, there is an Edit tab at the top of the page which lets you edit the whole article, and section edit links for both the "References" and the "External links" sections. Incidentally – your username suggests a connection between you and the subject of the article. What is the relationship between you? Maproom (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both. Janni Younge is my wife and I am doing her bio page for her.

Oh dear I've been rejected again because I copied the basics from her website, hoping for a shortcut.

Jyprod (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Jyprod writing an article about your wife is a clear conflict of interest. Please read and follow the guidance at WP:COI, particularly declaring your {{connected contributor}} status on the talk page (You may have done that - but as the article has been deleted I cannot tell) - Arjayay (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok - thanks. I can see how it would seem that way, but I am also someone who knows her career really well, having lived through it all. Her bio page should really exist, she is already referenced in another few articles. How can I get it done? Jyprod (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jyprod: Sorry, but you can't. You're too close to her to escape Conflict of interest. Read the pages Arjayay mentioned in their 17:39, 2 June 2016 comment.

What you can do is find unconnected people who are interested in the topics of the pages where she is mentioned, e.g., by reading those articles' Talk pages and looking down their history pages to see who's made significant edits to the article. --Thnidu (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that suggestion Thnidu Jyprod (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Jyprod, you say that you know her career really well, which is obviously helpful, but please note that Wikipedia articles can't be written based on personal experience or private knowledge - they have to be based on reliable, published sources. Your "insider" knowledge would therefore be of only limited use. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Larry - but I am not planning on writing about items that are 'private knowledge', it's more about that I'm someone able to connect the dots of the various published, citable sources on her.

Jyprod (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Jyprod. Many new users with close connections with the subjects they wish to write about don't understand this, so I'm glad that you do. If you are determined to go ahead with writing the article, then I strongly suggest creating it as a draft via Wikipedia:Articles for creation, and of course declaring your CoI as outlined at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Declaring an interest. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok - I will try that. Thanks again for your help Larry. May I ask a question? - there are two pages on wiki that ref her, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Arts_Festival) and (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Trap_National_Park_for_the_Performing_Arts) can I link to her name in those pages in my draft?Jyprod (talk) 07:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You can link to those articles in the draft, if relevant, and you can link to the new article from those existing articles if and when your draft is accepted, Jyprod. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jyprod: Since you are intimately familiar with her career and life, your best course may be to write and publish your own biography of her, without WIkipedia. That biography would then be a reliable source we could use for the article. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)