Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 710

Archive 705

←

Archive 708

Archive 709

Archive 710

Archive 711

Archive 712

→

Archive 715

Headlines about controversial subject

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, I wrote a biography about Vanessa Beeley. This is a very complicated article, because it is about propaganda, and powerful misinformation networks behind, so many people would have interests in deleting this article. So I fear it will soon be deleted, edited, etc. So far, one user added 3 warning headlines. One of them seems justified as it says some sources may not be reliable, which I can understand. The other 2 headlines, i'm not sure they are justified or not, it is concerning the notability of Vanessa Beeley, and as she regularly appears on Russian media, is invited in conferences with some main media, had an article about her is several main media, I think she fulfils Wikipedia article. How can I have advice concerning my article, the headlines, etc. I'd like to have the advice of administrators, to avoid people with to much conflict of interest. Thanks ! M.A. Martin (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, M.A. Martin, and welcome to the Teahouse. I can certainly understand the warning headline (or maintenance template, as we habitually call them) that says "This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification." You should cite a source inline for every single fact that you bring up; for instance, what source says that she is the daughter of Harold Beeley and was born June 17, 1964? As the other maintenance template already points out, use reliable sources only.

As for the notability tag, it is much harder to judge. In my opinion, feel free to remove the maintenance tag. If someone disagrees, they have the option of using one of the formal processes pursuant to deleting an article outlined at the deletion policy.

I am not an administrator, as the issues you raise do not require immediate administrator action. Administrators have special tools, that allow tasks such as performing the deletion of an article (first nominated for deletion by someone else), or blocking users (after reports of misconduct). You are simply asking for an opinion of experienced editors and no such actions are required as of now. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much Finnusertop ! I'll try to add sources, fo the example you gave me, it's easy, on her blog, she says she is the daughter of Beeley, so I gues I just need to add the reference at the end of my sentence ? And do I need to try to do this for almost every sentence ? (is citation the same as reference ?) But my fear is : if I lil to her blog, this may say sources are not reliable, no ? Thanks in advance for furthur answer. And yes, in fact, I'd like editors advice, thank you for explaining the difference from administrator ! M.A. Martin (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course it will be edited by others. You do not "own" Vanessa Beeley even though you created it. If someone deletes content or adds content you disagree with, you can start a discussion in Talk. You can also undo edits by others, but should then explain why in an Edit summary. If editing gets contentious, or if a vandalism problem develops an administrator can help. But it is premature to ask for that until the article starts to show activity of that nature. David notMD (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, M.A. Martin, please add references to the end of every sentence (or paragraph, if multiple sentences in contain information that come from the same reference). Doing that is especially important here because the article is about a living person (the biographies of living people policy explains why), and because, as you admit, it's a controversial topic. The number one thing to prevent disagreements over such articles is to add referenced content only and remove unreferenced content.

Whether her blog is acceptable here or not is not clear-cut. You can cite people's own works (autobiographies, their blogs etc.) for claims that are fairly trivial; what the person has said, how they've felt; or maybe to fill in the blanks such as an exact date of birth. References written by unaffiliated people are always better, though.

As for "citation" and "reference", these words are interchangeable. I also second what David notMD said in the post above mine: everyone is free, and in fact encouraged, to edit the article you have created, as long as those edits are improvements. Edits that don't appear to improve it should be discussed, because individual editors often disagree on what counts as an improvement. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

M.A. Martin, it seems to me that this article has serious problems regarding WP:Biographies of living persons, which is much more of a minefield on WP than say, an article about a metal or something. I asked for more input at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Vanessa_Beeley. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thank you very much but several of the wikilinks and sources you offered to add link directly to not reliable content defending Beeley, telling she is an Independent Journalist and claiming she does not "say" that she supports Bashar al Assad. I'm not sure this will help Wikipedia to see what is the reality about this person. I know it's controversial, but when reliable sources are needed while it is in The Guardian... I'm sorry but I sometime have to doubt the good faith of anyone involved around that subject.M.A. Martin (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) M.A. Martin Almost all the sources in the article are primary sources (not all of them, but most). That means that the maintenance tag flagging this fact should not be removed. Until and unless there are actual claims of notability in the article, supported by secondary sources, there is no reason to remove the notability tag either - after all, these tags serve only one purpose, and that is to improve the article. --bonadea contributions talk

16:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I already add all these secondary sources : The Guardian Olivia Solon & George Monbiot The Syria Campaign Vanessa Beeley's own statements Reporter without borders Orient News L'obs Le Temps Snopes PulseMedia... and I was tryng to add more sources to improve the article, but I was just stoped in that, because I received this message, while my article was being removed :

" Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Vanessa Beeley. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC) "

What do I have to think about that ?M.A. Martin (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

talk Thank you for your help, but anyway, I won't have time to be welcomed and try to improve my articles with reliabale sources, as I've been erased, and threatened of blocking, while I was trying to add reliable sources as Reporter Without Borders, and oher reliable second sources from main media.

I don't know why... Maybe now I need the help of an administrator ?M.A. Martin (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

"@ Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Vanessa Beeley. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)"

Article now deleted per WP:G10. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

So, in the end, appears to have been deleted not because of lack of citations, but because entire article was negative toward the topic - a living person - rather than presented in a neutral point of view. David notMD (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@M.A. Martin: The reason why is our biographies of living persons policy. We don't tolerate attack pages or hit pieces. If an article is to contain negative material about a living person, we do sometimes permit that (articles aren't meant to be whitewashed either), but the material must be relevant, presented neutrally, and sourced to impeccably reliable sources. Blogs, conspiracy theories, interpretation of primary sources, etc., are not sufficient. Since most of the article consisted of that type of material, I deleted it and warned you not to do that again. I would strongly advise you get a lot more experience editing Wikipedia before you try creating an article on a controversial, politically charged living person, as that's a very difficult thing to do and you clearly don't have the experience to know how to undertake that yet. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Good evening Seraphimblade, thank you very much for your answer.

My article was not an "attack page". I don't know if you've read it all, but I'm not sure you had the time to read all the articles, studies and reports that were secondary and reliable sources. Primary sources are mostly the one of the person I'm writing about, coming from her blogs and articles. Other primarily sources were from well-known journalists, as George Monbiot, or Olivia Solon, from the Guardian, who agreed that I shared her linkedin article where she tells she is "victim of a barrage of harassment", question her credibility and that of the Guardian. This is how propaganda works.

And I was just trying to comply with advices I was given, to add sources. But I didn't have time to do so, because you did not warn me and deleted while I was editing, I had asked questions to several editors here to improve the article. And even if I ha to add sources or modify or erase some elements, you know it was sourced with reliable sources for large parts of it, unless The Guardian, BBC, the Lancet, Channel 4, Snopes, Reporters without broders are all wrong...

For experience on controversial subjects, I have some (not on English Wikipedia), and it is not only my work, we are several (most of us have been blocked, threatened, harassed, insulted, without having even given false information or attacking anyone... and as I am not blocked, I'm the one who tries to publish our work here). I'm just the one who published similar article on an other Wikipedia languages, which has been approved, improved, and not judged as an attack by administrators.

I've read English Wikipedia policies : "When material is spunout of a biography of a public figure by consensus because that section of the article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is not necessarily an attack page, even if the content in question reflects negatively upon its subject. "

If I wanted to attack, and not to be neutral, we wouldn't have tried to choose neutral vocabulary, we would have written "she claims" and not "she asserts", I would have quoted newspapers who says "she's not a journalist and never studied journalism", "she's a propagandists", "she's a Russian troll", "Queen of desinforation"...

