Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 728

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 725

Archive 726

Archive 727

→

Feeling discouraged...

hi, i'm writing under a fake name for privacy, but i know about sock puppet rules. there's a bad-tempered user who's causing me stress, and i don't know what to do about it. i'm afraid if he finds out i'm asking or complaining about him, he'll show up here and go on an attack against me. i just want to ask for some advice anonymously before i do anything else, i hope it's ok. i've been editing for a couple of years but i never had to deal with such a hostile person before. there are so many rules, guidelines, noticeboards, etc., i've spent hours reading them but i can't make sense of it. probably i'm too sensitive but i even had some nightmares about it. i feel like i want to get out, maybe even to quit wikipedia, but then i'd feel bad that i let him bully me.

it started when he showed up in an article and made some changes that were not helpful. he reverts anyone who changes it back, or he makes a little different version so it's technically not a revert. he's an old-timer and knows all the rules. i started a discussion on the talk page, and he wrote some hostile things. it's not really personal attacks but it's hostile arguing and borderline "you know nothing" kind of insults. a few other people joined and they're all very nice and smart, and we all generally agree on things, so that's nice. but he won't listen to anyone or anything, he won't make any kind of compromise at all, and he attacks everyone's comments and writes these long things that twist reality and don't make sense. he keeps reverting or change everything anyone tries to do, and makes even bigger changes. after a couple of times i gave up trying to put things back to a reasonable state. now i can't figure out how to fix it.

everyone but him wants to put the article back the way it was. we're not stonewalling, we're all open to positive changes, but that's not what he's offering. i'm trying to follow the rules about consensus and content disputes but i don't get it. i feel like i'm being pulled into this pointless conflict and forced to provide counter-arguments for the nonsense he writes, everyone is spending time trying to explain why his arguments don't make any sense, but it's a farce, it's not a real discussion. it's just endless hostility and nonsense arguments from him. then he puts it back his way, saying that nobody has made a valid argument against it.

at what point can i say "everyone but you agrees to do it this way, so that's the consensus, so that's what we're going to do". how can we end this? or can one user block the consensus? is there no way to get him to stop? we've been stuck with his bad versions of the article for a long time now, and it's a major article. it's like he's holding it hostage.

i looked at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and the administrators noticeboard for incidents, but i can't figure out the right place to go, or what to ask for, or exactly what rules he's broken - if any. is this a content dispute, or a behavior dispute? what if it's both? who can make some kind of ruling? how can we make him stop and go away? i don't want to make a complaint and then have nothing come of it, to pointlessly kick the hornet's nest. i want to stand up to this person, but i don't know how. i'm very tired of it, wasting way too much time, and discouraged that i can't figure out the system to do something about it, and in the meantime having to hide behind a fake name and dreading looking at my watchlist. i really think after this i'll stop wikipedia, at least for a while. it's feeling like an unfriendly place, not only because of him, but all the complicated legalese. maybe someone can give some advice about how to proceed? StormyWhether (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to just say "you're the only one who disagrees, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" or whatever. If he doesn't stop, just try to ignore him, saying "this is the consensus" each time he reverts it. If he reverts enough people or breaks the three-revert rule you could report him to the edit-warring noticeboard. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

he's careful not to break the three revert rule. what do you mean, "if he reverts enough people"? i looked at the edit-warring noticeboard and i can't understand how it would apply unless someone is breaking the 3RR. you have to provide diffs of where they have reverted to a previous version within 24 hours, but he waits until the next day, and usually makes some small changes so it's technically not a revert. also, i keep reading that i should never continue to revert someone, because it's edit warring even if it's not all on the same day. if we revert each other every day, then i'm just as guilty as him. you're supposed to stop reverting and discuss it. technically he's discussing it, but in reality not, because he has no intention of compromising at all. and he doesn't stop reverting, so it always ends up with his version because i'm following the rules and not edit warring. StormyWhether (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Generally it could be considered a revert, even if there are small changes. And by "revert enough people", if you can show them clearly reverting against consensus, it should be reportable. You also might be able to report it to ANEW with diffs showing their hostile behavior. It seems that any reasonable person would construe this as problematic, even if it is not technically breaking 3RR (and there's something, somewhere, about 3RR circumvention, but I'm not sure where). Also, if an admin wants to weigh in on this, that'd be real nice. I'm not exactly highly experienced. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 03:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, StormyWhether. The three revert rule is a narrow "bright line" rule, and it is entirely possible to engage in edit warring and get blocked for it without violating 3RR. This is sometimes called "slow motion edit warring". One editor cannot prevent consensus from being formed. Consistent editing against consensus is also a blockable offense. Your use of an alternate account seems valid, so do not worry about that. I think that you need an administrator to take a look at this and give you an independent evaluation of the situation. You can email any administrator who you trust to maintain confidentiality. If you do not know an administrator, please be aware that I am an administrator and I will give you my honest opinion if you contact me by email. I hope that you will stick with editing Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

