Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 602

This is an current talk page .

Hi! Sorry, it seems like there are a lot of questions on here about posting new articles, but I can't quite seem to figure out what's going on. I wrote a new biographical article about a mathematician here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kathryn_Hess But now I cannot seem to find any way (either by editing the title, or hitting some kind of "Submit for Review" button) to actually turn it into a real article.

It's certainly not perfect, but is it not suitable to be posted? I seem to be receiving an "alert" about needing more citations, though there are a number of citations on that page already. Is the article not suitable? I plan to add to it in the future.

Thanks for any help with this! Jonathanbeardsley (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jonathanbeardsley. I fixed it up a bit and will move it into article space. It's not the total number of references that matter, it is those that are about her, not by her. So her papers don't really count. However as a fellow of a society there is no question that she is a notable mathematician. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse,

notability guideline for academics. The number of papers an academic has published is not really significant on Wikipedia. What matters far more is how many times their academic papers are cited by other researchers in peer reviewed scientific journals. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

05:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi cullen328, this mathematician has been cited a lot but how does one incorporate that into the article? I don't want to list all the papers that have cited her. It'd be quite a long list.Jonathanbeardsley (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, Jonathanbeardsley, it is not necessary to include the frequency of citations in the article itself, although it can certainly be mentioned on the article's talk page. Rather, the citation rate would be a strong defense if anyone nominated the article for deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I try my best to identify Sockpuppets from among users. Looking at the contributions of some users, the way they exhibit proficiency over many Wiki policies and tools right from their initial contributions indicate that they could be sockpuppets. However I am unable to find out which account they used to use based on their contributions, and therefore cannot take the case to SPI. Is there some way I can find out their former accounts. Or can I start the SPI with just the new account as I have seen Checkuser find sockpuppets from accounts besides the ones I suggested in earlier case. Jupitus Smart 18:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can answer that question directly, but I can give you a couple of tips on finding sockpuppets. Just the fact that a newbie knows policy and tools right away doesn't necessarily indicate a sock. Some users edit off an IP address for years or months before making an account. However, one way you can tell a sock is to look at the history of an article and check users with very similar contributions. Socks tend to edit the same kind of article and they tend to also be POV pushers or copyright violators or something else against policy. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse,

Clean start, which is entirely legitimate. Perhaps they have a lot of experience with other wikis. Some people do a lot of preparation before starting to edit. In my case, I spent a couple of months studying Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and procedures before I began editing eight years ago. I wanted to be sure that I was doing things right, but I made my fair share of mistakes, of course. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

01:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem. After they are caught once or twice, Sockpuppets understand policies and stop editing the pages they were associated with earlier, making history matching tougher. I have a perfect record with my SPI sleuth work till now (3 cases) and, even though I managed to lock in on 1-2 people who I believe are newer versions of blocked accounts, I don't have exact evidence to point towards the same. And since some of them have been made within days of their original account being blocked, clean start is also ruled out. Anyway thanks for trying to answer my doubt. Jupitus Smart 03:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi

WP:SPI as simply one of the ways the community uses to prevent serious disruption of the encyclopedia; I do not see it as something to be won or lost. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 05:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

My intention in mentioning my record was not for bragging but to show that I am not a trigger happy accuser, but frame my cases only after careful consideration. As for 'winning', the problem with SPI is that editors don't like to be accused of illegality and it leads to a lot of bad blood if I end up 'loosing'. I therefore personally believe that if I have any chance of 'loosing', its probably worth waiting for an even longer period so as to be absolutely sure that I have got the correct connections. Anyway I will probably wait for a little more while, before I am absolutely sure about going for the SPI. Thanks for replying Marchjuly.Jupitus Smart 05:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it correct for an editor to rate her own article creations in the talk page and assign it as an A/B/Start Class Article with an arbitrary importance.Jupitus Smart 03:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi

WP:GA, on the other hand, are much more formal evaluations which need to be done according to proper procedures. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 04:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Jupitus Smart 05:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi There

I am keen to understand how a biography can be created - please could you give me some information?