So I'll just have to say I desagree on the "attack" page, because if there were negative things, it's merely because we're dealing with a person who fights against a "no-fly zone" in Syria to protect civilians, who denied crimes against humnity, who incite to heathread, violence, and crimes agaisnt humanity, who acknowledges in private that she'll never tell about tortures she knows about... And usually, people who share such points of views are quite with negative articles in Encyclopedies, not becasue they are being under attack. If the Guardian did not receive any complaint for this article : https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/syria-white-helmets-conspiracy-theories , it's because there is only truth and facts in it, that's why the journalist who wrote it is threatened since it was published. And this is only an example. If I didn't quote her twitt that is condemned for incitement of crimes against humanity which says "White Helmet are legitimate target", it's because our aim is not that people attack her (as she did to several of us, and as her bodyguards also did), because this is nothing with revenge or attack, this is information, factual informationaout something really important, vital ! We want that people know who they are reading, who they are hearing on TV, and understand she is not an independent journalist. If you really look for encyclopedic and factual information, with reliable secondary sources, you can look for information in the sources I gave (and I had some more to add), and delete only what was not good for English Wikipedia policy. I think Wikipedia is about building together reliable information and not about censor what does not seem convenient. And I think helping to improve my article would have been far much better than deleting it. SO, what do swe do, now ? Will you write yourself an article about Vanessa Beeley ? Because we have some dozens of hours of researches, contacts with researchers and journalists, some information that are important, even if you wrote me "as that's a very difficult thing to do and you clearly don't have the experience to know how to undertake that yet", I think I can tell you the same about powerful propoganda networks (except if I'm talking to someone who knows better than myself how it works, but I really don't hope so !)... Will you help us giving reliable information in free access for people on a crucial subject ? M.A. Martin (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you may be misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia. Our purpose is not to "get the word out" about anything. Rather, we should be collecting information that has already been verified by reliable sources, and putting it together in a neutral way. We also don't allow personal interpretation by editors, we just summarize what good sources say on the subject. If sources are in substantial disagreement, we note that there exists such disagreement, but we don't "take a side" or argue for or against any given position. As just one example of the issues (far from being the only issue, mind you), the article at one point claims she stated something about "Zionist media", sourced to this piece here [1] which does not once use the word "Zionist" or "Zionism". We don't allow your personal interpretation of what someone said. We don't allow use of your own research and journalism (unless it's published in a source that would already meet the standards of being reliable, such as a high reputation for accuracy, fact checking, and editorial control.) We collect and reflect what reliable sources have already said; we are not and do not aim to be the first publisher of any new information. In fact, we should be one of the last. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment. I read the article Vanessa Beeley before it was deleted. It was biased, and inadequately referenced, like many new articles. And more seriously, as Seraphimblade has pointed out, it misrepresented its sources. But I judged that the subject was notable, and hoped that the article would be improved to an acceptable state. I hope that Seraphimblade will be willing to restore it (to draft or to sandbox, not to article space) if requested. Maproom (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Maproom: I'm afraid that BLP violations cannot be restored anywhere at all. If someone wants to take a go at writing an appropriate and neutral article that does not violate BLP, that of course is fine, but it'll have to be without the old one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answer, once more. I understood Wikipedia aims at being neutral. As for the example you just gave me, in our sentence that talks about Zionism and Western media, there are two sources, and the second one is this one : , which says : " Resistance. vanessa beeley / September 12, 2014 Let me put it this way and maybe it will make sense to you. Palestine is the only nation that is standing firm against the Zionist entity that has infected our entire world infrastructure and is poisoning our minds, hearts and souls. Whilst we only suffer the fall out from this corporation of evil, Palestine eats, sleeps and breathes their demonic existence. For that reason alone God bless Palestine who are fighting to save the world on our behalf." (maybe you didn't found that link, maybe it was removed, maybe even it was a mistake of mine and did not appear in the article that I was still editing... I don't know), but source you've given me was linked to the other part of the sentence, about "Western Media".

By researches I meant collecting information and reliable sources, sorry, English is not my native language and I understand.

