Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 498

Archive 495

Archive 496

Archive 497

Archive 498

Archive 499

Archive 500

→

Archive 505

Copyright Question

I am looking for a portrait of a mid 1800's gentleman for an article. After much searching I understand there is a portrait of him while he was a judge in 1859. This portrait is handing on the wall in the Judge's chambers of a courthouse and I have been unsuccessful at getting permission to enter and photograph it. However, in 1960 a centennial book was written that has a picture of his portrait from 1859 in it. This book is out of print and the author has since died but they can be found in law libraries. What issues do I need to be concerned with if I take a digital picture of the picture in the 1960 book that is a picture of a portrait from 1859? Craig (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Craig.cgc. My answer is based on US standards. If the portrait was originally published before 1923, then the image in the 1960 book is free of copyright and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Otherwise, it can be uploaded here on Wikipedia for use only in the biography of that person, under our policy on use of non-free images, criteria #10. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It's likely the 1859 portrait was commissioned by the State to hang in the courthouse which he presided over. Although I can not be sure, it's unlikely this portrait was published before the inclusion in the 1960 book.

Craig (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

In that case, go with the second option I mentioned. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Side question - what constitutes "publication" in the case of a work of art? Does the act of hanging the original work on a public wall amount to "publication", or is reproduction in a different format (such as a photograph printed in a book) a neccessary precondition for "publication" to have occurred? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The Berne Convention talks of the work being "... "fixed", that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, ...", rather than about publication. David Biddulph (talk) 09:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

From the US government copyright website "To publish a work is to distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. Publication also includes offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication." Nthep (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Nthep, so it's the distribution of copies that is the critical act. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

So it would appear - this is quite a useful primer for US works. In this particular case the portrait itself is now probably public domain assuming the artist, if known, died prior to 1 January 1946. If the original artist is unknown then it is definitely public domain. So anyone who can access the courthouse, can take a photo and licence it accordingly. Appreciating Craig's original comment that he can't get access is why we need to know more about the image in the book, otherwise Cullen's suggestion of loading under NFCC is not a bad idea - although some NFCC purist might argue it fails NFCC#1 in that a free image could be obtained i.e. by getting access to the courthouse. Nthep (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I will be making a trip to the library in the next couple of weeks to evaluate the contents of the 1960 book. I'll report back with my findings. Very helpful information, thanks again. Craig (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all Craig (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I have uploaded the picture to file space and added additional information to it's talk page. Cullen328 Nthep Craig (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Can i create a page about Architectural Magzine which provide information about Architecture community?

I want to create a page named 'Building Giants', which source for the architectural community . Content of Building Giants includes very informative and important information about Conservation of architectural monuments, practicing architecture and design within the legal framework of Indian Government, Gap bridging of Theory and Practical form of architecture and design. Henna Honey (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Henna Honey. Whether or not to create an article about the magazine depends entirely on whether it is Notable in Wikipedia's special sense of the word. This is not about your opinion or mine, not about whether it is famous or important or popular or significant, or even about its quality. It is almost entirely about whether people who have no connection with the magazine have published substantial material about it, and published that in reliable places. If you can find several places where people who have no connection with the magazine have written about it (that excludes anything at all published by the magazine, interviews with its staff, or anything based on press releases from it) and been published by reputable publishers (such as major newspapers or books from reputable publishers), then you could write an article about it. Use the article wizard to create a draft, and then write entirely from what these independent sources have published about it (but in your own words, so as not to infringe their copyright). Do not use any evaluative language (eg never describe anything as "important" or "informative" unless you are quoting an independent source). I suggest you start by reading your first article, and then spend a few weeks improving existing articles, to get the feel for how Wikipedia works, before you embark on the major project that is a new article. Good luck! --ColinFine (talk) 11:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Henna Honey – In addition to ColinFine's answer above, for more information here on Wikipedia, so I would suggest checking out Portal:Architecture for all things "Architecture-related" and also WikiProject Architecture where editors collaborate together creating & improving architecture articles. Cheers! — JoeHebda • (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