Thanks in advance

Chrid  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian McBride (talk • contribs) 15:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC) 

Hello,

Wikipedia:Your first article and, to gauge whether the person you want to write about is notable according to Wikipedia's criteria, Wikipedia:Notability (people). If you tell us who the person is, we will be able to provide advice on the latter. Cordless Larry (talk

) 06:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello and Greetings, just signee up to the wilkipedia for me to start submitting bio information for Rolando Meriales de Leon. Unfortunately I am stocked for confirming the posted page. Reciving notice for the like of deletion of the page, this make me worry of failing the process. regards, rmeriales
--Preceding note added Rmeriales (talk | contribs), 12:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC+9)(and the sig added CiaPan (talk) 06:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC))

The problem with the article was that it was not written with a

advert

(please click on the links to read the policies on those topics and on help on how to adhere to them).

One other thing I need to check - are you Rolando Meriales? If so, then you should never write about yourself for reason of

How to change your username). Stephen! ^Coming...

06:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

hello i am just trying to make article about my village but you already threatening to delete my article! why?(Pendro 07:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khoshhat (talk • contribs) Article is Pendro --ColinFine (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

WP:your first article. And please sign your contributions to to talk pages and to project pages such as this one, with four tildes (~~~~). --ColinFine (talk

) 09:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello all, My page " Softcom Limited" was speedily deleted on the Wikipedia website. I will like to get it up. I read all the policies and I don't know clearly why it was deleted. I will like to know why the page was deleted and I will like to fix the issuesKayleby (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi

CSD G11. However, there was a bigger problem than either of those reasons which was not caught, which was that it was a blatant copyright violation of softcom.ng/about. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted content here again. Since an article attempt like this is just about always the efforts of an insider, please comply with our mandatory disclosure requirements for paid editing before editing further. I will leave a template on your talk page about this. Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 22:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

So what can I do next to make it better--to salvage the situaton? Should I write a fresh wiki article? Edit this one--it has been deleted already. Or, should I do paid writing? And how do I get about that?Kayleby (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello again

articles for creation where you can receive assistance from more experienced editors. I wish you the best of luck! eurodyne (talk

) 06:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for your response. I really appreciate it. I am not in any way been compensated for this article, though. I didn't immerse myself much in the guidelines like using the right words in conveying the subject matter e.g neutrality of point of view. Also, I was looking for a "save to continue" button but couldn't find so I had to publish, not forgetting that I didn't take time time to proper;y piece the words together.I will be grateful if I got another chance at fixing this. What do i do next? Should I rewrite the article, submit it under the "articles for creation" section? I will love to get it off the ground soon. Thanks Kayleby (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi I did an edit on the following page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johannesburg&action=history

I am recorded as Sologalaxy. I have also created a user page.

When I try to log in now it says "There is no user by the name Sologalaxy"

What do I do?

Sologalaxy (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sologalaxy: You appear to be logged in fine! Did you have the capitalisation correct? Sologalaxy would not be the same user as SoloGalaxy, for example. Sam Walton (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Sologalaxy shows you were logged in here when you posted the question. Did you get the message here at https://en.wikipedia.org or somewhere else? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

In need of suppliers / manufacturers of metal 17P4. I think it is part of the stainless steel group of metals (165.145.234.48 (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at

anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck.. --ColinFine (talk

) 15:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I am sdittman and appreciated the challenge from Contributor 321 to the veracity of an edit. Would a newspaper article related to the recent edit on Washington and Lee (regarding Light Horse Harry Lee) be considered a reliable source, despite its ambiguous language? http://articles.dailypress.com/1996-03-03/news/9603010128_1_revolutionary-war-washington-and-lee-university-hampden-sydney-college

sdittman (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi

inline citation] is on the person wishing to add content that has been challenged by anyone). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 18:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks StephSayItWrite (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks so much for your help :)StephSayItWrite (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey

never call Wikipedia wiki;-) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 19:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear community, I would like to make the maps look like the Quebec City map, just for the Tanta and Alexandria region, for the

A) There are two regions that should be covered B) It's like there are no maps for those regions