My question remains : what can we do to what you just wrote on that subject, that is :

"Rather, we should be collecting information that has already been verified by reliable sources, and putting it together in a neutral way. We don't allow use of your own research and journalism (unless it's published in a source that would already meet the standards of being reliable, such as a high reputation for accuracy, fact checking, and editorial control.) We collect and reflect what reliable sources have already said; we are not and do not aim to be the first publisher of any new information. In fact, we should be one of the last."

What can we do as a lot of reliable sources exist on the subject ? May I have access to our article, as a draft, to correct it and submit it to administrators before trying to publish it again ? Or may I do it with your help ? Thanks !--M.A. Martin (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, so that's another issue. Apparently she said that, but unless other reliable sources commented upon that as significant, representing it in the article is probably undue weight. If there are indeed sources that discuss her in reasonable detail (not just drop her name!), we can write a neutral biographical article. Certainly, if those references are sometimes critical of her, or even very critical of her, we can represent that in the article. But the article itself should just be a neutral summary of what those sources had to say. It should not be based upon reading her work and commentary based on that. And as I told another editor above, we cannot restore BLP violating articles anywhere or in any fashion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Seraphimblade Thank you, once again for your answer.

You write "IF there are indeed sources that discuss her in reasonable detail (not just drop her name!)". I'm allowing myself this question : have you read my article and its sources before deleting it / before answering me just above ?

Guardian : https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/syria-white-helmets-conspiracy-theories "Some of the most vocal sceptics of the UN’s investigation include the blogger Vanessa Beeley, the daughter of a former British diplomat who visited Syria for the first time in July 2016" and "Separately, both Graphika and Menczer’s Hoaxy tool identify Beeley, the British blogger, as among the most influential disseminators of content about the White Helmets.", and have you read "Killing the truth" ?

"Beeley frequently criticises the White Helmets in her role as editor of the website 21st Century Wire, set up by Patrick Henningsen, who is also a former editor at Infowars.com."

"In 2016, Beeley had a two-hour meeting with Assad in Damascus as part of a US Peace Council delegation, which she described on Facebook as her “proudest moment”. She was also invited to Moscow to report on the “dirty war in Syria”; there, she met senior Russian officials including the deputy foreign minister, Mikhail Bogdanov, and Maria Zakharova, director of information and press at Russia’s foreign ministry."

"Meanwhile, Beeley’s influence continues. In April 2017, she gave a talk at a conference alongside ministers in Assad’s cabinet (who spoke via video conference) titled “White Helmets: Fact or Fantasy?” Her briefing paper and slides on the topic were then submitted to the UN security council and UN general assembly by the Russian government as “evidence” against the White Helmets."

etc.

12 occurences of "dropping Beeley's name" in this article seem to be a lot ! And I don't think you question the reliability of the Guardian ?

The Atlantic Council is also clear about her Vanessa Beeley, in this article : http://www.publications.atlanticcouncil.org/breakingaleppo/disinformation/

Have you read the report named "Killing the truth" ? There is a chapter on Vanessa Beeley.

etc.

I don't ask you to restore our article as it is, but in order to be edited and modified, and correspond to English Wikipedia policies, with your help and contribution if you like to...

I assure you it's a complicated enough subject so that I can understand that your first impresssion was an attack, more over if you didn't had time to read all sources and become familiar with the subject, but I'm sure that by now you've understand this is clearly not the case. Please could you edit and put back what you want about my article in my draft so I can work on it ? M.A. Martin (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Maproom Thank you very much for asking Seraphimblade to let me and the Wikipedia community work on the article to make it fit in English Wikipedia rules & standards. I don't understand his refusal, as he apparently can edit it and remove what he wants before restoring it as a draft without any violation. He tells someone can start again, while I explained if was hours of enquiries with a whole team, reading and compiling sources, writing, editing to try to neutral, remove personnal informations, etc. I think he knows it's not likely to happen if I can't have my draft, and he told me he would block me from edition if I do it again... Besides, I still hope to have an answer as why he chose to delete urgently before warning and reading sources. Difficult subject indeed, suche powerful propaganda on such importance level... Too many conflicts of interest and too many fears in too many places... Happily, this article has been received, accepted and improved by other administrators on other Wikipedia! Maproom If the subject interests you, I've asked for review for an article on Beeley's collegues a few days ago, maybe yuo can read it and help me to improve it (it also has many reliable sources, some are common with Beeley's articles, and it's also quite ngative with more controversies than positive things...) Thanks !

