Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 501

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 495←Archive 499Archive 500Archive 501Archive 502Archive 503→Archive 505

COI questions

I am updating information that is currently public knowledge and I received a conflict of interest flag. Please advise TimGordon2016 (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TimGordon2016. The advice depends on whether you have a potential conflict of interest with the Black Reel Awards, so can I ask whether you have any relationship with them? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I do, but I'm not adding any narrative information other that that which has already been previously reported. TimGordon2016 (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello TimGordon2016. You have created a series of new articles related to various years of the Black Reel Awards. Assuming that you are the Tim Gordon who founded these awards, you have a clear conflict of interest and should not be creating new content about the awards without going through the Articles for creation process. Please read about the mandatory paid editing disclosure and comply if it is applicable in your case. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I read the paid editing disclosure and still don't understand the confusion. The information that I "created," already existed on Wikipedia under a different name. I simply changed the format/presentation to link all the pages under the 17 years of our awards, simply using the pre-existing information.

Once again, everything that I "created" already currently exists on Wikipedia. TimGordon2016 (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@TimGordon2016: You removed Sabrina McNeal from "The Black Reel Awards were founded by Tim Gordon and Sabrina McNeal in 2000".[1] She is called co-founder in [2] and your partner in [3]. I don't know her precise role but you certainly have a conflict of interest when you remove her without discussion and declare yourself (I guess from your username) the only founder. You copied 17 articles to new titles and added infoboxes like [4]. We don't make two nearly identical articles about the same subject. The existing articles should have been edited instead, and possibly moved to another name. Your copies also omitted attribution of the source of the copied text as required by Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I will redirect your copies to the old articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I have redirected 16 copies and moved 17th Annual Black Reel Awards to Black Reel Awards of 2017 to follow the existing naming system. The infoboxes you added can be found in the page histories of the redirects: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. Click the time stamp of your revision and then the "Edit" tab to reach the code. You are allowed to copy the infobox code to the existing articles but please try to make correct links. A red link indicates the linked title does not exist but the subject may have an article with another name. A blue link indicates the title does exist but in many cases it is about something else and the link should be corrected. For example, Pariah is not about a film. The link should say ''[[Pariah (2011 film)|Pariah]]'' to produce Pariah which links to Pariah (2011 film). The apostrophes make italics as Wikipedia uses for film titles. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
You are creating new articles with a conflict of interest when you have not gone through the Articles for Creation process, TimGordon2016. I am in complete agreement with PrimeHunter who has clearly studied your edits carefully. In my opinion, this is a very bad idea and I encourage you to stop. Comments by other experienced editors are welcomed. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Even if the material already exists on Wikipedia, as TimGordon2016 states, then creating new articles with it might be seen as promotional. I'm not sure why these articles were being created through copy-pasting from existing articles. Was this an attempt to move them to new titles? On a related note, there are rather a lot of articles about these awards (see Category:Black Reel Awards). I don't know them, so I am perhaps underestimating their importance, but I wonder if this is justified. Many of the articles rely on single sources (such an IMDB, which is not generally considered reliable). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Editors above have mentioned several reasons why TimGordon2016 should not copy existing articles to create new articles. Another reason is copyright infringement: those existing articles are credited (in their edit histories) to their creators and contributors, and TimGordon2016 has been copying their work without giving them due credit. Maproom (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Let me attempt to clear up the confusion, I am simply attempting to clean up the existing structure of "Black Reel Awards of X year," by changing it to say "1st Annual, 2nd Annual," etc. I am the copyright holder and awards creator, so in essence I would be the person. This is not a "promotional stunt," just an effort to bring more clarity to the work that we have done and are currently performing. I will add Sabrina McNeal's name back as co-creator and let me know if I am not allowed to participate in editing the brand that bears my business stamp.. TimGordon2016 (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
In addition, could you please change the heading back to "1st Annual," etc., instead of the Black Reel Awards of X year. That would be my stated preference. TimGordon2016 (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Instructions on how to move a page are given at Wikipedia:Moving a page, TimGordon2016, but since you have a close connection with the subject, you need to follow the advice at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#COI editing strongly discouraged and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Declaring an interest. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, TimGordon2016. Thank you for agreeing to restore McNeal; but the fact that you removed her in the first place points up the problem with editing with a COI. As various people have indicated, you are discouraged from editing any page in which you have a COI, but not forbidden; but you are strongly advised (and if you are in any way paid in connection with the award, required) to declare this fact, and so far I do not see such a declaration on either your user page or the talk pages of the articles.
The only right that you have in respect of the articles about your brand is the same right that everybody else has: that the articles be accurate according to reliably published sources, and conform to Wikipedia policies. (You do not control either the content or the title of the articles.) One of those policies is that the title of an article should be that most often used in reliable published sources about the subject, whether that is the "official" name or not. If I look at all 17 articles about the individual years, I find precisely three references which use the "xxth Annual" format - the USA today reference in 2006, and the Black Reel references in 2015 and 2016. I also don't find that form of words on http://blackreelawards.com/about/ itself. In my view, this does not add up to enough information that would allow an uninvolved editor to conclude that that is what the articles should be called, certainly not before 2014.
This also points up another problem with those articles: in the entire 17 articles, I find precisely one source that appears to be both reliable and independent: that USA Today article. All the rest are either IMDB (which is not a reliable source, as it is user-generated) or not independent (Black Reel's own sites, or, in one case, a piece by one of the voters on the award - and some of the Black Reel sources are blogs, which are not usually regarded as reliable). This means that only one of the articles (Black Reel Awards of 2006) makes any attempt to establish notability of its subject, and they should probably all be deleted (and part of their content folded back into the main article), unless independent reliable sources can be found for each one, establishing its notability.
The fact that you hold the copyright in the awards is of no relevance to Wikipedia. What people are talking about is the licence under which all text added to Wikipedia is automatically licensed, which allows it to be reused by anybody for any purpose but requires it to be attributed. Copying within Wikipedia is rarely appropriate (to change the title of an article, it should be moved), but if it is done, the origin must be attributed. If you have copied text without attributing it, even within Wikipedia, you have violated Wikipedia's copyright. --ColinFine (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I have two comments at this point. First, the original poster, User:TimGordon2016, has added a large number of redlinks to the article in question, Black Reel Awards. The redlinks are distracting. If they are planning to create the articles, they should be aware that conflict of interest will be a problem for many of the non-existent articles. If they are not planning to create the articles, I would suggest that they discuss on the article talk page whether there is community consensus to keep the redlinks as a request that the articles be created. Second, other editors here have tried to point out that conflict of interest is a critical policy and that they are disregarding it with excuses. My observation here is that they just didn't hear that. Try listening to the other editors who are cautioning you. You are setting yourself up for a block. Pause and reconsider. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Geetashree Rajkhowa