Anyone who can help me here? I think I might use some OpenStreetMap, where I don't know how to change the name to English street names. And I don't know how to create the templates for the maps and how to include it into the article?--Rævhuld (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rævhuld. Please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps. You will find the tools and the resources you need there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.--Rævhuld (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I was trying to create an article for a personality who served his people and area for decades.His services might not be visible on internet, but few references for his struggle and news about his services are available too.I have tried thrice to submit my initial article with few paragraphs, but unfortunately it was rejected. Thanks to advise me accordingly,

B/R — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashfaqhk (talk • contribs) 07:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse,

golden rule of notability. Cordless Larry (talk

) 07:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

You also created Justice Shehbaz Khan, which I have nominated for deletion. I suggest concentrating your efforts on improving and sourcing the draft version. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Ashfaqhk, I might also point out that the phrase, "Autobiography of a deceased person" is an oxymoron. John from Idegon (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

How can I shorten/edit a biography that is already in Wikipedia?2601:183:4202:E792:2577:E7B4:D835:2135 (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. You can edit a Wikipedia article by clicking the "edit" button and making useful improvements to the article in compliance with our policies and guidelines. Why do you want to "shorten" a biography? In general, improvements to articles result in longer articles, not shorter ones. Of course, there are many valid reasons to remove content from a biography, including removing false content, content for which no reference can be found, and excessive trivial detail.

Some articles are protected from edits by unregistered editors such as you, and brand new accounts. Some are protected so that only administrators can edit. This is based on a pattern of vandalism or other forms of disruption. In such cases, you can leave a message on the article's talk page requesting an edit. You may want to consider registering an account, which offers many benefits and no negatives that I am aware of. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Why can I only "edit source" but not normally?

SixMillionStrong (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SixMillionStrong. There are two fundamental ways to edit. The original way is through editing the wikicode, which is my preferred way to edit, even though I am not a computer programmer. Somehow, I had no trouble learning this method, which I find quite intuitive. The newer way is an attempt at "what you see is what you get" editing. For more information about using that technique, please see Wikipedia:VisualEditor. Although I hope that this effort is successful, it is my understanding that most highly active editors still use the old system. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I request you to let me know about a company called great constructions at Spring field, OR37466.122.174.28.5 (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a forum for answering questions about how to edit Wikipedia. General knowledge questions can be asked at WP:Reference desk. I'm wondering tho....Oregon's zipcodes all begin with 9. 97466 is in Oregon, but nowhere near Springfield. John from Idegon (talk) 04:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi teahouse,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Save_Cambodia%E2%80%98s_Wildlife

Can you tell me, if any, which sections are ok and which ones i have to rewrite/delete in order to get the article approved? THANKS for your help! AndreaAnRoCa (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Save Cambodia's Wildlife contains the phrases "aims at", "focuses on", "mission". If I were given the task of making it into an acceptable article, I would start by deleting every sentence containing any such phrase. Readers will want to know what it has actually achieved, as described by independent sources. Maproom (talk

) 10:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:V for more information. --ColinFine (talk

) 12:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Maproom, thank you! Great help !!!! :-)AnRoCa (talk) 04:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you also, Colin Fine!! AnRoCa (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, can anyone tell me how can I add an image on my personal Wikipedia page?221.120.215.236 (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, do not write in all caps. That is widely perceived as shouting on the internet and is hence considered rather rude. Second, no one has a personal page on Wikipedia. Registered editors (and you are posting anonymously, so either you are not registered, or not logged in) have user pages, where you can tell us something about your interests on Wikipedia. Notable people may have an article on Wikipedia, but in no sense is it the personal page of the subject of the article. So what is it you are asking? John from Idegon (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I want to know why the wikipedia page bharat ke veer is deleted and want suggestion how to write a article aabout bharatkeveer web portal by indian government for the soldiersKaushikone (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

your first article, and understand that a Wikipedia article should be mostly based on what people who have no connection with the subject have published about it: what the organisation says or wishes to say about itself is of almost not relevance. I don't know whether you are connected with Bharat Ke Veer, but if you are, you also need to understand our policy on conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk

) 09:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I've written an article, how do I go about getting it approved? I'm a total novice. Many thanks Kirstin Stansfield (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I've added a template to give you a "Submit" button for you to use when you wish to submit the draft for review. I've also added to your user talk page a number of useful links, including to

WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk

) 13:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft url : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Heycare.