References

I'm having trouble with the references in the page I am writing on Eugene Lion. I've nearly fixed the format. The feedback from the reviewer tells me the references are vague. Most are reviews of productions Lion directed or wrote and directed. Two are scholarly comments on one of his plays. I cannot figure out what is wrong with them.Wendy Burton 05:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendyeb (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wendyeb. All that "author unnamed" stuff in your draft is strange and unneeded. We do not point out that some articles are unsigned. But your references lack far more important bibliographic details, such as the titles of the articles. You render names of publications in quotes, while our Manual of style calls for italics. Publications with generic names should include the city of publication. Page numbers should be included if the source is not available online. We do not cite authors just by surname, but include the full author name. You have previously been referred to Referencing for beginners. Please read and study it, and follow its excellent advice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wendyeb This is the same advice I already gave you several days ago at User talk:Dodger67#Request on 22:27:14, 18 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Wendyeb, more than this we cannot do as we don't have access to the sources, you do. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Your signature appears to be broken, Wendyeb. I suspect this is because you have "Treat the above as wiki markup" ticked in your preferences. Try unticking this box. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendyeb (talk • contribs) 05:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I have studied the Referencing for beginners. I continue to study this document. I continue to correct the errors I have made. I asked my questions here because a friendly note from User talk:Dodger67 suggested I might find the Teahouse a friendly place to ask some questions. For example, I have, in my editing, chosen Italics from the choices to render names of publications. In the Read version I see Italics. In the Edit version I see quotation marks. Cullen328 has helpfully pointed out I should be using italics. Thing is, dear friends and helpful editors - I am using italics. Wendy Burton (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest using the visual editor for the time being to add your references? (Instructions to enable it if it isn't already enabled are at the linked page page under big text that says Enable Visual Editor.) While the visual editor can't currently be used for everything and the source editor is still widely preferred, it has a great feature that generates the reference after you put in the correct information. I recommend against using the automatic generation in favor of putting in the information manually. After you put in the information (the form comes up on any page after opening Visual Editor by clicking Edit at the top and then clicking Cite.), click Insert, and then click Insert again. After you're done adding all your citations, click Save page and add an edit summary (such as "added refs"), then click Save. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Help me

I wrotea report for my IT project at school called 'the evolution of mobile phones', it was redirected to 'the history of mobile phones'. I coudnt save it to my computer and i really need it back. PLEASE,PLEASE,PLEASE HELP ME GET IT BACK!

HarrySharples12 (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, HarrySharples12. You can find your school project here. Please be aware that this is a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia, and that anything you contribute will most likely be edited by others. That includes redirects, which was the right thing to do in this case. Please never blank an article in anger. You can be blocked if that behavior contunues. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Is Facebook considered a reliable source?

I have made a page about a social blogger who is a British convert to Islam and want to know if his facebook page is a reliable source of information about him? Socialmediaobserver (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes. Generally if it's basic info that isn't self-serving. See WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 19:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Totally frustated with Wikipedia's bureaucracy ....

Hello there, I am totally frustated with Wikipedia's bureaucratic and "dumb mind set" so it appears, in trying to get an article posted on the Fulwood Barracks site on wiki. It's all too excessively complicated administrative speaking and a procedure nightmare. Clearly I need assistance, is there anyone able to assist please or take ownership. The article refers to the Junior Bandsman's Wing Fulwood Barracks 1961-63

Yours faithfully Charles Dobson Also known as ... CD0060576 CD0060576 (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The article in question is Draft:Junior Bandsman Wing Fulwood Barracks 1961-63. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

First, your draft was declined because it doesn’t have any references. Read Referencing and referencing for beginners, and the verifiability policy and the reliable source policy. Second, you have come to a good place to ask for help, but complaining about bureaucracy and a “dumb mind set” are not helpful; we are willing to overlook those as simply evidence of your frustration. However, the problem, as noted by the reviewer, is that you didn’t provide references. Third, when you ask for someone to “take ownership”, what do you mean? No one has ownership of articles in Wikipedia. If you mean that you need help, you have asked for it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I can appreciate the feeling of frustration for a beginner. I had similar feelings a couple of years ago when I began creating articles for Wikipedia. My initial efforts were rejected, and at one point, I thought, "What's the use?" and gave up.

After a few weeks, I tried again. Several experienced WP editors gave me valuable feedback, which I heeded. I also paid more attention to WP guidelines, especially those regarding references and structure of articles. As I applied what I learned, my work improved and so did my enjoyment of writing and editing on WP. I still have much to learn, but the writing and editing are a lot more fun. Eddie Blick (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Eddie Blick, and thank you for telling your story. I am glad that you continued editing, and please stop by the Teahouse any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Dispute resolution and IP adreass that changes

I made a request for page protection but was told to do Dispute resolution but the IP address that edited the article keeps changing how do i do dispute resolution with a ip address that changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flow234 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Flow234. The first step is to discuss the matter on the article talk page. Have you tried that? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Publishing my First article on Wikipedia

I published an article QueryHome on Wikipedia main-space but the the article has been nominated for deleting now the article is been discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QueryHome. I have replied to the users. Please some one suggest what to be done to make my first article published without been rejected or deleted.