i'm having trouble understanding about consensus. in the consensus policy, at WP:TALKDONTREVERT it says "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines" etc. but who does the determining? everyone else in the discussion has basically agreed on what to do, but what he says is that it's not a vote, and he believes his arguments "destroy" everyone else's, so there's no consensus, or there's even consensus on his side. so he goes ahead and edits how he wants. how can i say he's editing against consensus, if there's no mechanism to determine it, like the way an admin closes a discussion on AfD? even if you go to the dispute resolution noticeboard, they won't make a determination. what is the next step then, if someone refuses to acknowledge what everyone else says is a consensus? ANI? but they say they won't do anything if it's a content dispute. Cullen328 i'll think about e-mailing you, thanks for the offer, but i don't know if i want to "out" this account to my regular one, even in e-mail. maybe i'll try to e-mail someone else. the edits are minor in a way, but high profile. it's more a matter of emphasis and weight, so he's not necessarily breaking rules like verifiability. i wish someone could point me to a clear procedure about what to do when someone makes hostile arguments and simply refuses to listen to anyone, and goes on making unhelpful edits. doesn't that happen a lot? StormyWhether (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

StormyWhether, I do not know why you are reluctant to ask for help with this specific problem from an administrator, but I guess that you have your reasons. Another alternative is a formal Request for comment, which will draw in uninvolved editors. An uninvolved administrator can determine consensus after a discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328, i didn't know i could email an administrator. i don't know any, should i just pick one at random? i appreciate your offer to email you, it's only that i've probably been over-sharing here, talking about feeling overwhelemed and bullied and having nightmares etc., and venting steam against this person, so i'd be embarassed to reveal my regular identity where i try to keep a stiff upper lip, i hope you understand. i looked at the rfc page, but it looks like something where there's a complex question and you need help to figure it out, but that's not what's going on here. this is a single editor who showed up recently and started pushing a personal preference, who can't back it up, attacks everyone's comments with hostile retorts and misinformation, and refuses to acknowledge consensus against his edits. if we did an rfc, i'm sure it would be a "snowball" close, but i'd feel bad about wasting more peoples' time reading and responding to his tirades. it wouldn't be right to legitimize it as a valid content issue that needs more debate. the issue is his behavior, hijacking the article, refusing to listen, repeatedly overwriting everyone else's edits, making false statements, and generally giving the impression of being a grumpy old man with an axe to grind. i hope i'm not giving a similar impression with my complaining about it! i do understand that from his perspective it's the other way around, nobody will listen to him which proves we don't know anything, our arguments are invalid, our facts are wrong, etc... except for the part about being rude; i think everyone has been exemplary in their politeness and trying to calmly explain how his edits are misguided. but we just get more hostility in return, and i for one am out of patience. StormyWhether (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Change images or insert images.

How do I insert/replace/move certain images into textboxes? NoahGamer35 (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)NoahGamer35NoahGamer35 (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey NoahGamer35. Assuming this is in reference to Blayre Turnbull, it has already been fixed. GMG ^talk 15:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

My users are not receiving the reset password email. How do I fix this?