I reviewed Draft:Geetashree Rajkhowa and declined it, primarily on notability grounds, and also because of issues with the tone of some portions. User:Mizee.singer then posted:

The reference I have taken, is from a news paper and a magazine website. And the rest are media websites. I think I have fulfilled Wikipedia's notability criteria. Please let me know if you are looking for anything specific. I have a few certificates and a few paper cuttings which might help.

Do other experienced editors think that the notability has been established and that the tone issues have been addressed? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion

I wrote a bio about someone named Justin Mateen and it is being considered for deletion. I have cited sources and tried to write from an unbiased perspective, can you help me figure out if it up to par with wiki's standards? Also, I'd like to remove the notification that it is being reviewed for deletion ASAP so do you know which issues I have to clear up before I can do that? Scorpionking4lyfe (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Scorpionking4lyfe: the concern is that the sources used aren't sufficient in number and/or reliable enough to establish his notability Either you find more or you make the case at the deletion discussion that the ones present are reliable and that he is notable. It doesn't become any easier when you consider that an article about Mateen has previously been deleted. In answer to your last point, do NOT remove the notification from the page, that is a mandatory notice so that anyone who sees the article is aware of the deletion discussion. If the article is kept then the closing admin will remove the tag. Nthep (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Grosvenor Trophy

Maproom wasn't able to find a website for this trophy and this is true; we have a page on our website, which is being developed ( 3Rs ). I'll do what I can to improve its searchability

Petechilcott (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

For those not in the know, this appears to be a follow-up to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 499#Adding data without verifiable sources, which is about Grosvenor Cup. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and the user that you attempted to ping is Maproom, Petechilcott. Usernames are case sensitive, so [[USer:MAproom|Maproom]] won't have worked. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Right, it didn't. :-) Maproom (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, chums. This Wikipedia lark needs a careful touch! Petechilcott (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Just another thing, Petechilcott: you probably won't get a response if you post a follow-up message to an archived help page, as you did here. You're better off posting a new message on the active version of the page along with a link to the original discussion in the archive, as I did above. Alternatively, you could cut and paste the relevant section out of the archive and on to the current active version of the page. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Cordless Larry Thank you for the guidance. If only my other issues were so easy to resolve. Petechilcott (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Petechilcott: you have given a link above to a web site for the Grosvenor Trophy. This is, I think, a reliable published source, but is not independent of its subject. It therefore cannot be cited in support of the subject's notability, but can be cited for statements about recent winners of the Trophy. (We at Wikipedia aren't bothered about its searchability – it is accessible to the public, and therefore qualifies as "published".) Maproom (talk) 09:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Maproom: That's very helpful and I'm grateful for your advice. Petechilcott (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

My page, which is primarily an autobiography, got deleted for not having references.

My page got deleted and I'd really like to get it back. Boo Hoo.

How do I reference an autobiography?

William Elt "Bill" ThorntonMayorsat (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Mayorsat, and welcome to the Teahouse. Is the article concerned William E. "Bill" Thornton? If so, it hasn't been deleted. Instructions on referencing are at Help:Referencing for beginners, but you also need to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I suggest following the instructions there on declaring your conflict of interest and requesting changes to the article on its talk page, rather than editing it directly yourself. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I am confused and lost!

I cannot find my page.

I cannot converse on my User talk:Mayorsat page.