@indra 08:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atindrakn (talk • contribs)

First, you have been asked whether you have a conflict of interest in ownership of the site. If you do, please reply. Second, try to use Google or other means to find independent reliable sources that have described your web site. Third, your article needs copy-editing, and I will be tagging it for that. Fourth, your article has overlinking to ordinary words. Native speakers and writers of English find that distracting. (I don't know if it is helpful to editors for whom English is a second language.) Fifth, I am trying to find guidelines and essays on arguments to use and avoid in deletion discussions. Can someone help me? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Robert McClenon. Please see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The shortcut is WP:ATA. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. That is what I was looking for. It is true that it says more about arguments to avoid than about strong arguments (where it directs to the introduction of the essay), but there are very many ways to make bad arguments. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

how do i delete my page

how do i delete a page i createdPooper pants (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pooper pants and welcome to the Teahouse, I assume you were talking about Charles caluste; which is deleted already(A1, A7, and A11). Next time, you can place {{Db-author}} on your own article if you want to have deletion, Happy Editing. - INVISIBLE^-Talk! 09:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

This editor has been blocked for an inappropriate user name. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Creating new articles

Can I create the Wikipedia page "Wings of Fire: The Dragonet Prophecy"? It's basically the book summary.Mango the RainWing (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mango the RainWing, it depends on how notable the book is. Has it been reviewed by critics? A book article should include a plot summary, but it shouldn't be entirely plot. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mango the RainWing. I suggest that you begin by improving the biography of the author, Tui T. Sutherland. That article lists the "Rings of Fire" series of novels but says nothing else about them. Please read our notability guideline for books. Perhaps an article about the series of books might be appropriate, with a paragraph about each novel. It all depends on the reliable sources that you can find. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination ready to go—now what?

This is my first time being involved with a DYK. It looks like it's ready to go. What's the next step? Who has to do it? Thanks. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 02:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jujutsuan and welcome to the Teahouse. As highlighted by me at that nomination, it needs an independent reviewer to say that it's good to go. After that, and admin will add it to the prep/queue area (not sure how long that will take, it sometimes takes 2 hours and sometimes a few days), where an admin typically checks it again (although it's almost always fine), and then it'll be run when that queue is selected by the bot. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: Thanks! Is there any possibility of it being left too long for review and breaking some time limit rule? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 19:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

No. Once it's nominated, it won't break any kind of limit, no matter how long the review takes. If you nominated within 7 days, as you did, you don't have to worry about time. Nominations don't expire, and it often takes a while for somebody to get to them. However, I got to it. 😊 White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@White Arabian Filly: Thanks. FWIW, I was a creator, not a nominator, but same difference in this case I guess. (?) Anyway, thanks for reviewing the nom. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 11:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Linking a page

Recently I edited a page and I wanted to link other pages in the edit. I added the URL but it didn't come up as the page but the link. How do I fix this ?? Thanks, STHTHEYCHEHE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sththeychehe (talk • contribs) 11:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sththeychehe and welcome to the Teahouse. To link to another Wikipedia article, you put the name of the article in between square brackets ( [[ & ]], for example, [[Wikipedia]] links to our page about Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

First-time Edit: Expanding "Situations and Names of Winds"

I just went through the Wikipedia Adventure tutorial, and I'm excited to start contributing to Wikipedia, as I've benefitted from the site for years. The article I wish to expand is called Situations and Names of Winds which describes an excerpt from Aristotle's treatise of Meteorological Signs. The article is a stub. I first came across the article during my own research, trying to find the complete text. I did eventually source the full text, available online at the Loeb Classical Library website.

My question is this: for the sake of others like me, is it proper for me to copy the full text into the article (with citation, of course)? Since it is available for free, and (I assume) in the public domain, would this violate Wikipedia's guidelines? Should I simply include a link to the external website instead?

Thank you for your help — I'm new to this, and in my attempts to be helpful I want to make sure I'm doing things right! Jared Evans (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Since anything written by Aristotle would undoubtedly be in the public domain, I don't think it's inappropriate to include it. To me, including the original work (only if it's free, of course) just saves people from having to track it down somewhere else. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response! I'll find another article that includes a work's full text as reference for my formatting, and then get to work. Jared Evans (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with White Arabian Filly, Jared. Hosting the text of works is not what Wikipedia is for (if the translation is out of copyright, it could be hosted at Wikisource). A Wikipedia article on the work should summarise what reliable published sources have said about the work. It might quote from it, but the bulk of the article should be about the work, not reproducing the work. --ColinFine (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with ColinFine. The work is pd, which means you won't have to tread carefully in terms of length of quotes, but the article should be a discussion about what secondary sources say about the work, not the work per se. Such a discussion is likely to use quotes, possibly extensive, but it is not likely that the entire work should be included in the article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm just going to clarify that I've never read the work being discussed, and my comment about including the full work was aimed more at short things like songs or poems. Obviously, it's impossible and impractical to include a 10,000 word work in an article. However, I do think it's fine to include the full work, if it's free, in articles like The Star-Spangled Banner. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Deletion policy Bypass

Most of Wikipedia's Physical & Mathematical Articles with Secondary Sources are Completely Wrong because of Deletion Policy's Bypass:

A large number of scientific articles (even with Secondary source) on wikipedia are completely wrong, They bypass Wikipedia's Deletion policy. Wikipedia's scientific articles need to be reviewed by professional scientists, Wikipedia's Secondary source policy was useless in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neophysics (talk • contribs) 16:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Permission to edit Jamaica article

Hello,

I teach composition at a community college in New York State, and one of my students wrote an excellent article on LGBT history in Jamaica. I'm wondering where to place it since I don't have permission to post it to the Jamaica article and that specific subject seems thoroughly covered in another article. Any guidance or permission to post would be helpful. Thank you.