So, i need to know about how can i move out Heycare from draft to live url.

e.g. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heycare

Looking forward to hear from you!

Best Regards!

Deepak (Team Heycare) S gupta (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

notable. Maproom (talk

) 13:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

your first article. and since you identify yourself as part of "Team Heycare", you should also read our policy on editing with a conflict of interest, and the mandatory requirement to make a declaration if you are in any way paid to edit. --ColinFine (talk

) 15:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

My reviewer rejected my article. I buffed it up with a lot more sources and resubmitted. Should I let the original reviewer know, or is it back in the queue as though it is a brand new article? Should I just wait or should I be checking up on it? CharOster (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

external links should not be used the way you do? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs

) 16:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

HemThoreau (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear HemThoreau

You can find information here

Best regards

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 17:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi HemThoreau. I wrote a fairly elaborate response to another user, lower on this page, which you might find helpful on this. So, in the interests of not reinventing the wheel, please see How to put a photo onto a Wikepedia page without running into copyright issues. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I permalinked the answer, in case the thread gets archived. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

My husband has a Wikipedia entry. Whoever wrote it, wrote he was married to somebody else, which he was, a long time ago.

I'm not particularly jealous, but I thought I should get the record straight, so to rectify the inaccuracy, I added my name and deleted the ex's.

A few minutes later, a message from a bot said I "shouldn't be writing my autobiography".

Question: is updating on Wikipedia my husband's clever decision to marry me a sin in wiki terms? Am I writing my autobiography? Really? 2A00:23C5:9C03:1E00:3DC5:4FC8:870A:86DC (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Your question here is the only edit you have made with your current IP (unless you usually edit using an account, in which case your IP is hidden and your edits would have been recorded against that account) and you haven't specified the article, so it's hard for us to give specific advice. However, in general I would suggest following the advice at Wikipedia:Edit requests to post a requested change on the talk page of the article, giving a source for any material that you want to be added. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

For a bit of background on

WP:AUTOPROB

. --08:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Cordless Larry's answer in a shorter and blunter format: that is the kind of edit you are allowed to do yourself even if you have a conflict of interest, but tell us which article it was and which correction should be made, since we cannot guess it. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I am still new and some how I am confuse with Wikipedia edition. If may I edit in articles and pages what will be the juridical issue or legal foundation of information we get from Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bond Shift (talk • contribs) 17:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, Bond Shift. If you mean what are the legal responsibilities of Wikipedia concerning content in Wikipedia articles, see the General disclaimer and other disclaimers.

If you mean what kind of legal considerations editors should think about when contributing, we take

defamation particularly seriously. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs

) 19:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License. The text is a bit hard to parse, but the oversimplification is that when you use such content elsewhere, you must provide attribution/credit to the owners of the copyright, who are the editors here who wrote it. This is done by providing a hyperlink to the page history where all the contributions can be viewed, or to the page itself where the page history is accessible, or by providing a list of all of the authors (which would rarely be efficient). You must also state the license of the content and provide a hyperlink to it, or provide the text of the license itself (so doing the former is usually much easier). Also, if you make changes, you must indicate that. There is an (also oversimplified write-up) at Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 19:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Ibeforehe (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for pointing out the error, which I have now corrected. The place where you could have raised it was

Help talk:Using talk pages. --David Biddulph (talk

) 14:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Ibeforehe (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think that

autoconfirmed, which will happen when your account is more than four days old and you have used it to make at least 10 edits. Thanks again for bringing this error to our attention. Cordless Larry (talk

) 19:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I want to add a few paragraphs to a country's Wikipedia article. That country also has a separate article about its history. Is it ok for me to copy my paragraphs from the country's article and paste them into the country's history article? Or, is copying not allowed even if the material you are copying is your own text? Lupine453 (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hello
  Wikipedia:COPYWITHIN
  . Actually, you don't need to attribute yourself (since you did not transfer your copyrights to Wikipedia when publishing it the first time around (you merely granted a CC-BY-SA license), you can re-publish the same thing at place A and place B without having to credit place A for the text at place B).