I'm not the smartest man in the world but I'm also not the dumbest.

I feel completely helpless and unable to get my page corrected and back up.

William Elt "Bill" Thornton

MayorsatMayorsat (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I provided a link to the page above, Mayorsat. Just click on that to navigate to it. Your user talk page is at User talk:Mayorsat. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi folks,

I'm trying to add an external reference to my draft page and cannot get it to show up right.

In this external links section the last link, to The Open Mind, is not coming out right, but the first two are ok and their links are working fine. The last one is showing the whole ugly web address and brackets.


Here's how it is written. I've followed the same convention for all three, but the third one is not working.

Genocide with Impunity, July 2, 2016]

What is wrong with this third link?? Many thanks for any input!InnerOstrich (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, InnerOstrich. I think the line break between "Koenig:" and "Genocide" is breaking the formatting. Try deleting it. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I have removed the line break and the pipes in the draft.[5] PrimeHunter (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
it worked! Thanks so much guys! InnerOstrich (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

template requesting inclusion of material from foreign Wikipedia article?

I'd like to make a section of one en.wikipedia article (enabling a better redirect target) regarding a subtopic which appears to be covered in more depth in another separate article in de.wikipedia. I also seem to recall seeing, in yet another article, an introductory template that said something more-or-less like "more material available in this foreign-language wikipedia article, please consider translating that material and adding to this article." Am I hallucinating? If not, which template should I use? (And, FWIW, my German is not so good that I can do the translation myself and just add the available material to the section I want to make.)

TIA, Tlroche (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tlroche and welcome to the Teahouse. To suggest a translation of an article from German language Wikipedia, you can use Template:Expand German. In general, to request translation from any language to English, you can use Template:Expand language. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Joseph2302 for your prompt assistance. That template is now in use @ new redirect/section=CommonMark. Tlroche (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Added a source to the page -Wittyfeed

I added a source from Factor Daily to the page WittyFeed but a template was put on it, citing it as a unreliable source. Why so? Narender Charan (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Narender Charan. Have you discussed the matter with the editor who placed the tag? If not, I suggest you begin by doing that. The best place to discuss the reliability of a source is the Reliable sources noticeboard. Do you by chance have any connection with this company? If so, you have a conflict of interest and should comply with that policy carefully. If you are an employee or subcontractor of that company, please make the mandatory paid editing disclosure. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

how to avoid advertising language?

Hi, Teahouse. I sent my article for submition review and got a comment that an article might seem as promoting and advertising. I rewrite it already severals time, trying to remain it in a neutral manner, but failed again evidently. Could you please help me spot some "non-neutral" words or phrases so to avoid them in future? I read a lot of literature pertaining this topic already, but still cant single out my mistakes. Looking forward for an advice. Thanks in advance. Palefacer456 (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, for starters, the Privacy and Security section is clearly meant to be promotional. There is nothing encyclopedic about: 'By using Roundme Service, a user agrees to "Term and Conditions" in full. These "Terms and Conditions" govern the use of the Roundme Service or any applications made available by Roundme and include description of user`s content, account as well as limitations and exclusions.' It is entirely addressed to customers and not to the reading public. That is my first comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

One of my recent edits on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Heights_Educational_Group was removed stating that amazon.com link cannot be referenced as external link. I believe that I have seen books being linked as external link in other Wikipedia pages. I am confused as to what are the restrictions for including external links. please help. Atchopra (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Atchopra. As the article isn't about a book, I'm not sure why you would want to include an external link to a book. If you meant to include it as a reference or as a further reading suggestion, then just list the details of the book (see Help:Referencing for beginners), including its ISBN. There's no need to link to Amazon. 18:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Atchopra (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Here are some additional thoughts, Atchopra. Amazon is in the business of selling books (and many other things), and an Amazon book listing is overtly an advertisement for that book. Accordingly, linking to Amazon is seen by many editors as promotional spam. Google Book listings, on the other hand, provide more neutral bibliographic information about a given book. Book citation templates include a URL field, so if you want to include a link, I suggest Google Books instead of Amazon. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks User:Cullen328 Makes sense. Atchopra (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Birthday Girl

I reviewed Draft:Birthday Girl and declined it as reading like an advertisement. User: Jones22n then posted to my talk page:

Hi, what exactly about this page reads like an advertisement? Is it the facebook mention?

Do other editors think that the draft has a promotional tone, or that it doesn’t establish notability? I think that the focus on corporate philanthropy, which is nearly half of the article, establishes a promotional tone. Do other editors have other opinions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

A promotional tone in such a brief draft article can be corrected by a few minutes of editing by someone uninvolved. My concern about your draft, Jones22n, is that the references in the article fail to establish that the venture is notable, as Wikipedia defines that term. None of the references are independent, which means sources completely unaffiliated with the topic. We require evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources which are completely independent of the topic. It seems unlikely that a company that recently raised $17,000 through Kickstarter would qualify. I own a small business that has generated millions of dollars in revenue and which has actually received some independent coverage, but would never try to write a Wikipedia article about my own business. I have a conflict of interest regarding my business, and so do you if you are affiliated with this company. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Teahouse,

Warm Greetings to all of you.