I've been trying to reset the password for the users on our Wiki, yet everytime I ask Wiki to resend password confirmation email, nothing happens. Is there something I should do differently? 65.216.148.162 (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

When you write "our Wiki", do you mean a specific Wikipedia article? If so, can I ask which one? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

... or do you mean a Wiki of your own, as distinct from the English Wikipedia? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

AFC Submission done correctly

I just added the AFC Submission coding to the top of a biography draft stored on my account sandbox rather than on a separate draft page as I was previously advised by generous Teahouse responders was a viable option. I understand there may be a long waiting period for the new page to be reviewed. [1] When I look at the list of the many pages/articles waiting review, I see my draft on the list but it is listed as User:ElephantEar/sandbox whereas all the others there are listed as Draft:xxx [2]

The pending submissions seems to be submitted properly because when I click on it, it opens the correct page as a draft (outside of my sandbox). If anyone sees anything amiss with the submission or has other general comments or suggestions about the biographical content submitted, I'd be delighted to hear from you. Thank you, teahousers! ElephantEar (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Another editor has now moved it to Draft namespace. While you wait for it to be reviewed you ought to address the misplaced external links. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up David Biddulph! I've been reading the instructions at the external links you provided and as happens with some of these guidelines, some rules seem in opposition to others, so I'm not 100% sure which way to go with this. Am I on the right track in saying that the issue is how I've done the links in the As Contributor section of the Megan Devine biography? The Titles of the contributions should actually be the hyperlink rather than the link symbol that follows it? Or should I only link to the publisher's main website and not the article itself? (Now that I think of it, the articles themselves are not required reading to understand the topic/biography. I was adding them for the reader's convenience was my thinking. So perhaps not use external links at all?) Or perhaps the As Contributor section should be simply a list with each item on the list cited with its source? Or was your suggestion to address the misplaced external links something else entirely? Many thanks for any additional insights. ElephantEar (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

That section (and any section other than the External links section) should not have external links. You may want to convert them to references. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the clarification David Biddulph. I've made additional changes throughout the page. ElephantEar (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Well done for that. You will make life easier for reviewers, and improve the article, if you include the titles of the documents which you are using as references. It is better if you use a template such as {{cite web}} or {{cite book}} and fill in relevant parameters. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

HOW TO CREATE OFFICIALLY PAGE OF CRICKET LEAGUE I HAVE SOURCE ?

HOW TO CREATE OFFICIALLY PAGE OF CRICKET LEAGUE I HAVE SOURCE ? Anniekanwar (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Anniekanwar, please do not TYPE IN ALL CAPS as it makes it hard to read!

Next, if you want to start an article, I suggest you use WP:Article wizard and I would very much advise you read WP:Your first article before beginning.

A few questions though:

Is this an amateur cricket league? Note that the vast majority of amateur sports clubs globally do not qualify for Wikipeda articles
You say you have sources; are the sources to the League itself, or to blogs, etc? We only care about the sources if they are serious professional sources like newspapers, books, etc. And again, most amateur sports leagues do not get serious mention in books or newspapers (other than completely routine coverage in their immediate local area). Can you post here and tell us the name of the league so we can help you see if it might meet WP:Notabiity and need an article? MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, Anniekanwar an "official page" for some organisation does not and cannot exist on Wikipedia. If your league meets the criteria for Notability (as MatthewVanitas says), then Wikipedia could have an article about it. This article will not belong to the league, the league will have no control whatever over its contents, people connected with the league will be strongly discouraged from editing it directly, and very little of content of the article should be derived from things the league or its associates say about it. If you are looking for somewhere where the league can have an on-line presence and tell things to its fans or to the world, you need to find a different kind of site from Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:David Meade (author)

I have another question, this time regarding David Meade (author). On several GA nominees, pages like this gets created. Do only reviewers create these pages or am I allowed to create it myself (even though I'm not a reviewer) so others can leave me comments? --LovelyGirl7 talk 22:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello LovelyGirl7 and welcome back to the Teahouse.

That template will be filled out by the first reviewer and any later reviewers will add to it. There's nothing you need to do to create the GA review page. Your role is to be the nominator of the page. Detailed instructions appear at WP:Good article nominations/Instructions. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: Thank you! But I am however supposed to receive comments when the review gets created by the review and I'm 100% prepared. I will address any comments I receive on the page when it gets created. --LovelyGirl7 talk 23:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Canadian Soccer fan needs Help

On the Article "Canadian Premier Soccer League" there is information about Potential teams. It talks about Edmonton Rumored to be a Team and them not, But it is still a large possibility. There are 2 groups of people pushing for the team to go Can-PL, that have been having success. Yeg4CPL.ca which is largely a Volunteer Group, meeting and discussing how to make this happen and RallyRabbit.cawhich is FC Edmonton ownership asking for Fan commitment to be made in the form of refundable deposit for Season tickets.