David notMD Sorry, I haven't read your comment before. Thank you very much for your reply. Yes, of course, I know about editing, and that's great that we can all add and improve Wikipedia, but I didn't think my question was premature, because it was already happening (and because the same happened to various articles we published, even purely neutral & factual, even not on living people). And now I think you can understand that my fears have become true. Article deleted by administrator without warning, refusal to put in draft / sandbox / discussion to improve and make it cumply with English Wikipedia rules before publishing again, and besides warning me I'll blocked if I continue... I think I can tell that all doors have been quickly closed... while I was trying to edit, add sources and follow the advice I've been given here. Thanks anyway. M.A. Martin (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

M.A. Martin, multiple times in the above discussion, you have referred to yourself as "we". ("...because the same happened to various articles we published, even purely neutral & factual, even not on living people, ....). Please tell us who this "we" is you speak of. John from Idegon (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

John from Idegon Yes, sure, as I've explained above, me and other human right defenders have been working together to compile information and sources, and they have helped me to select what was useful for my article here, what was to remove (as personnal informations or informations without reliable source), and others have done other articles in other languages or on related subjects. Unfortunately, I can't give you names because almost all of them have been blocked, insulted, defamed, threatenned, harassed... even famous researchers and journalists. But could you tell me why would you like to know about that, now the article has been deleted anyway.M.A. Martin (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

M.A. Martin, @John from Idegon: doubtless asked that because Wikipedia has a strict Username policy that, amongst other things, forbids more than one actual person from using the same user account. Your multiple uses of "we", etc., suggested that multiple persons might be using the account named M.A. Martin. If however, you were merely referring to others supplying you with information, but that only you yourself are actually using the account to edit or comment, then there is no problem in that regard. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.3 (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

90.200.41.3 Yes indeed, no one but me uses my account, no one but me writes my sentences. It is just because I was helped "in amont" to gather all the sources and also to think about what would be relevant to use or not, and I was also helped to correct a few sentences to make my English correct a with neutral vocabulary. All the rest is personal. I subscribes all by myself and never shared my account nor intend I to do it. But anyhow, as I answered on my talk page, I'll give up because everytime I manage to prove my good faith about something, there always is a new argument coming, and if the notability of Vanessa Beeley or the mentions about her in "reliable sources" are only "drop name" as I was told (which I disagree, but...), I'm afraid I won't be allowed to publish any article about her on English Wikipedia. And as I still don't know wether my draf on Eva Bartlett will be accepted or not, I'm not sure I'll edit anything here. Thank you very much anyway to make things clear for me.M.A. Martin (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citations For My Page?

Goof Afternoon, Our company page, which is titled Meridian (private aviation company) was denied earlier this week. The reason for that was because our citations proved to be inadequate and reverted back to our actual company page. The problem is, all of our historical and factual information comes directly from the site. No other site has that type of information. Seeing that BY LAW, you cannot fabricate your company's history, information, and accomplishments, I don't see why it would be a problem that we used our website as a source. Sure there are other news articles that have reported on us before but none include the type of historical data that we want on our WIKI page. Is there a way I can by-pass the disapproval by the WIKI commons? Or a way I can create acceptable citations? Please let me know ASAP, for I am an intern trying to impress my boss by getting this up and running.

Sorry for the inconvenience and Thank You in advance!