Required some assistance with my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Asha_Mandapa

The error message received was as follows... "Citations are all grouped together in a single ref, making it impossible to tell what information comes from which

source. Please review our requirements for inline citations and adjust the references accordingly. Thank you."

Please kindly advise me on how to proceed.

I do not have inline citations. I just want to mention the references in a list at the end of the article.

Warm Regards, Design Hub Team Reflectionsdesignhub (talk) 10:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Without inline citations the reader doesn't know which reference (if any) supports which of the text in the article, so it would be extremely unlikely that your draft would be approved for publication. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Help:Referencing for beginners has appropriate advice and guidance for you here, Reflectionsdesignhub. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

How to add images to a wikipedia page

Dear Teahouse,

Required some assistance with my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Asha_Mandapa

How do i add images to this page?

Warm Regards Reflectionsdesignhub (talk) 10:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

To use an image that's already available at Wikimedia Commons, you add [[File:filename.jpg|thumb|caption goes here]] to the article, replacing "filename.jpg" by the name the file has there. To use an image not on Wikimedia Commons, but free from copyright restrictions, you start by uploading it there. If the image is restricted by copyright, you generally won't be able to use it. Maproom (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
However, Reflectionsdesignhub, it will be advisable to concentrate on the referencing of Draft:Asha_Mandapa, before you spend time on adding images. None of the references now at the foot of the draft helps to establish that she is notable, in the sense in which that word is used in Wikipedia. Unless the draft shows that she is notable, it will never be accepted as an article, and the time you spend on the images will be wasted. Maproom (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyrighted fair use photo not in use in published article

File:Thomas Russell is a copyrighted fair use photo that I uploaded about a week ago. It was immediately tagged for deletion as not being used in a published article. I gave an short explanation in the file section describing it was being used in an article under construction. I gave a detailed explanation of it’s history and use on the talk page. Despite this the file was deleted. I requested a undelete yesterday and it was granted. I now see the file is again scheduled for deletion on 7/11 with the instructions “use it or lose it”. Additionally the talk page was not undeleted and is missing.

I understand I can wait until my article is published to upload this file for inclusion post publishing. I would prefer if someone was to explain what the issue is. Perhaps this automated system of deletion is…….well…….too automated? Craig (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria requires that the image be used in at least one article, so you need to wait until the article exists before you upload a non-free image. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@Craig.cgc: I have commented it out in your sandbox.[6] Fair use images are only allowed in mainspace by WP:NFCCP point 9. I am a volunteer editor and not a lawyer but I guess the Wikimedia Foundation is more at risk of being sued for copyright violations if they don't make and enforce policies against it. They do get takedown requests per the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act. I have also removed the incorrect claim that the image is used in Thomas Russell.[7] PrimeHunter (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank You PrimeHunter Craig (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

as far as I know all images uploaded to Wikipedia must be copyright-free but in articles: Winx Club, The Loud House, Ben & Holly's Little Kingdom, Dora and Friends: Into the City! all these images they include are copyrighted. which really confused me especially this one File:Winx Club Logo.png because this site http://www.karusel-tv.ru/announce/14729 which is the source this image was obtained from clearly has the copyright sign at the bottom

anyways does that mean that I can upload copyright images to Wikipedia if it is a logo?

shorouq★kadair 👱 (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Super ninja2. Wikipedia has a strong preference for copyright-free images. But there is a limited scope for non-free images, as long as their use meets all the conditions in the Non-free content criteria. Logos are often used in this way, as are album and book covers. --ColinFine (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Updating "Destination Hotels & Resorts" Wikipedia Page Name to New Brand Name - "Destination Hotels"

Hi Teahouse,

Destination Hotels & Resorts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destination_Hotels_%26_Resorts) has been rebranded to simply "Destination Hotels" for about a year now. I have been able to update the name in the description, however running into issues with updating the page name itself.

Is this something your could help me update? Not sure if this is a edit-level access issue or something else. For confirmation/verification you can refer to their website - https://www.destinationhotels.com

Please let me know if you are able to assist, or if you need anthing else

Thank You!

Nick H

Nickthopkins (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Nickthopkins: I have moved the article to Destination Hotels for you. Maproom (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Great! Thank you SO much Maproom!