I have literally no idea on how to edit the page to add any of this information or how cite any of it once I could add that. Would anyone be willing to take a look at that page and even just take off the part about Edmonton not being part of the league.199.188.60.241 (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The most important thing is to find reliable sources that include information about the updates you reference. I see there is an article here that might be a good candidate. You can press the "edit" button to revise the article, but only include information in the reliable sources you cite (not rumors or things you know from you-don't-know-where). If you are in the visual editor, there is a "cite" button at the top of the page (after you click "edit") that will let you generate references. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Someone redirect my article and then later create his/her own article

I have the case to report, I create the article Mad Love (Sean Paul & David Guetta song) first, at 18:13 16 February 2018, then, the other user, name Hayman30, redirect my article deliberately and create his own article Mad Love (Sean Paul and David Guetta song) at 14:05 21 February 2018. I can't stand at this. Please make it clear as soon as possible Giangkiefer (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Giangkiefer: Your article was redirected because it fails WP:NSONG, which I clearly stated upon redirecting. Then you went ahead and undid my revision without any explanation, suggesting that you didn't read what I said, or you disagree my actions but refuse to discuss on the matter. Also, we do not use ampersands in article titles, as noted by Ss112 on your talk page here. I did not "deliberately" redirect your article, neither did I plan to create a new article when I redirect it. I created a new article at Mad Love (Sean Paul and David Guetta song) as I don't think I should create content at Mad Love (Sean Paul & David Guetta song) and then request it to be moved over Mad Love (Sean Paul and David Guetta song). If you are upset because I "stole" your credit, you could request a histmerge if you feel like it. Hayman30 (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Hayman30: If the song did not meet WP:NSONG on 20 February when you first redirected it, how did it suddenly meet it on 21 February? And if something had happened in the meantime to make the song notable, it would have been reasonable to simply revert your redirect, move the article to a new title, and update it with the new information. --bonadea contributions talk 06:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

So pretty obviously there are problems here, but why did you bring this to the Teahouse? I don't see a single "how do you do thus and such" from anyone. This isn't a noticeboard. You should discuss this on your respective talk pages and if you cannot work it out, seek dispute resolution or admin intervention. It does not belong here. John from Idegon (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bonadea: I never said that. It was the article that didn't meet NSONG. I didn't even plan on recreating the article until a saw it on Twitter, and I found more sources to help the song to establish notability. Mad Love (Sean Paul and David Guetta song) was a redirect another editor created on 16 February, and I feel like I should create content there instead of the bad namespace and request it to be moved, since I could not move an article over a redirect somebody else created. Hayman30 (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Hayman30: You've been around long enough to have learned that notability applies to the subject, not to the article. It's a common enough misunderstanding, though. In this case, it was a bold redirect with a slightly wrong edit summary. Fixing it, once you realized that there were suitable sources for an article about the song, might have required some admin help to either get the history merged or get the article with the incorrect title moved to the correct title. Giangkiefer's right to attribution is worth supporting even if their efforts to create an article had some shortcomings. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

There's no commonality between Hayman30's article at Mad Love (Sean Paul and David Guetta song) now and Giangkiefer's bare-bones version at this namespace: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mad_Love_(Sean_Paul_%26_David_Guetta_song)&oldid=827007507 They're two separate articles for the same topic. I think a histmerge would only really be appropriate here if Hayman had obviously copied Giangkiefer's text and copypasted it elsewhere without attribution. As Hayman said, I don't think users are obliged to create or "fix" others' content at an incorrect namespace and then request a move. Unfortunately, some editors' contributions end up disregarded in cases like this. I've pointed it out to admins before and they've said the same thing—there jut ends up being two separate histories for different articles for the same topic (perhaps because histmerges are a bit of work, so admins are reluctant to do them). Giangkiefer appears to have a bit of history creating articles in slightly incorrect namespaces—they created Man of The Woods for Justin Timberlake's most recent album, and there appears to have been a bit of back and forth to get that moved; a user requested a speedy deletion of the incorrect namespace, then another user declined that and instead got the other page deleted and moved the incorrect namespace over Man of the Woods. That just seems to be more trouble than it's worth. But, well, it's not up to me in the end. I'm quite sure I've seen other articles they've made redirected for being in the wrong place as well. Ss112 10:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: Sadly, I don't think so. Quote NSONG: "A standalone article about a song should satisfy the above criteria." My interpretation would be the song is only notable if the article creator is able to provide enough material to meet the minimum requirement. Or else, we'd have a ton of stubs (usually comes with a link to the song's iTunes page as the only reference) about unreleased/extremely new songs recorded by notable artists created 2 seconds after they're released or announced. I don't want to waste my time by creating an article at a wrong place then request a page move just to help another editor to "preserve credit", life is too short. Hayman30 (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

