Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 492

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 485←Archive 490Archive 491Archive 492Archive 493Archive 494Archive 495

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Identifying a Tertiary Source

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

@DevilWearsBrioni: Yes, it would be a tertiary source. Encyclopedias are generally tertiary sources, as they summarize what secondary sources have already said. For example, you can see a list of "further reading" after each entry in the source that you linked. Consider that you're writing a Wikipedia article about a film. The film itself would be a primary source, and you could source it for the credits, such as director and producer. A film review would be a secondary source since it analyzes the film. A website that aggregates film reviews and reports an average rating, such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, would be a tertiary source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:32, 8 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 several 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 similar 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)

Hi, JoeHebda. I took the liberty of putting a speedy deletion tag on that Draft and a few more. You can follow the wikilinks there to see which ones I tagged, or which ones are deleted by the time you read this. I will leave an admin to sort it all out. That Draft will never be a suitable article and it is a copyright violation as it stands, so it needs to go. There is no attribution to the authors or source in the copy job. An admin may decide they need to be deleted under different speedy delete criteria, but they all need to go bye bye.
Moredecai has already had their sandbox 2 deleted and they had a template deleted.
I think Moredecai's posting on your user page was innocent and a newbie mistake. FYI: I have made edits on a few user pages, but only by request or with permission. Usually, I suggest edits and let the user take it from there.
I do not think Moredecai is purposefully being disruptive.
I looked at several of Moredecai's postings and there is either a language or cognitive thing going on. I am not prepared to take this user on. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Checkingfax for the answers & guidance. I appreciate your help. While looking at Moredecai contributions, I also found this article that may also need to be tagged for deletion. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, JoeHebda. I tagged that one too. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Moredecai has been indefinitely blocked. Maproom (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Editing a category

Hello there. I'm trying to add a novel to the category Novels Set in Louisiana.

I want to add The Foxes of Harrow by Frank Yerby. I can add it at the top but not in the alphabetical category. It would be great to make sure the category is as comprehensive as possible. How do I do that?

Many thanks.

Norman CooleyNormanlondon (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Normanlondon, and welcome to the Teahouse. You need to add the category to the article, rather than vice versa. This is explained at Wikipedia:Categorization and is done by adding the code [[Category:Example category name]] to the bottom of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

help please! problems with references!

Hi, I am working on the wikipdeia page for The Niels Bohr International Academy (NBIA) and I have been declined due to insufficient references. The (NBIA) is an institution very similar to the Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics which references only it's homepage and bochure. Could you explain to me why it is acceptable for this institution and not the the NBIA? Or how I can correct my references to fit the acceptable model? Thank you so much! Jrafner (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Niels Bohr International Academy has internal citations, but they are all to sources directly connected with the subject. Citations of independent sources are needs to establish that the subject is notable enough to justify an article. Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics is worse; it has no internal citations at all, and is certainly not a good model to follow. Maproom (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
One way of looking at this, Jrafner, is to realise that Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what the subject of an article says about themselve, or what their relatives, friends, associates or employees say about them. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with subject have published about the subject. So the content of an article about NBIA should be based nearly 100% on published sources by people unconnected with the Academy. As for the NORDITA article, it dates from 2007, before we were as careful about sourcing. Like thousands and thousands of our older articles, it should be brought up to standard, or deleted if suitable sources don't exist; but comparatively few of our volunteer editors are interested in doing that to old articles. You would actually be adding more value to Wikipedia by improving the quality of the existing article, than by creating a new one of low quality: that's why we have a higher standard now. --ColinFine (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I would like someone to tell me how I can improve the page I have written. Nanina's In The Park

I would like someone to review a page I've written. Nanina's In The Park. The Venue sits within Branch Brook Park (which as a Wikipedia page). What do you need to do to fix it so it does not get deleted? Writer976 (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Writer976. The article you wrote has already been deleted as unambiguous advertising. I suggest that you read Your first article. Any article you write must summarize what reliable, independent sources say about the topic, and must be written using neutral language. Avoid promotional language such as would be used in an advertisement. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Writer976. Just to expand a bit on what Cullen328 posted above, it looks like the article Nanina's In The Park has been deleted by Acroterion per WP:A7 and WP:G11. I am not an administrator so I cannot see the deleted content, but articles are typically deleted for those reasons when they are too promotional in tone for Wikipedia and there is no evidence that the subject of the article has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources which shows it satisfies Wikipedia:Notability. It looks like this is the Nanina's In the Park the article was about. If that's the case, then please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for reference on what Wikipedia considers notable when it comes to companies, etc. You can also ask Acroterion at User talk:Acroterion for clarification as to why the article was deleted. I also suggest using Wikipedia:Articles for creation if you decide to work on another draft of the article. Drafts submitted via AfC are reviewed by experience editors who offer suggestions on ways to improve the draft so that it is more in line with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. There is no 100% guaranteed way to ensure an article is never deleted from Wikipedia, but drafts submitted and approved via the AfC process typically have a better chance of surviving than those directly added to the article namespace, especially those added by new editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The first line of the article was Nanina’s In The Park is a wedding and event venue in Belleville, New Jersey. The lush greens and the award winning chefs will help you create a one-of-a-kind event. Nanina’s In The Park works with various partners and vendors to give you access to everything you would need for your special day., which is not an appropriate tone for Wikipedia. Wikipedia only covers what neutral sources say about a subject, not what the subject says about themselves; you need to demonstrate that you've been the subject of coverage in independent, reliable sources. In addition to what my colleagues have said above, be aware that Wikipedia reflects sources neutrally, so if your business has been the subject of negative coverage anywhere that will also be added to the article. ‑ Iridescent 16:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey here! I am Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzacacacacacaac. I have another account for a very important reason through which i opened the Teahouse. I wish to have a wikilink to access a direct link to the teahouse. Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzacacacacacaac (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzacacacacacaac; if you want a direct link to the Teahouse the link is [[Wikipedia:Teahouse]]. Since you also have mentioned that you have another account, I would advise looking at WP:SOCKPUPPET in case for the proper use of alternate accounts. Adog104 Talk to me 17:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz! I answered your question in your talk page!

Amy2563 (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzacacacacacaac and welcome back to the Teahouse. Any easy shortcut to remember is: WP:THQ (stands for: Wikipedia Teahouse questions). WP:TH will get you to the Teahouse page, but WP:THQ goes right to the questions page, where you are now. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_492&oldid=1146435718"