Nickthopkins (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

how do I submit a draft which I hope is ready for inclusion in your encyclopedia?

how do I submit a draft which I hope is ready for inclusion in your encyclopedia? In particular: Draft:Michale Boganim. Drdreycup (talk) 02:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Drdreycup. You can submit drafts via Wikipedia:Articles for creation if you like. Experienced editors will review your draft and make suggestions on how to improve it so that it is suitable for article status. All you have to do is click on the blue "Submit your draft for review!" button located in the template at the top of the draft. My suggestion, however, is that you take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article and possibly do the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure to learn a little more about writing articles first because Draft:Michale Boganim does not look ready for an upgrade to article status just yet. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi from me too, Drdreycup and welcome to the Teahouse! I see that almost all of your draft had to be removed because it was copyright violation. So you need to begin again, gradually building it up. This is a notable director. I have added several articles to the external links section which will allow you to expand the article in your own words and to reference it adequately. Take your time to ensure that your new draft does not copy or closely paraphrase the sources, is neutrally written, and referenced to inline citations. I've added an Articles for Creation template to the top. When your draft is complete, press the blue bar that says "Submit your draft for review!". But, as Marchjuly has pointed out, there's quite a way to go still. Hope that helps. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 07:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much for a civil response Voceditenore. Frankly, this is the first knowledgeable response I have received since venturing into the wikipedia tidepool. The initial text, which I tried to post on Wikipedia in June or July of 2015 (FIFTEEN) was based on a translation of Boganim's french wikipedia page, written two years ago!(2014) I received a machine translation, the language of which I improved on. I have since forgotten the password and don't know how to track that down, it was reviewed by someone and deleted due to lack of references The "so called" copyright infringement is based on an upload of that english text to her agent's site (http://www.agence-adequat.com/fiche.cfm/190-0_625895/michale_boganim.html). I believe that the agent's site was updated with that text in the past 30-60 days! I am not sure how to proceed. I believe that text, the french wikipedia page is an excellent article and would like to use it.Drdreycup (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, thank you very much for adding to the page as is. I'm not sure why Wikipedia editors would delete the list of films and festivals that were in the original entry as there is no other way to word those. Will I be allowed to list them in a future entry? Or why they would delete all the references which have been added simply to verify the facts of Boganim's career and are not found on the agent's site.Drdreycup (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Drdreycup. I can't see the versions of the draft that were deleted, but I think some of the deletions was perhaps overzealous, e.g. the lists of films and awards. Such basic lists are not copyrightable. The editors involved did leave two references. Were there more? You should not have trouble simply listing the films in the filmography again. However any prose descriptions of them, such as the former section "Key Dates" will need to be rewritten and is best incorporated into the biography itself. Rewriting would be a good idea anyway, because the machine translated text needs to be put into idiomatic English. For now, I would avoid the long list of awards unless each one can be verified. I'll work on the draft with you over the next week and see if we can get it into decent shape. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Page Notification Issues

Hey guys, so I'm new to Wiki and I wanted to create a small article about a filmmaker. So I did (Lulu Wang, Filmmaker). After having it be verified a about a week and 1/2 ago, I received a notification saying that it was an "orphan page" and that there are no links leading to other pages. That's not true, just look at the page there are multiple links to other articles. Also, I have plenty of reliable, uncontested, verifiable sources. And so, I'm also a little annoyed that someone said that the page doesn't have sources. Can these remarks be removed? If so, how?

(Mcarby (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Mcarby, welcome to the Teahouse! Thank you for writing an article about Lulu Wang (filmmaker). I think it has sufficient references and the categories look fine, so I took the liberty to remove those tags. The "ophan article" tag means that no other article has a link to this article. So although you refer to lots of other articles, no other article has links to Lulu Wang (filmmaker). The tag is mainly there to encourage others to help create these links. There are people who review these tags and someone might come along and help create more links. Such links can help get readers to your article and help those people find the information about Lulu Wang they need. You can ofcourse also add such links yourself to other articles when appropriate. I hope this helps. All the best, Taketa (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
ohh! I didn't know that the orphan was for her not being referenced- I will see if there are other articles that I can reference back to her. Thank you for the info.

Mcarby (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Try using this search for Wikipedia entries that contain the name Lulu Wang. Some of them refer to a different Lulu Wang, so you will have to be selective. For those that are appropriate, you can add a link to the article about the filmmaker. You will need to use a piping symbol in the link so that it won't point to the article about the other Lulu Wang. Eddie Blick (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
There is some confusion about the word "referenced" here, Mcarby. What the article is lacking is links to it from other articles. Those aren't references. What we call references are details in the article about its sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Mcarby, try using the {{about}} template on some of those pages mentioned in the linked search above. It's the thing that makes pages say "This article is about X. For the about about Y, see Z." (You can see an example of that template here.) -- Gestrid (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Want to change the name of my company's page

Hi there, I have been asked to update the page name for our company's wikipedia page, but i'm struggling to understand how to do this and what information I need to provide in order to make the change? Please let me know if you can help, thank you! JEvans26 (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Your company (is it John Crane Group?) doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia doesn't have company pages, but articles about companies. You should not be editing the article at all, let alone changing its name. Post your request to the article talk page, or go to Requested moves. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@JEvans26:: The reason for Robert McClenon's response is because you have a conflict of interest and are possibly being paid for your edits. It appears you've someone has made the appropriate conflict of interest declaration on the article's talk page. It's best if you confirm this. If you are being paid for your edits, please see this page and make the appropriate declaration on the article talk page and your user page. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Just to say that it was Theroadislong who noted the potential COI on the article talk page, not JEvans26. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Editing dispute