No, that is a misunderstanding, and the quote needs context (note also that the text you quote does not emphasise "article"). A subject is notable. An article should show that notability. WP:NMUSIC mentions criteria other than notability that makes an article about a song appropriate, which includes the availability of sources that make it possible to create a detailed article, but a song (or any other subject) is not made more or less notable by the activities of a Wikipedia editor. I'm afraid I don't understand your last comment at all, but that's beside the point. --bonadea contributions talk 12:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

You can call it whatever you like, I don't give. I believe I did nothing wrong by redirecting the article in the first place, and notability isn't the matter here anyway. If it isn't clear by now, Giangkiefer "can't stand at this" and wants to retrieve their credit, and the reason they took it here but refused to take it to article talk pages, is to put pressure on me. We sort this out first. Hayman30 (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll grant that there may not have been anything strictly wrong about your actions, it just looked bad. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Giangkiefer isn't any better at the moment: now they're making cut-and-paste moves to try to get their way: from here to here. Ss112 05:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Dealing with unrelenting vandalism

Just wondering what the advisable administrative process is for when a vandal reverts an edit to restore vandalized content 3 or more times after attempting to revert the vandalism within that edit time frame. How to bring it to light and do something to potentially stop it. Thanks. Reixus [Talk] [Contribs] 07:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome, Reixus. I think the page you are looking for is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you :) Reixus [Talk] [Contribs] 07:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thinking about it, if it's an obvious case of vandalism, then Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism might be a better place to report, Reixus. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Reixus. When you notice disruptive editing that falls under the purview of two noticeboards, pick one and report it there. Use your best judgement as to which noticeboard is most applicable to the specific case. Do not report to two noticeboards. All are actively monitored by administrators, although you may not get an instant answer. Be patient and prepared to answer follow-up questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Want to write an article on topic that does not have reliable sources

Hello! So, I want to write an article on this new RPG mobile game (MU Origin) that I am playing since it first got released and I’m a game master on official Europe’s server. I know everything about its roots, game play, story-line, characters etc. And I think it would be a solid article. But the only problem is that there’s not much information and guides on this game anywhere outside the game itself, so there are no reliable sources that Wikipedia would approve of. I would love to help people learn about this game and write a reliable article on what it is. Can I post the article without linking sources? Because there are none, this Wikipedia article would be the first reliable source on this subject. Gintsgints (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gintsgints, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, I think it is WP:Too soon for your Wikipedia article. Perhaps you could get your review published in a reputable magazine, then that review could be used as a WP:Reliable source. Dbfirs 08:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately Gintsgints we must have independent reliable sources to support an article. I would add that Wikipedia is not a reliable source as we just summarize what third parties write about subjects. If you just want to tell the world about the history of the game as you see it, a blog or other personal website would be better suited to that. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

"Off-topic" additions to articles

In several articles I've been editing, people have made WP:POV deletions by claiming that the material was "off-topic". This is a regular occurrence. You can delete anything you disagree with, or anything embarassing to the subject, by claiming it's off-topic.

It only takes two or three editors to WP:TAGTEAM and WP:OWN the article.

I'm sure that a broader consensus of objective editors would usually agree that these edits are on topic. How do I get uninvolved editors involved to give their opinions on the edits? Is there an "Off-Topic" notice board? Is there a list of Wikipedia projects where I can leave a notice? --Nbauman (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Nbauman, and welcome to the Teahouse. As you pointed out, you could leave a message on the talk page of Wikiprojects concerned. You can usually find them listed at the top of the talk page of the article in question. If not, the complete list is here Wikipedia:WikiProject# Finding a project.