Sarahmander Sarahmander (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sarahmander: You might start by creating it as a draft (Go to Draft:Article name, replacing your article's name after the colon), and from there submitting it for AfC. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 16:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sarahmander. I am sorry, but you cannot add article content written by someone else to Wikipedia. You can only add what you have written yourself. If your student wants to contribute to Wikipedia, then they should consider registering an account and editing themselves. As for the specific content you mention, Jamaica is semi-protected because of problems with vandalism. As you mention, we already have an article LGBT rights in Jamaica, and your student may wish to edit that existing article in compliance with our policies and guidelines, cooperating with other editors interested in that article. We do not create new articles which are redundant and cover the topics of existing articles. Instead, we improve those existing articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The original poster says that she doesn't have permission to edit the Jamaica article. The original poster is an autoconfirmed editor of long standing. The Jamaica article is semi-protected forever (which is a long time, and it should perhaps be considered for unprotection), but that should not stop her from editing it. If she tried to edit it and was unable to do so, she might have been logged out by accident. (General advice to registered editors: If you surprisingly are unable to edit an article, check whether you may be logged out. If so, the semi-protection was good because it prevented the logged out edit and permits a registered edit.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

More generally, as noted above, you should not add article content written by someone else, because they should and may create their own account. In the case of your student, she will need the ten edits and four days to be autoconfirmed, unless the article is unprotected. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Jujutsuan - One should only submit a draft to Articles for Creation if there is not already an existing article. AFC is not for the review of improvement to existing articles. Some editors, in good faith, submit rewritten articles to AFC, but they have to be declined. Please don't advise someone to use AFC for improvements to an existing article. It causes confusion. It is for new articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I must have understood the OP differently from you, thinking "LGBT history in Jamaica" was sufficiently different from "LGBT rights in Jamaica" to possibly get its own article (and not aware of the stub already at that name), in which case AfC would have been appropriate. (I admit I skipped right over the part about it not being the OP's own content; that should have been a red flag.) Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 17:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Deletion Policy Removed Mathematical Proof and Violate Deductive Argument.

Why a Mathematical proof requires Secondary source at Wikipedia!? I think for a Mathematical proof (in math or physics) Primary source is even more than enough!, Because it is base on deductive argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neophysics (talk • contribs) 11:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Neophysics, there are a lot of 'proofs' put out by people/groups (i.e. a Primary source) that others disagree with or find fault with. So a good Secondary source would be need to validate the claim. If no Secondary source exists for a 'proof' then maybe its not valid. Ask any professor of mathematics how many poofs they get sent - I've seen multiple on YouTube (such as on numberphile) that have joked about the number of emails/letters they get claiming to have proven conjectures. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

please note: When something is base on deductive argument, It could NOT be wrong, In any way for example 2 + 2 = 4 {\displaystyle 2+2=4} 2+2=4 could not be wrong because of deductive argument. Neophysics

• Your question was for a "Mathematical proof", 2 + 2 = 4 is not a proof, it is a statement/declaration/definition. If your question is on things that "It could NOT be wrong" then your talking about definitions not something that has a "Mathematical proof". KylieTastic (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I partly agree and partly disagree with User:KylieTastic as to 2+2 = 4. Although for most people, that is simply a memorized fact, it can be proved using the Peano postulates. However, Wikipedia does not publish new mathematical proofs, which are original research. It is true that a mathematical proof "cannot be wrong" if it is correct. However, as noted, many proposed mathematical proofs, especially by amateurs of unsolved conjectures, but even by professional mathematicians, contain subtle (or not-so-subtle) errors, and Wikipedia does not have a peer review process. For a history of how difficult it may be to prove something (which cannot be wrong once proved), see Fermat’s last theorem. Fermat was almost certainly wrong in thinking that he had a proof that would not fit in the margin, but even the first proof by Andrew Wiles contained a subtle error that had to be fixed on the second proof. Wikipedia cannot accept unpublished mathematical proofs because they have not had the formal peer review process of published mathematical proofs. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Updates and corrections to FDR and Polio List in general

I am not sure if this is where to discuss this or not, But, I'm sure you can point me in the right direction. I did some updates because of the new information reaffirming that FDR did have Polio. And, I see that some people are missing from the Polio Survivors List, and need to be added. I hope to be able to do that. Thanks for any help in this matter! OB93 (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, OB93. The general principle is to be bold, and go ahead and improve the encyclopedia, in accordance with our polices and guidelines. You do not need to ask for permission. If anyone objects to your additions, discuss the matter on the list's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Would you consider jacket cover blurbs published material?