Is there a way to resolve an editing dispute when someone adds a "notability" tag on the Wikipedia page and doesn't provide a reasonable explanation? Can there be a third party to resolve the issue? This is very frustrating! Please look at recent history on New Heights Educational Group. Some editor has added a notability tag, when I ask for explanation and they can't defend their actions, they point me to this forum. Someone please help!! Atchopra (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Note this user appears to have a conflict of interest with the article, as does the article creator. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I would be happy to act as a third party, Atchopra. I agree with the editor who has expressed concerns about notability. The sources cited in the article don't amount to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Routine listings such as this and this don't help to establish notability. What you need is a few detailed newspaper or web articles about the company, or something similar. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Cordless Larry I wish the other editor was as courteous as you are. Thanks for your help! Atchopra (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Atchopra. Wikipedia's myriad of policies and guidelines can be confusing, even for experienced editors; moreover, they occasionally do change so what is considered OK today might not be OK tomorrow or vice versa. A subject has to be shown to be Wikipedia notable for it to have an article written about it. This basically means that it has to have received significant coverage, positive or negative, in independent reliable sources. Subjects unable to clear that hurdle are not considered suitable for a stand-alone article. Now, these subjects may possibly be mentioned in other articles if supported by a reliable source in proper context.
I have looked at your discussion with Theroadislong and don't feel he was rude to you at all. He tried to explain why he added the tag and provide further clarification upon request in good faith, but you seem unsatisfied with his responses. So, he advised you to come here to seek further clarification. Experienced editors are encouraged to try and help new editors out as much as possible, but please try and remember that all editors are volunteers who are mostly here to have a little fun and try to help build an encyclopedia. There are only so many ways to try and explain the same thing to the same person, so there's nothing wrong with suggesting they ask others for advice after a certain point. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Marchjuly I think it was his attitude and the fact that he said that just because an article I referenced is subscription only, it doesn't count. And he was using Capital letters to show his authority/anger. And then threatening me that my account will be deleted. This was my first Wikipedia experience and pretty frustrating one. I had resolved some issues a week ago and that user was fine with the edits. A week later Theroadislong comes in and tags it with a notability tag just because he can't access the subscription only link. Anyhow, I am going to be deleting this page since I am volunteer for this organization and that is supposedly a conflict of interest. I just wish the editors in general should explain more before they decide to tag a page especially if they notice a beginner editing. Otherwise, they are discouraging all beginner editors. My 2 cents Atchopra (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Atchopra, please try not to misrepresent what other editors have told you. In that discussion, Theroadislong says that they are unable to comment on the source that requires a subscription, not that it "doesn't count", and they don't threaten that your account will be deleted (which is not possible, anyway). Cordless Larry (talk) 06:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I am not mis-representing anything. I was asked to take the discussion to teahouse which I did. The message that my account could be deleted was left on my talk page, you can check for yourself. This whole experience has been highly frustrating. The only user who actually tried to help was Cullen Others were only interested in slapping tags. I don't need help on this page anymore. I am talking about lessons learned! I learnt that if I am a volunteer for an organization, I am not supposed to edit their Wikipedia page. What some of the experienced editors should learn is - don't just slap tags - explain & resolve! Don't frustrate beginner editors, - help & motivate! Wikipedia is run by people, then it becomes the responsibility of these people to make it a healthy & supportive environment! Atchopra (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Technically, the original poster was warned that their account could be blocked, not that it could be deleted. Accounts cannot be deleted, but they can be blocked. On the one hand, it isn't really fair to criticize a new editor for misunderstanding a warning. On the other hand, it isn't fair for a new editor to criticize other editors in mass saying that they were only interested in slapping tags. More generally, new editors don't get a lot of sympathy by criticizing other editors, especially not if they have conflict of interest. The warning that removing tags without addressing them could lead to a block was a fair warning. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I had no idea that me being a volunteer was a conflict of interest, otherwise I wouldn't have even attempted it and I certainly am not looking for sympathy. I am just raising some valid points. If people can learn from it, great! If not, it doesn't affect me. Atchopra (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't want to start an argument, Atchopra, or be unwelcoming, but Theroadislong did not tell you that "because an article [you] referenced is subscription only, it doesn't count". What Theroadislong wrote was that they couldn't comment on it because it required a subscription. If you are complaining about the conduct of other users, these distinctions matter. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, better off not starting an argument on this. I am sure Theroadislong can defend themselves. Atchopra (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Need help for editing my company's page.

Hello and thank you very much for your help. I would like to know if someone can help me for editing my company's page. The encyclopedia does not accept my page and I don't know how to manage it. Thank you very much. Derrionsebastien (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Derrionsebastien. The draft is Draft:The Leading Salons of the World, which is filled with advertising and promotional language. The draft must be re-written to eliminate any such language, in accordance with the neutral point of view. It is not your company's page but rather a draft encyclopedia article about the company. Read and study Your first article for some good advice. You also need to make a mandatory paid editing disclosure. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Independent Source

I am trying to create a page for an entertainment website but i can not find any independent sources. I've used the actual site for references. How do I publish the page? The website is HanSeoul.com. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! LanaLanakina (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If there are no independent sources, the subject is not notable in Wikipedia's terms, so there can be no article. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Generally we are not interested in what the company says about itself. but rather what independent reliable sources have to say about the company. Your text should summarize what independent reliable sources say, and your references should be to those sources. Without showing significant coverage in independent reliable sources you have not shown the company to be worthy of an article.Theroadislong (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Can notable page be deleted by saying that page created by paid editor?