There are also many Wikipedia:Dispute resolution mechanism. Perhaps Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard are the most relevant ones here. I favor WP:3O because it's a light process, but it's only applicable if the dispute is between just two editors. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try that. --Nbauman (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Picture of a living peson

Hi. How can i use a picture of a person if i want to create an article/ bioabout them. I tried asking for permission through email, but i didnt get any response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaniquedarville (talk • contribs) 13:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Shaniquedarville: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I think you might be getting ahead of yourself in that successfully creating an article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. It takes time, practice and effort. In the case of people, in order to merit an article, they must be written about in independent reliable sources that indicate how they meet the notability guidelines for biographies at WP:BIO. There are also more specific guidelines for various professions like athletes, musicians, politicians, etc. Not every person merits an article here. You should probably read Your First Article, and then use Articles for Creation to submit a draft article for review by another editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. This way you will get feedback on the draft before it is in the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards where it will be judged more critically.

I am not completely knowledgeable in images, but I do know that quite often the person in the image does not actually own the copyright to it, it is quite often the photographer. Information about uploading images can be found at WP:UPIMAGE. I would add that your account must be autoconfirmed to upload images(meaning it is at least 4 days old and has at least 10 edits) 331dot (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I am indeed ahead of myself. I have never done this before, however it is an requirement for one of my masters degree courses.108.60.227.24 (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

If that's the case then it might be easier for you than other new users. Again, using Articles for Creation should help you. Also, remember to be logged in when you edit so you get proper attribution for your contributions. Good luck 331dot (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, would you please tell your professor/supervisor to have a look at Wikipedia:Education program/Educators, if they have not done so yet? Student assignments on Wikipedia are much more likely to be successful for everyone involved (students, professors and Wikipedians) when coordinated with the project. You might also want to read the page for students (Wikipedia:Education program/Students). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

having a univ class edit a page

Our final group assignment, in a univ seminar, is for students to collaborate on updating and significantly enhancing a Wiki page on a particular/recent scholar. Apart from having all of the students create an account and learn to use the editor, I'm wondering if there's any good advice here for ways to go about doing this--for example, we're developing our own in-house method for ensuring accuracy and editorial uniformity concerning structure/headings and content rather than just turning them all lose on the Wiki page, but sooner or later there will be a variety of editors tackling revisions to the page over the course of several weeks.

Thoughts? Rtmccutch (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rtmccutch: - please ensure that they reference the articles correctly (something which your previous edits did not achieve), as failure to do so will necessitate other editors, not related to your assignment, to step in, perhaps defeating the purpose. Make sure that they are familiar with the policy regarding reverting the article, as this (hopefully) will prevent content disputes from arising. Furthermore, while anyone can edit Wikipedia, it is a project built on consensus. If disputes arise between the students, take the issue to the talk page of the article, where a discussion can occur. Please ensure that your own in-house method for ensuring accuracy complies with Wikipedia's guidelines in full, or else it will be unlikely to fly. You should probably notify the relevant WikiProjects of the initiative, so that they are aware of it. Finally, all students should be particularly familiar with the policies regarding biographies and neutrality before making edits. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

What you want to do is called Wikipedia:Workshop. Ruslik_Zero 20:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome, Rtmccutch. I agree with Stormy clouds about the importance of talk page discussion if edits are reverted, but Stormy linked to the request for comment process, which is a dispute resolution mechanism that is only needed if initial discussion does not result in consensus. Just posting and engaging on the talk page is often enough to resolve disputes. I also strongly suggest that you take a look at Wikipedia:Education program. There is also Wikipedia:Education noticeboard for any detailed questions you might have. Good luck - I hope it goes well. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

NB - I would urge the user to become more acquainted with referencing guidelines, as their previous edits suggest that this may be a problem area. It has also been raised at my talk page that the user may have a potential conflict of interest that must be addressed, though this needs clarification. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

So let me get the conflict of interest policy straight: since I was the one who wrote the In Memoriam piece I can't refer to that, as a Wiki editor, in an edit on the page...? Strikes me as odd, to be honest--if I said it was the best thing since sliced bread, well, sure, that's a problem, but simply linking to it as the actual obituary of the main professional association in the field is something I can't do...? Rtmccutch (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