My article about poet Bruce Isaacson has been rejected twice. Quotes about him from Allen Ginsberg and Jack Hirshman were published on the back of an Isaacson book, published by Zeitgeist Books, in which Isaacson is a partner, in a publication of 2,000 copies. Would you consider those quotes to be published quotes?Argotmerchant (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Judging from what you say, they are published, but they are not independent, and so cannot be used to establish that Isaacson is notable. Maproom (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Argotmerchant. Relevant to this discussion is the following sentence from our notability guideline for books: "This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book". What you call "jacket cover blubs" is the same as "flap copy". To me, it seems clear that material which cannot be used to establish the notability of a book also cannot be used to establish the notability of the book's author. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

At one point I read the rule about "flap copy," but forgot it. Thanks. Argotmerchant (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Need Your Advice for Draft "CityU MFA"

My first attempt to have my draft titled "CityU MFA" approved is I believe on hold and I wonder whether I am on the right track moving forward.

Originally, I planned to submit partial content of CityU MFA to Wikipedia for approval, and generate more content along the waiting, and once the initial content is approved and the page is published, I could just "edit" and add new content to the page. But this approach appears not a good idea. According to editor Robert's comment (Thank you, Robert for your time reviewing the content.), the amount of content in the draft is too small to become a stand alone article and I should either add the content to an existing page or consult in Teahouse for further inquiries.

So here I am, seeking your advice: Should I come back with the full length draft of CityU MFA? What other options do I have in order to make "CityU MFA" a stand alone page?

Thanks a lot!

Knoxtennessee (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Knoxtennessee. In my opinion, it is not appropriate to have a freestanding article about a university degree program. Instead, degree programs should be listed in the main article about the university. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The article in question is Draft:CityU MFA. As the author noted, there isn't enough content for an article, and, as User:Cullen328 noted, a degree program really doesn't merit a stand-alone article anyway. I don't see the need for a "full length draft" about the degree program. Edit the article on City University of Hong Kong. More information about the controversy about the program and its termination would be useful, but still probably belongs in the parent article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the original poster may, like some other new editors, think that it is important for new editors to create a new article in Wikipedia. While creating new articles, when appropriate, is a very useful contribution to Wikipedia, it is hardly the only way that a new editor can contribute. It is the hardest task for any Wikipedia editor, whether new or experienced, and there are many other ways that new and experienced editors can contribute to Wikipedia. In this case, I would suggest expanding the existing article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Cullen and Robert, I hear you and I can understand your points of view on 1. a degree program should belong to its university's page 2. a new editor has other ways to contribute than creating a new page. I also would like to point out that when a degree program impacts the global scholar communities in ways that no other programs have experienced, it is worth to be encyclopedia-ed for future references. One example is Article: Iowa's Writers' Workshop. The page is not only allowed to be a stand alone page but also to be with ambiguously written content. Why was this article allowed to be a freestanding page, instead of being listed on the university's page? I am asking because CityU MFA is in many ways as notable as this Iowa Writers' Workshop but different in ways which are/will be (when I finish the draft) backed up by independent sources such as CNN, the Guardian and other major media links on the program as well as prizes and awards won by graduates and faculty. I ask you to reconsider your opinion on my proposal to come back with a fully written draft and allow room for discussion to help it become a stand alone page. Thanks. Knoxtennessee (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

First, the Iowa Writers’ Workshop article establishes specific ways that the workshop is notable, that it is not just a degree-granting program of a university, although it is that, but that it makes significant contributions to culture. Second, however, the argument that a particular article exists, known as Other Stuff Exists, has never been considered a solid argument for creating or accepting an article or for keeping an article that has been nominated for deletion. Third, you complain that the Iowa Writers’ Workshop article is allowed "with ambiguously written content". If you think that the article has ambiguously written content, discuss that on the article talk page. That isn’t relevant to whether another article should be accepted. Fourth, you state that "when a degree program impacts the global scholar communities in ways that no other programs have experienced, it is worth to be encyclopedia-ed for future references." You haven’t made a case that the program in question impacts the global scholar communities. In fact, you said that the university cancelled the program for unsubstantiated reasons. If you have evidence that this had a global impact, you haven’t included it in your draft. If you have a long discussion in mind, then maybe you should have committed some of those thoughts to writing before submitting a two-sentence draft to be reviewed and declined. Fifth, you don’t need our permission to "come back with a fully written draft and allow room for discussion to help it become a stand alone page." In fact, it seems that you have your mind made up that you will do that, and it is your privilege to come back with a longer draft. You don’t need our permission. As I said, it isn’t clear why you submitted a very short stub draft if you think that you can develop a longer draft. A longer draft might or might not warrant acceptance as a stand-alone article. If you know what you are planning to do, just do it rather than asking our permission when you don’t need permission.