Meridian (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Meridianteb - You have been given a very unfortunate assignment by your boss. Wikipedia has articles on various subjects, more than five million of them in English, including on companies that satisfy corporate notability, which is based on what third parties have written about the company. The fact that a company exists does not mean that the company is notable in the peculiar Wikipedia sense. If third parties have not written about the company, it does not satisfy corporate notability. Also, you have a conflict of interest because you have been asked to create a "company page" for your company, but Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. It appears that your boss has asked you to do something that Wikipedia policies and guidelines strongly discourage. There is no way to bypass the requirement for corporate notability or the policies on conflict of interest editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem, Meridian, is that any laws aside, companies falsify such histories, accomplishments and information all the time, and indeed have a powerful incentive to make themselves look good. (The same, of course, applies to individuals.) This is why we require that notability be established through reliable, third-party, independent sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Your company's website would only be a valid source for completely uncontroversial information such as its address or the identity of its CEO. For anything else, we'd need to see substantial coverage in multiple sources from places like the print or business media. Ravenswing 23:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The draft in question is Draft:Meridian (private aviation company). I see that the Original Poster (OP) did follow the proper route for an editor who has a conflict of interest and submitted the draft via Articles for Creation. I will comment that, in addition to the issue about independent sources, the draft contains promotional language that is intended to present the company positively. The OP did what an employee should have done, but that isn't what Wikipedia is looking for. If the draft is to be accepted, it will need to be very substantially rewritten to change its tone, as well as to add third-party references such as business reviews, if it has them, although the author did what he was being paid to do. Also, the tone reads so much like a marketing brochure that I have to ask whether it has been copied from a marketing brochure or from the corporate web site. That is not permitted, because Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously (even if almost no one else does.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Meridian, you and your company have a very common misconception, that Wikipedia has anything whatever to do with your company's self-presentation or online presence. It does not. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a business directory, and if we have an article about your company it will be based on what independent writers have published about it, not on what you and the company say; and you will have no control over the content. --ColinFine (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

One further thing, Meridianteb. I would strongly suggest you go over to Wikipedia Commons and request your upload of your company's logo be deleted. First, I highly doubt it is actually YOUR work, which is what you attested in your licensing template. Second, I doubt the business you work for has empowered an intern to dispose of the company's assets, which its logo is. As it stands right now, a competitor, or even a strip club, could open across the street from you, plaster your company's logo all over the business, and there is absolutely nothing that your company could do about it. All they have to do is stick a small note on it anywhere, saying it came from Wikimedia Commons, where it was uploaded and released for reuse for any purpose by Meridianteb. John from Idegon (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

User:John from Idegon - I doubt that User:Meridianteb has any idea what the legal significance of uploading the logo to Wikipedia Commons was, which is that they were granting a copyleft for the free use of the logo by anyone in the world. I would advise the Original Poster to read Wikipedia's copyright policies twice. As I said above, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and the way that we take it seriously has some surprising implications. For instance, merely copying text from a web site for a company's own use in their "own" "company page" violates copyright, unless the company releases the copyright, and, if they do release the copyright, they can't subsequently enforce it. In short, creating a "company page" for your company sounds messy after you look at it twice, but it is even worse after you look at it four times. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

One other point for the OP. This place here, where you created your draft, where you want an article in the encyclopedia, and where this here Teahouse is located, is English Wikipedia, or en.wiki. Wikimedia Commons, where you uploaded your logo, and the other image (is that one actually your own work, ie did you take the photo? If not, you've falsely licensed it too) is a totally separate website also owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. They have nothing to do with your article getting approved. Robert McClenon, that was kind of my point. Frankly, I'd like to smack his boss oer the noggin with Webster's Unabridged. This isn't the first time we've heard this (or even the first hundredth). Too bad WMF won't put any effort into dissuading executives of that notion. John from Idegon (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