You can cite your own work if you are careful about it, Rtmccutch. See WP:SELFCITE. If you have a personal or professional relationship with the subject of an article, then you should read and follow the advice at WP:COI. Wherever you are uncertain about anything in this regard, it is best to post requests on the talk page of the article rather than editing it directly. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

If that is your only link to the subject of the article, and if the source which you wrote for is considered to be reputable (I'll ask here)), then there is no conflict. Any other connections would have to be disclosed (e.g. if you knew Smith), and, regardless, the obituary was oddly placed, added with an external link (frowned upon), and poorly formatted, which were my primary issues with it, and must be improved upon when the uni project begins. Hope this clarifies things. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm beginning to rethink going anywhere near having my seminar students venture into these seemingly public waters, to be honest.... We're reading this scholar, I'm a scholar, they'll largely be listing descriptive/factual material and citing it, but if much of what they do prompts revisions and the need to keep diving deeper into Wiki policy...., it will likely be a rather frustrating experience. Rtmccutch (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Groups that have done this well tend to work out content, discussion, referencing, etc., in one student's sandbox. and only when satisfied drop the content into the article. Working in sandbox keeps errors and stumbles out of the public eye. You don't say how many students, but if you want them working in small groups, then assign different parts of the article to each group. David notMD (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rtmccutch. Are you working in conjuction with m:Wiki Education Foundation or did you just decide to do this on your own? If the latter is the case, then you might want to consider setting up something via Wiki Ed since the editors helping out with that project have lots of experience dealing with these kinds of things and have developed special resources for projects such as this. You're likely going to find trying to do this all on your own because most of the experienced editors encounter are here for Wikipedia and are not here to help out your group per se. Most editors are friendly and will do what they can to help you out, but they will defer to relevant policies and guidelines whenever necessary to make sure article content is appropriate. Every edit you are I make is done in accordance with Wikipedia's wmf:Terms of Use; in other words, we don't own articles we edit and whatever changes we make can be undone/revised just as quickly as we make them. Wikipedia is a collaborative project in which literally build upon the "mistakes" made by others to try and improve articles. When we disagree over content, etc. we are expected to try and resolve things through discussion and consensus. Personally, I don't think asking your students to edit/create articles in the "live" encyclopedia is a wise approach for this very reason since you might be actually grading "another" editors work instead of one of your students, or you might be grading something that shouldn't be in Wikipedia in the first place. I'm going to ask a Wiki Ed volunteer I know to take a look at this thread. She might be able to provide with some more specific advice on how to best proceed with your project. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Marchjuly! I'm going to respond in detail on the educator's page, but from what I can see of the specific COI edit, it looks like the memorial itself should be reliable since it was published by the American Academy of Religion via their web magazine, which does have a good editorial process. It's just that it was added in a way that doesn't fit Wikipedia's guidelines, which I can address more specifically on Rtmccutch's talk page. At this time he isn't teaching with us, but I'll definitely get in touch with him about working with us. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

How does the Ask a question button work?

Hi

How does the Ask a question button work? Is it FormWizard or something else?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, John Cummings, and welcome to the Teahouse. If I am correct in assuming you are asking about the code, it can be found at MediaWiki:Gadget-teahouse/content.js. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @NotTheFakeJTP:, OK, it looks like something specially written. John Cummings (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is JavaScript written for the English Wikipedia. It starts at MediaWiki:Gadget-teahouse.js. If you are at the Teahouse then it loads MediaWiki:Gadget-teahouse/content.js. The gadget is enabled by default at 'Enable the Teahouse "Ask a question" feature' at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. It also uses MediaWiki:Gadget-teahouse.css. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Creating a new page

This is my first time writing as a creator. I would like to create a page for the organization I work for as we are referenced in another article but there is not link to learn more about us. How do I submit a new page once I have drafted the copy? (PRCSF (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, PRCSF. Writing an article from scratch is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia, and we usually recommend that new editors gain some experience by making smaller contributions to existing articles first. Creating an acceptable article about your employer is even harder and will attract lots of scrutiny. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and if you are determined to go ahead, you will need to make a formal declaration of who your employer is, as explained at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Making an English version of my French page...?