Every general rule has the occasional exception, Knoxtennessee, and the Iowa Writer's Workshop is a perfect example. It has operated for 80 years and 17 of its alumni have won Pulitzer Prizes. Six US Poet Laureates are also alumni. It is the only university degree program to have won the National Humanities Medal. It is the subject of significant coverage in a wide variety of reliable sources for many decades. So, if you can prove comparable notability for this discontinued program in Hong Kong, please go ahead. I am always happy to change my mind when presented with solid evidence. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

that was not a new article,rather a correction to an existing one?

i did not submit a new article, only corrected an existing articleKbmnj (talk) 07:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. In this edit you submitted your User sandbox to the Article for creation procedure, which is a process for new articles, not for updates to existing articles. Your submission was, however, blank, so contained neither a new article nor a suitable change to any existing article. I have added a few useful links in a welcome message on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Alternative Accounts?

I have an alternate account called Nomromex which I would like to get registered as a Legitimate Alternative Account (LAA). My question is: Do both accounts have to be autoconfirmed in order to get permission on the Wikipedia:Request for Permissions/Confirmed page for this issue? User:13aunihert (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi 13aunihert, welcome to the Teahouse. There is no process to get registered as a legitimate alternative account. You just have to follow the rules at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Wikipedia:Request for permissions/Confirmed is about something else. Were you by any chance confused by the last sentence in Wikipedia:FAQ#How do I change the name of an article? That only applies if you want to rename a page on your own. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes I was. I will have a read of the rules at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry now. Thank you. User:13aunihert (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia & Echo Chamber as Secondary Sources

Some people in America pushed a narrative to media to sell their works (usually united States Democrtic Party), It called Echo chamber, For some reasons Wikipedia is not able to notice the difference between Echo Chamber and Secondary Sources. So they pushed a narrative to media to sell it and Wikipedia buy it!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neophysics (talk • contribs) 10:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Neophysics: This is not a question, and it appears to be trolling. Please stop. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the other two posts on this page by that editor were trolling. This is actually a legitimate criticism (however, I don't see how the US Democratic Party is relevant). The media echo chamber does pose a very real problem for Wikipedia, because quite often editors are unable to distinguish between fluff news sources and real scholastic sources on a topic. This appears to be especially true in the sciences. "Science reporting" is all but dead, to the extent that even otherwise respectable media outlets can no longer be trusted to report scientific information accurately. A few months back, I tried to firm up the WP:RS guideline on this point, but unfortunately there was no consensus. Sławomir
Biały 11:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Help editing my article for resubmission

Hello, I need help editing my article "Grand Rapids Community Foundation" so I can resubmit it. It was declined the first time because of a lack of reliable secondary sources and because of promotional tone. I have added more secondary sources so I am hoping it will be able to be accepted. I am looking for opinions on whether it is better now, and on how I can make it less "promotional." I took some content from the organization's website, but they are all facts that describe the organization so I don't believe they are too promotional. Please help!

Nicwin10 (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd advise against taking content from their website, not least because it's a copyright violation. That said, the article is in a better state than it was previously. You should probably rewrite (at the least) the section on their values etc, as it reads like it's pasted directly from a website and the format doesn't work well in an encyclopedia. This essay might be of interest. KieranTribe 14:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nicwin10. I would go much further than KieranTribe. Your article is almost completely promotional and needs a complete rewrite. I estimate that about 90% of the current content is either overtly promotional, or copied directly from the group's website. A Wikipedia article about an organization should include negligible information from the group's website. Perhaps the name of the current executive directors, the city where it is located, and a handful of other completely uncontroversial facts are OK. A Wikipedia article should instead summarize what reliable sources completely independent of the group say. Such sources might include newspapers and magazines published in Grand Rapids, Chicago and Detroit. A clear majority of your sources are to the group's own website, which is not acceptable. A statement like "The foundation envisions a magnetic and interconnected West Michigan community" is overtly promotional, not at all neutral, and does not belong in an encyclopedia. This sentence: "Grand Rapids Community Foundation embraces the fact that today’s complex problems require intense attention and may result in “messy” work in seeking out ways to address issues" is copied directly from the source but not shown as a quote. Accordingly, you are representing that as your original writing, when it was written by someone else. That is not allowed. Even if it was your writing, it is promotional and does not belong. Please start from scratch, after reading Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, do you have an association with the Grand Rapids Community Foundation? (When an editor focuses all of their editing efforts on a single organization, some editors wonder whether there is an association.) If so, you must provide the conflict of interest disclosure and possibly the paid editing disclosure. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Page Content/Copyright

Duplicate question, answered six questions below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, about 3 months ago I made a page titled "Matt Pitt" and it was deleted due to copyright and it cited Matt Pitt's bio on google plus as the source of the copyright problem. However, I made both pages and used the same content on both...The information I used on both the Google Plus page and the Wikipedia page have cited information from other sources therefore, do I have the right to "donate" the google plus page? Is there a way to be able to get my page for Matt Pitt back on Wikipedia? Thank you in advance for your help! Koglesby17 (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

How to create a wiki page for a company or website service not as advertisement?