Hi,

I am new to editing Wikipedia and also questing here first time about an article.

There is an author's page on wiki which is currently nominated for deletion. The page is notable as it has received significant coverage in multiple published and making him pass GNG. The page is being deleting the only reason is because it is created by undisclosed paid editor.

My question is, Can the page be deleted for this reason? What are the wiki guidelines about it?

Thanks in advance43.241.117.171 (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Paid editing is permitted on Wikipedia, as long as it is disclosed, per Wikimedia's Terms of Use. Even if the user did not properly disclose, this isn't a reason in itself to delete an article, although it may be symptomatic of other issues with the article, most likely promotional tone. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's not the page that needs to be notable, it's the subject of the page; at least, I assume that is what you mean. It's hard to say more without knowing what article you refer to. I wondered if it was Jenn Vix; but she's not an author and not a him. Maproom (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Found it! It's John Lincoln (telecommunications). I see you are making threats of vandalism unless you get your way. I wonder if your client knows about that? Maproom (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reply. I am talking about John Lincoln. He authored a book named Connect the Dots, published by AuthorHouse in 2012. ISBN 978-1-47728-616-6. 43.241.117.171 (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
You are getting it wrong. I am new to Wikipedia. I am here to learn wiki guidelines about notability of the article. 43.241.117.171 (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
If you're here to learn I'd advise you to do so on a different article. The author of this article has a history of abusively using multiple user accounts. As a new user joining in that discussion you run the risk of other users assuming you are another sockpuppet of that user. In fact, I do assume so. for (;;) (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello person editing from 43.241.117.171. The article is being considered for deletion, on the merits, as non-notable. The issue of paid editing is a significant side note, indicating the scrutiny it should receive and how high the bar should be, but is not the basis for deletion. You have asserted at the discussion that the topic obviously meets the general notability guideline. Others have disagreed with you on that deletion basis, and not one person has said it should be deleted primarily because it's the result of paid editing – so your question's premise is false. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello IP editor. The vast majority of self-published books contribute nothing to notability of their authors, and there is no evidence at all that this is an exception to the general rule. If you are a paid editor, then the Paid editor disclosure is mandatory. There are no exceptions. If you are a blocked editor commenting while logged out, then you are breaking your editing restriction and should say no more. Thank you.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Nthep. I believe the last page was flagged and taken down out of a personal bias'/incentive of a previous editor. Do you mind helping me cite articles about this individual or taking anything you believe to be unbiased? There are many reputable articles about him. I'd really like to begin contributing to the wiki community & believe I would learn a lot if I had someone edit an article that I personally wrote from scratch.

Thank you sir.

Scorpionking4lyfe (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I am having issues posting images on the wiki

I am having issues posting images on the wiki with the images being deleted. does anyone know why this happens or how to prevent them from happening? nerosmokeNerosmoke (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nerosmoke. The first thing that you should know is that all the projects run by the Wikimedia Foundation, including Wikipedia, are very strict about copyright, much more so than most other websites. That is because our content can be freely shared and reused by anyone without permission, and so it must comply with the law. It seems that you have uploaded copyrighted images to Wikimedia Commons, though you are not the copyright holder. That site is only for images that are freely licensed for reuse by anyone for any purpose without permission, or for images in the public domain without copyright restrictions. If you upload images restricted by copyright, they will be deleted. Very limited use of non-free images is allowed here on English Wikipedia, as described in our policy on use of non-free images. You must be scrupulous in complying with these image upload policies, because they are enforced to the letter. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
You will find a number of warnings and explanations at commons:User talk:Nerosmoke. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Nothing about this explains how to keep the bot from automaticly deleating images. Nerosmoke (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nerosmoke. A bot is not deleting the images. What the bot is doing is removing the syntax of a deleted images from the Wikipedia articles. Let's take a closer look at the edit sum for this edit: It states, "Bot: Removing Commons:File:Diskordiahardcover(1).jpg (en). It was deleted on Commons by Magog the Ogre (Copyright violation, see Commons:Commons:Licensing)". What Filedelinkerbot did was remove a wikilink to an image file that was deleted from Wikimedia Commons. The name of the bot is "File-Delinker-bot", so it "delinks" links to files which no longer exist. The actual image itself was deleted by an administrator on Wikimedia Commons named c:User:Magog the Ogre. You can see that here. The file was deleted from Wikimedia Commons as a copyright violation. Notifications about various file's you've inappropriately uploaded to Wikimedia Commons have been posted at c:User talk:Nerosmoke. If you're going to be regularly uploading images to Wikimedia Commons, you should regularly check that talk page for these types of notifications. If you further clarification as to a certain file was deleted from Wikimedia Commons, you can post a message on the user talk page of the Commons administrator who deleted the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to correct typos, etc. -- 01:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)]

Thank you. I was wondering about this hopfuly I can get back to the page. Nerosmoke (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Lack of Notability, Deletion of Article?