Hi Guys, I have created a French page for 'Château de La Ferté-Imbault'...however I'm keen to make it available in English also? Anyone know how? Hope to hear from you! 195.171.102.121 (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello anon. The English Wikipedia recently changed our policies so that unregistered users and very new accounts cannot directly create articles. What you can do is log into your registered account (I'm assuming you are one of the registered users who worked heavily on the French article) and create your translation as a draft by clicking here: Draft:Château de La Ferté-Imbault, or create it in your sandbox by clicking "sandbox" at the top right of your screen (on PC). You should use Template:Translated page on the associated talk page to attribute the source of the text, and when you are done, you can submit it for our Articles for Creation project, where it can be reviewed by an experienced volunteer who can offer feedback prior to publishing. GMG ^talk 16:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll add to that advice that you read translate us. --ColinFine (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:Translate us is for translating from English to another language Wikipedia. For translating from French to English you want Wikipedia:Translation. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

My mistake. I knew that. Thanks David Biddulph. --ColinFine (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Expert contributing own research to an article.

Is it OK for an expert in a field to edit Wikipedia, adding their own research (theses, journal articles) to an article in the form of a relevant citation, or in Further Reading? On the one hand, this person could be seen as genuinely wanting to contribute their findings to an article. On the other hand, it may be seen as self-promotion. Thoughts?203.19.81.250 (talk) 06:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Anyone contemplating this should register an account and declare their intentions and connections on their user page. Any such editor would have a clear conflict of interest and should always defer to experienced, uninvolved editors. One positive extreme would be a Nobel Prize winner universally acknowledged as a research pioneer on a given topic. Of course, we would welcome participation from such an expert, but they would still need to comply with our policies and guidelines. Another negative extreme would be a mid-level academic involved with arguing contending theories with rival academics. Someone in that position who is here on Wikipedia to repeatedly cite their own work and shape technical articles to conform with their own theories will not be treated kindly. Many academics (and other pushers of specific points of view) have been blocked from editing for such unethical conduct. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, if medical/health related, no in vitro, no animal, no clinical trials. This annoys researchers who are experts in their field and want to cite their own research. Only reviews allowed (includes systematic reviews and meta-analyses). David notMD (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

How do i modify tables

Hello guys, I have added scans of the new philippine 5 peso coin, as seen here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_five_peso_coin

now that i wanted to updated the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coins_of_the_Philippine_peso to reflect the new images, only to be interrupted by my lack of knowledge on how to add another column to a table,

Non native speaker, i hope the messages goes through. Tanker0921 (talk) 06:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Tanker0921! Please describe what exactly you need.

Do you actually want to add another column to an existing table? If so, which table it is (which section of he article), and what column would you like to add (minimum: which position should it take in the table and what title should it have)?
May be you mean adding a new row?
Or possibly you mean adding a new table?

Please add as much detail as you can, so that someone can explain appropriate technical aspects, or do the job for you. --CiaPan (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

One suggestion I could offer, Tanker0921, is to edit the page via "edit source" and temporarily copy the relevant markup for the entire table you want to modify into your sandbox. This lets you experiment with formatting until you get it right. Then you can paste the final, working markup back in to the proper article. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Tables are tricky, Tanker0921, and Nicks's suggestion is a good one. You might also want to consult Help:Table. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I wanted the image column to have 2 additional subcolumns for "obverse" and "reverse" images, much like the table above the said article.

Tanker0921 (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

this table "New Generation Currency Coin Series" in particular Tanker0921 (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Editing content

So we edited our friends/clients page to be accurate per the person who's page it is. And some User Red something wrote saying we'd been deleted for not proper summary? Tried to talk/message back and it says User doesn't exist. We just want to correct what is wrong, including her birthdate and remove middle name and history on family adding sisters, and edit mom and dad info la la la... I have read and read and still do not get how this works??64.183.37.46 (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello IP user and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are editing for a client, you need to review the paid editing policy, which is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use for paid editors. You should also read the conflict of interest policy. The edit history of your address has no other edits aside from your post here, so you must have been under a different one, please link to the page in question.331dot (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Beyond that advice, information on Wikipedia needs to be sourced to a published reliable, independent, third-party source such as a newspaper article, a biography or suchlike. Having personal knowledge of such information isn't enough; a source that other editors can review is necessary. Ravenswing 01:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)