Hi,

I have seen there are many wikipedia pages about companies and websites, and I understand that Wikipedia doesn't allow for advertisement of business. But what makes a company wiki page not an advertisement? I tried to create a wiki page for my own website, and included many facts that would be interesting and useful for the website users. However, I received a message saying that it is an advertisement and would be deleted soon.

I would greatly appreciate advice from expert editors about how to create a wiki page for a website which is informative to readers, and not an advertisement.

Thanks! Richard Asteriago (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You need to find sources that discusses your company/website that are independent of you. It can not be press releases that you have given out about your company. These sources need to provide significant coverage also. I looked at your deleted article and there is a strong possibility that a website created in June 2016 will not have the coverage necessary to create an article. -- GB fan 14:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Asteriago, To add on to my previous comment. Here are some pages you should read.

Wikipedia:Your first article

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide

Wikipedia:Notability (web)

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

Hope these help. -- GB fan 14:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, do you have an association with Flairar.com? If so, you must provide the conflict of interest disclosure and possibly the paid editing disclosure. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Since Asteriago said in his original post "I tried to create a wiki page for my own website", he obviously has an association with Flairar.com, it is his website. -- GB fan 19:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Bascially, Richard, Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything at all said by the subject of an article about themselves, or said about them by their friends, relatives, associates, agents, or employees. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have published about it. If you find articles about companies (or any other subject) that seems to be based largely on what the subject has said or wants to say, you are welcome to clean it up, or to tag it for cleanup: see WP:Cleanup process. --ColinFine (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem

Hi, about 3 months ago I made a page titled "Matt Pitt" and it was deleted due to copyright and it cited Matt Pitt's bio on google plus as the source of the copyright problem. However, I made both pages and used the same content on both...The information I used on both the Google Plus page and the Wikipedia page have cited information from other sources therefore, do I have the right to "donate" the google plus page? Is there a way to be able to get my page for Matt Pitt back on Wikipedia? Thank you in advance for your help! Koglesby17 (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You need to read the notice on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thank you I just read it...one more question. The information I used on both the Google Plus page and the Wikipedia page have cited information from other sources therefore, do I have the right to "donate" the google plus page?Koglesby17 (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

If you hold the copyright on the material on the Google Plus page, then you may donate it; but I don't know whether or not that is the case. It wouldn't surprise me if Google's conditions said that you assign them the copyright when you post: but maybe not. What sources you cited does not affect copyright, as copyright inheres in the words (images, designs), not the information. --ColinFine (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, if you do have the copyright to information on a web site, and you do properly release the copyright under a CC-BY-SA license, so that it can be used on Wikipedia, that does not necessarily mean that it will be considered appropriate for Wikipedia. The reason is that information on private web sites is often written promotionally, but that Wikipedia require that material be written from a neutral point of view. So, a proper copyright release under CC-BY-SA means that the material will not be deleted as copyright violation, but it may be deleted as promotional or tagged for editing to achieve neutral point of view. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Help with my editing so I won't look dumb on my next post.

For the levels do I have to put in = =level 2== or can I just do = =early life== and same question for bolding do I have to put " "bold"" to make t he next word bold or do I just put the quotations around the word and automatically becomes bolded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butmynameismark (talk • contribs) 21:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Butmynameismark. See Help:Wiki markup for all of this. The hyphens are just for headings in the article. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

All you have to do is type ==SHAT==, or '''MONGOOSE''', hopefully those place-holders are absurd enough to prove the point. Cheers. TimothyJosephWood 01:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The Ramones Logo

Hello- I submitted a question last week, got an answer and now I cannot find that answer. Re: original post: I am advocating the change or update of The Ramones logo on their page to better show who the ending members of the band were, which includes Tommy, Johnny, Joey and DeeDee. Marky left the band due to alcoholism and anger over t-shirt sales. This was how the band played their last show.

How and where can I argue to have this changed?

Watermelonfree (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Watermelonfree. Please propose this change at Talk: Ramones. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Watermelonfree. The question you previously posted at the Teahouse can be found at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 496#I'm trying to edit a logo. Questions are automatically archived after a certain period of time, but the archives can be searched. Just input a keyword into the "Question archived?" box located near the top of this page, and then click "Go find it!". Sometimes the best keyword for a question you have asked is your username. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

What's a good source?