I've come across an article where the topic/subject direly lack notability.
But I'm unsure about doing an AfD, or even if an AfD is the best way to handle it.
Any Advice?

FYI: The article in question is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishabh_Shanbhag
Look at its history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rishabh_Shanbhag&action=history
Then look at the only 2 real editors history:

  Jilkoms: Only one month of editing, getting shut down for "Massive sockpuppetry" in 2014.

  Synterest: Has only ever edited that specific article.

I have also done research outside Wikipedia to support a possible AfD, but since this teahouse editor already have managed to abort my editing twice, then ... I'll save the information for later. RQ (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, RedQuack! It looks like Maproom has done as you asked and opened an AfD discussion. Feel free to leave your input there. -- Gestrid (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I've put input there. Thank you :-) RQ (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft being declined by Kylie

Dear Teahouse,

My name is Sam and I am working in a PR firm in Hong Kong. Recently my colleague has drafted a organization profile on Wikipedia for our client, The Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors.

However, we find that the review process take so much time. It has been drafted about one month ago, but it has not been published.

We try to consult some users of wikipedia and they suggest us to disclose the paid contribution on the talk page. So we have done accordingly too. According to the notification, our draft was declined by Kylie. So we would like to know what else we can do to make the organization profile publish and prevent violation of any regulation of wikipedia.

Here is the link for of our draft for your reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Hong_Kong_Institute_of_Surveyors

We look forward to your reply.

Best regards, Sam 203.186.212.98 (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I have three comments. First, thank you for making the paid contribution disclosure, but that was required, and we don't owe you thanks for it. Second, please remember to log in before editing. Third, as a paid editor, you have a right to expect civility, but you do not have a right to expect promptness from volunteers. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Fourth, too many of the references are to your own web site, and are not independent. We are more interested in what others have written than in what you have written. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Sam (203.186.212.98). As Robert McClenon posted, Wikipedia articles are intended to reflect what independent reliable sources say about a subject; They are not intended to reflect what the subject says about itself. Moreover, the subjects of articles do not own Wikipedia articles written about them and have no final say as to what information is added and what information is removed. So, you might want to let your client know about Wikipedia's law of unintended consequences.
The thing you need to do is to show how this organization satisfies WP:ORG, in particular WP:CORPDEPTH. Note that significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is needed, and that primary sources or trivial mentions are not considered acceptable for establishing notability. Wikipedia's is not intended to be a way for subjects to promote themselves per WP:NOTPROMOTION.
Finally one last thing, if you are by chance User:Creativegp, then you should probably consider changing your username for the reasons I gave at User talk:Creativegp#Your username. Wikipedia's username policy does not allow the use of any usernames which may be seen as representing a company, group, organization, etc. because such names are considered to be promotional. Such accounts are sometimes blocked from editing by administrators if they appear to be only editing for promotional purposes. According to this edit, this IP account also appears to be being used by someone named "Paul". If that's not you and you are not "Creativegp", then I suggest you create an account for your own individual use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello Sam. Since you and your colleagues at your PR firm are being paid to edit this draft article, I suggest that you offer a complete refund to your client. Your firm has not succeeded in learning the basic principles of writing a Wikipedia article, such as summarizing what reliable, independent sources say about the topic. A large percentage of your sources are not independent and are instead affiliated with the surveyor's organization. Your references are poorly formatted as bare URLs and it seems that your paid team of editors are not familiar with the basics like Referencing for beginners. Unpaid volunteers regularly and routinely write much better encyclopedia articles than this. One would think that someone being paid would do a much better job, but that is certainly not the case here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Question about speedy deletion

Hi I do not know what is wrong with the page, considering its my first time I would really appreciate some useful insight. I don't mind you pin pointing the mistakes either. I do know that the references were not uploaded, but if that's the only thing that keeping it from getting published I shall add them. The page is tittled as Umang Software Technologies.

I got a message saying it is nominated for speedy deletion. I want to know why?

Velington Afonso (talk) 07:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The most obvious fault with the article Umang Software Technologies is that it offers no evidence at all, in the form of references to reliable independent published sources, that its subject is notable. Without such evidence, it will certainly be deleted. That is not its only fault, but it's probably the one that will be most difficult to overcome. Maproom (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Velington Afonso, please read about what we mean by "conflict of interest" in Wikipedia. Also, if your contributions relate to a person or organisation from which you receive money, you must make a paid-contribution disclosure. This is a requirement, not an option. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Why Atomic oxygen in Saturn caused by rings to wear out.

Why rings from the Saturn eroded. I can't know why Saturn thought. Accoding to her 10 years old sister, Claire-Anne, Saturn will be eroded? Daskjhon john (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Daskjhon john. The Teahouse is a place to learn about editing Wikipedia. General knowledge questions are more likely to be met with answers if you ask them at Wikipedia:Reference desk. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_501&oldid=791941257"