User:John from Idegon - Why would the WMF care about details? They are interested in their contribution stream, and so in monotonically increasing metrics. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Quite aside from that the WMF has better things to do with its time than to go all out to seek to educate business executives in what they're going to ignore in any event. (And let's face it, how, short of turning COI into a blanket prohibition?) That being said, I expect we're wandering from the purpose of the Teahouse here ... Ravenswing 02:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Good Afternoon, Thank you for all of your concerns with the proposed draft. All of these red flags were not taken into account before actually submitting the article. The goal of this submission was simply to create a Meridian Wiki. Several of Meridian’s competitors have done this already. For example, a noted competitor named, “Jet Aviation” has a public Wikipedia page with a similar format, same info-box including a company logo, yet only 1 unrelated citation. In regards to the page’s shortcomings. There are several 3rd party articles written about Meridian and its impact on the private-aviation industry which will be included in the next submission. The work that has been submitted already will be re-worded to comply with Wikipedia’s paraphrasing policies. Also, as suggested by one of the users, it has been requested to remove all of Meridians logo photos from the Wikipedia Commons. Thank you all for your suggestions and concerns with the article. This was a simple mistake of not understanding the full-scope of Wikipedia’s policies. The red-flags are noted and will be corrected. The page will be restructured in a way that conforms to Wikipedia’s guidelines based on your feedback. Please share any further information that could be useful for the re submission of this article. Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meridianteb (talk • contribs) 20:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Hello User:Meridianteb -- At the end of the day, the article will look like your competitor Signature. Your boss will be disappointed. It won't look like the dream he or she had. You had best forget about this internship and start looking for another gig.

A bit of advice that is meant to be helpful, even if it sounds mean: Go to Bergen County Community College for a creative writing class. Tell the prof you want extra work writing the same piece in random voices, tones, and attitudes. Encyclopedic is not ad copy; nor is it the voice-over in the company video. You are a good writer. A great writer can do any style, any time.

That advice applies even in journalism. The Atlantic has one style. Rolling Stone has another. Wikipedia wants something more like the Associated Press. Pay attention to how AP writers craft a lede. Few or no adjectives. Your second para sounds like you are writing copy for the White House web site.

BTW, in American English, a company is always it, never they. Vary your sentence structure; you repeat the pattern of two independent clauses conjoined by and. Look up the definition of comprise. Read the WP:MOS. Section titles are all lower case except the first letter and proper nouns. Rhadow (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Page notice

I created a page notice for my userpage. But when i click edit the page notice dosen't show up what's wrong? you can find the template by searching User:Thegooduser/editnotice Thegooduser talk 01:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: welcome to the Teahouse! If you want to apply the template to your userpage, you'd need to add {{User:Thegooduser/editnotice}} to it for the template to show up. Happy editing! Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352: it still doesn't show up in the editing space Thegooduser talk 01:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: sorry, misunderstood the first time around what you were attempting. According to Template:Editnotice userpage#To insert, you should add {{subst:Editnotice userpage}}, not {{User:Thegooduser/editnotice}}. Please feel free to let me know how that goes. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352: it still does not show up in the editing page. Do you mind helping me do it? ThanksThegooduser talk 02:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: done. Whether the letters are uppercase or lowercase matters sometimes. This is one of those times. The "e" in "editnotice" has to be uppercase. I moved the template to User:Thegooduser/Editnotice. Should work now. Happy editing! Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352: Thanks so much! Have a great day! Thegooduser talk 02:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources

I saw someone use instagram as a source. Is that reliable?Thegooduser talk 02:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Not remotely. Ravenswing 02:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Thegooduser.

I'm going to try to answer a slightly different question than the one you asked: When might it be acceptable to use Instagram as a reference? Instagram content would be considered user-generated, so it can only be used in situations where a primary source is acceptable. The second aspect of referring to Instagram is that you must have good reason to believe that the account belongs to the person and is not some impersonator account. So, to second Ravenswing, we would never consider an Instagram post as a reliable source about some third party fact. But there may be circumstances where Instagram may be cited. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Revert button vs reverting