Hi, I was wondering-is Goodreads a good source for writing an article? If not, could you please tell me some good sources? Thanks, Mango the RainWingMango the RainWing (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mango the RainWing. The content at Goodreads, like the content at Wikipedia itself, is user submitted. Accordingly, Goodreads is not a reliable source for a Wikipedia article about a book, just as one Wikipedia article is not a reliable source for another Wikipedia article. We are looking for sources with professional editorial control, and a good reputation for literary criticism. As an American, I am familiar with sources like the New York Review of Books, the book review sections of major newspapers like the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and so on. Then, there are "highbrow" magazines like The Atlantic and the New Republic. There are also an abundance of literary and poetry journals, many university affiliated, that have very good reputations. My list is by no means comprehensive and is admittedly US-centric, but instead is intended to give you the broad outlines of what we expect in reliable sources regarding books. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen. I'll keep that in mind! Wishing you clear skies and strong wind, Mango the RainWingMango the RainWing (talk) 01:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Photo quality

Hi,

I uploaded a high quality JPEG (of an organization's logo), yet it becomes very pixelated when I insert it into the Infobox. What am I doing wrong?

Thank you.

MountainStar00 (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Like this. That's odd. It doesn't look pixelated to me, but I see a gray horizontal stripe across the middle, that shouldn't be there. I doubt you have done anything wrong. I suspect the software that converts the image on Commons to the smaller one displayed here is malfunctioning. I wonder if the organization can supply an SVG instead of a JPG, that might work better. Maproom (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

And now the stripe has gone. I am mystified. Maproom (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, MountainStar00. I am concerned about the licensing. All files on Wikimedia Commons need to be freely licensed for use by anyone for any purpose without permission. Why would an organization want to lose control of its logo? I suggest uploading instead to Wikipedia under our policy on use of non-free images, criteria #2. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328. Thank you! The policy on use of non-free images is precisely what I need for this. I'm unsure how to delete the original image, but I will try to upload the image under that non-free image policy within a couple of days. Thanks again for your help.

MountainStar00 (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, MountainStar00. Although I sometimes donate images to Wikimedia Commons, I am not at all an expert on their procedures. I am sure that they have a help desk which you can find on the menu on the left side of their home page. I am confident that the volunteers there can assist you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I accidentally left my Draft: title in my post what should I do to fix this?

I accidentally left the draft before my title in my heading is there a script or wiki text I could use to fix this in the editing or is this permanent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butmynameismark (talk • contribs) 00:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Butmynameismark. I'm not exactly sure what your question is, but you seem to be asking about Draft:Connor Scott (a.k.a the Lemon Gamer). The word "Draft" in the title indicates that the page is still located within the draft namespace; in other words, it is not a Wikipedia article just yet. The word can be removed from the title by simply moving the page to the article namespace. I don't, however, suggest you do this because it will almost surely lead to the "article" being tagged for speedy deletion per WP:A7. It seems like you might be understanding what Wikipedia is all about, so I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything and Wikipedia:Your first article. If you are unable to show that the subject of your draft satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (people), there is very little chance of it being accepted as an article. If you feel that the subject is notable enough (per relevant Wikipedia guidelines) for an article, then I submit your draft via Wikipedia:Articles for creation instead of directly adding it to Wikipedia yourself. Experienced editors review drafts submitted via the AfC process and they will provide you with feedback on what is needed for the draft to be accepted by Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Game pages, company pages, and me

Hi! In the already existing page Terraforming in Popular Culture, there is a list of games covering the topic of terraforming. All these games have links to wikipedia pages about the games. My company will release a game called Terraforming Mars in August, which will be the most recent game covering the topic, and I think it should be mentioned in the list. But it feels strange to just add it without a reference to a wikipedia article about it. So I though I might create that page first. However, as I created my account on Wikipedia, I was informed that I should not create articles about me or my company (or anything I am closely connected to). What should I do? Lord Aethan (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lord Aethan. You are right, as a connected person, you should not try to create an article about the game. Moreover, no-one should try to create an article about it until it is notable, which within the context of Wikipedia means there is significant discussion of it in reliable independent published sources. This is most unlikely to happen until after it has been released. Maproom (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

But I would still be able to add the game as an entry in the original list as a game in which Terraforming is covered, without any link to an own article? It seems to me that the list in the article "Terraforming in Popular Culture" would be improved by adding the game, even without a page of its own. Lord Aethan (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

No. Lists should be lists of existing articles. You can submit a draft about the game via Articles for Creation, which will be reviewed, but you must provide the conflict of interest disclosure and probably the paid editing disclosure. However, it is very unlikely that the draft will be accepted before the game is released. Also, an unreleased game can hardly be said to be part of "Terraforming in Popular Culture". Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your answers. I understand better now. However, the current list holds one item that is not an existing article ("Terraform") and one that was never released at all ("SimMars"). Both these contradict your answer. But I will not pursue this until the game is released.Lord Aethan (talk) 06:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Uploading information about an organisation

Please advise how I create a page or article about an organisation for people with dementia 101.166.102.25 (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

First collect your sources - such as news and magazine articles about the organisation, this is important, sources that do not specifically discuss the organisation itself are no good. Then you read the Your first article guide and let the Article wizard take you through the steps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)