However, if the text is more than a sentence, I would check whether duplicating content is a good solution. Maybe it is the sign that the articles should be reorganized with internal

linking from one to another, and making sure the articles' scope do not overlap too much. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me}

17:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Tigraan Lupine453 (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I think in this situation would be appropriate to include a summary rather than the whole text with multiple paragraphs. Best, Lingveno (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I have read a lot on this website about sock puppetry, and one part of sock puppetry that I've never understood is good hand / bad hand accounts. I understand why the bad hand accounts are blocked, but why are good hand accounts blocked? I am not supporting sock puppetry in any sort of way, but I have never understood why the good hand accounts are blocked. They don't seem to cause issues. I just wanted to ask this, simply because it's been on my mind recently. Thank you. RockMusicFan 2002 (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Because the "good hand" account has used a sock to edit disruptively, which is against the rules. --

Skamecrazy123 (talk

) 19:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. -- RockMusicFan 2002 (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2017

Can I ask whether you are signing your posts using four tildes (~~~~), RockMusicFan 2002? The fact that your second post is missing the "UTC" and that the time is wrong on both makes me wonder if you are signing manually. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I am signing on my computer. Right now, where I live, it is 15:50 (as of writing this). And I don't know why it forgot UTC. Moreover, are you mad at me all? Because I don't see anything that would warrant it. RockMusicFan 2002 (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Why would we be mad at you? --

Skamecrazy123 (talk

) 19:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not mad at you, RockMusicFan 2002; I'm just trying to work out what's up with your signature. It might be 15:50 local time, but it's not 15:50 UTC. Moreover, if your signature is working correctly, you should have to manually add brackets like this. Are you generating the signature by typing four tildes? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I am. I am typing four tildes. RockMusicFan 2002 (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

In that case, RockMusicFan 2002, can I suggest that you check the time offset in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

No offense dude, but it doesn't really matter what time zone I'm in. RockMusicFan 2002 (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think it does matter, RockMusicFan 2002. When your talk page posts have the wrong time on them, it's going to get hard for users to follow the thread of any complicated discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

For example, here, it looks like you issued a user a final warning before they received their first warning, due to the incorrect timestamp. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I would like to become a Moderator. I have read all articles that I have needed too. I love helping people and I dislike it when people break rules. I think that I would be a good candidate. Can someone help me to become nominated to become a possible Moderator please? Thank you! ArticleInspector2000 (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

WP:RFAADVICE, which is considered essential reading for would-be admins. Your account is just 4 days old and you have 17 edits, well short of what the guideline notes: "Successful candidates will almost always have edited Wikipedia for at least one year, will have thousands of edits in various 'maintenance' areas of the project, and will have made measurable contributions to articles." – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs

) 18:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi ArticleInspector2000. Welcome! Thanks for stopping by the Teahouse. I'd like to expand a little bit on the good advice that Finnusertop gave you. Wikipedia doesn't have moderators per se. We have different user access levels (sometimes called permissions) that are granted based on demonstrated need. The most well-known of these levels is called administrator ("admin" for short). Administrators have various tools to help keep Wikipedia running smoothly. They are trusted, longtime users who have proven over many edits and a considerable time period that they will use their tools competently and impartially.

My suggestion to you is this: go and edit more articles. Fix misspellings, improve grammar, and make the prose clearer and more readable. When you've been doing that for a few hundred edits or so, you'll have developed a sizable

reverted. On that list, you'll also find (with a little effort) plenty of new users who are confused and would benefit from your newfound knowledge. But recent changes can be very hard to interpret at first, so I'd definitely recommend you get a lot more general editing experience under your belt first. Good luck! Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER

18:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I have been on Wikipedia for more then a year. I joined last year and then had to get a new account as I lost my password to it. I also lost the email too that account so I could not reset it. I just wanted to let you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArticleInspector2000 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, ArticleInspector2000. Can I suggest that you contribute to the encyclopedia regularly for another year or so to gain experience, and learn how to do the basics such as signing your talk page posts, and then consider whether you are in a position to run to be an administrator? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If your previous account was Articleinspector I see that you edited for 20 minutes in October last, and made 8 edits. A number of things that you failed to learn during that time included:

• how to make a
  wikilink
• the need for material to be
  sourced
• the need to
  sign
  contributions to discussion pages such as this
• the fact that we don't have "moderators" but "administrators"
• How not to break the syntax of a template

Please keep learning. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArticleInspector2000 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all of the advice. And I was wondering instead of trying to become an Admin, how can I apply for the User Access Level, Pending changes reviewer. And How do I apply for it? Thank you! P.S, David Biddulph, Sorry about the "Moderator" Thing, I am another MOD on a couple other sites and Chats. I am/was an owner of a Chatbox before selling it to a good friend. I just got those mixed up with my other jobs. ;-D No, it is not an excuse either. ArticleInspector2000 (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Before that you still need to learn some basic competencies, such as:

• the need to
  sign
  contributions to discussion pages such as this (particularly when you have already been reminded twice)
• the format for section headings (capitalisation rules)
• how to search Wikipedia and where to look for Wikipedia processes such as pending changes review

You've got a lot of learning to do before thinking about enhanced user rights. First of all you need to learn how to improve the encyclopedia. Don't think of running before you can walk. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Please note that the advanced user rights are given only when one really needs them and not for an intention of collecting multiple hats. Please first read basic Wikipedia rules, try to write and expand other articles. Best, Lingveno (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

ArticleInspector2000, I have been on Wikipedia for nearly 12 years and made over 13000 edits. I am a regular on the help and reference desks, and often receive thanks (and occasionally awards) for my work. I have never even considered becoming an administrator, because I don't need those rights in order to contribute significantly to Wikipedia in my way. That doesn't mean, of course, that you should not go for an admin eventually: I am me and you are you. But you don't need to be an admin to earn respect - in fact, the reverse is true: you will only be given admin rights if you have already earned respect. --ColinFine (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I've had feedback from helpful editors on the live chat about the chances of the Green Star Media Ltd entry currently in draft here: User:Rugbyboy2/sandbox/Green Star Media Ltd being accepted. I've made disclosures about my links to the company on the user page and in the draft, what I really need is objective interpretation of what's considered significant independent sources for the information. Any takers? Thanks Rugbyboy2 (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Rugbyboy2, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, there is no "objective" interpretation of the coverage a topic needs in independent reliable sources. There is no number we can give you – say 10 or 20 sources – but the six you provide looks too little. More than the number of sources, it's the depth of coverage they provide: a multi-volume book series is obviously better than a passing mention in routine news coverage. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

our policy

mandates at least two different sources, but a nonnegligible minority would be OK with a single outstanding source. That is sort of an academic question anyways, because when you can find one outstanding source there are usually many other OK-ish ones. Sometimes, when there are many sources that all fall into the gray area, the sheer number can tip the scales, but that is rare.

As for what a "good" source is, it has to be at the same time (1)

independent of the subject, i.e. its writer/publisher has does not have a conflict of interest with the subject (such as a family or work link), and (3) deal with the subject in detail, i.e. more than a short sentence. The latter point is usually the most subjective to evaluate. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me}

17:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Finnusertop and Tigraan, your responses are both helpful and intriguing. I understand that quality trumps quantity, and it is handy to know that. The question of how quality is objectively judged for the purposes of assessing notability is the intrigue. My draft entry contains independent sources and the main "quality" source is a trade publishing website/magazine that has covered developments at Green Star Media Ltd over several years. Given that we are a specialist publisher, and we would not be covered in the mainstream media, would there be a better quality source than an established publishing trade magazine? If not the reality must be that the definition of notability in fact is popularity. Surely that can't be right? Rugbyboy2 (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Niche sources are fine; for instance, academic newspapers such as

reliable source noticeboard where folks check such things routinely. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me}

18:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Camelpower (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)  Camelpower  Camelpower (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)