An editor in a previous discussion here said that the word “revert” only applies to using “the revert button,” and that using the “undo” feature isn’t considered a revert. I’m fairly certain a revert is any edit that restores a prior revision, but he insisted on this distinction, and I just want to make sure I didn’t miss a shift in wikijargon. Who’s right? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm the editor in question, and I fully understand the distinction between a revert using rollback and an undo, just as I'm sure the OP understands the difference betwen a revert and undoes with requests to discuss the edit on the talkpage, and WP:BRD and WP:EW. I'm also sure after looking at the edit history experienced editors will understand why I suggest WP:DFTT should be applied here, Please, no-one ping me on this or bring this to my talk page. Meters (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, no; in my understanding, an undo is a type of revert, like a square is a type of rectangle. But it’s entirely possible that I’m wrong, which is the whole reason I’m asking for a third opinion. No need to assume bad faith. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello IP editor and welcome back to the Teahouse.

Let's leave Meters alone and talk about a related issue. In my experience, there are two types of edits that cause a revert notice to be sent to the user. One type is "restore to previous version" which is recorded with an edit summary that begins "Reverted to revision xxxxxxxxx by uuuuuu" and the other type is an "undo" which is recorded with an edit summary that begins "Undid revision xxxxxxxxx by uuuuuu". I have so seldom used the Twinkle rollback tool that I can't find an example of which sort of edit summary it leaves. It's also possible to use a manual edit to duplicate the effects of either one of these, but that won't trigger the software to send a revert notice (in fact, I've occasionally run into editors who I suspected were using manual edits as "stealth reverts" as if I would not be watching). I think I agree with your thinking that all of these can be considered reverts for purposes of discussing things like BRD or 3RR. The other distinction may be around additional comments in the edit summary when engaged in any of these edits: sometimes, the semi-automated tools don't do a good job of letting you say why you are reverting and this is problematical in cases where an explanation is important. That plus the fact that busy editors sometimes feel that the reason for a revert is so obvious that no additional comment is needed.

Since you've edited it, I can see that you are familiar with the essay page WP:Reverting. That seems to match your interpretation as well. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: Yes, I had actually cited that page in the previous disagreement. And that page actually recommends “stealth reverting” to avoid notifying vandals (which probably isn’t the use case you mention). Anyway, thanks for replying! Good to know I probably haven’t been misusing the word. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

How to add Discography tand Infobox table in a Wikipedia article?

Hello,

I am a new Wikipedia user. I want to write an article on a singer. I am practicing in Sandbox. Please help me with how to add Discography and Infobox tables in my article.Maunika18 (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Maunika18: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There are no other edits(other than your edit to this page) under your edit history; it would help if you could link to the page you have edited. Before you get in to putting templates or tables in the article, you may want to make sure that the singer you are writing about meets at least one of Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musicians, listed at WP:BAND. Please review that page. Merely releasing an album isn't necessarily enough. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I would also suggest that you take some time to read Your First Article; diving right in to article creation often leads to disappointment and hurt feelings after one spends hours on work that is then mercilessly edited and even removed by other editors. You may want to take some time to edit existing articles to learn how things work here before moving up to article creation, which is actually the most difficult thing to do here successfully. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

references

Lidasher (talk) 11:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC))Hello this article has had the references added. Is this correct please: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lida_Sherafatmand(Lidasher (talk) 11:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC))

The draft is Draft:Lida Sherafatmand. Maproom (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Lidasher welcome to our Teahouse. I'm sure others will have time to comment on your referencing (which still needs improvement). But before I leave to do real world stuff, may I quickly ask if you are Lida Sherafatmand, or related to them in some way? If so, you do need to make a declaration of Conflict of Interest (please click the link for details on your obligations to do this). In my haste, I may have missed it, but I am also a little worried by the photo of recent artwork you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, taken by a third party of Lida Sheratmand's artwork. I'm no expert on Creative Commons licencing, but I see no authorisation (called OTRS permission) from the artist for the free release of this picture for commercial use by anyone. You may well be that person, but unless there's proof, the image could be in breach of both the photographer's and the artist's rights. It's quite easy to resolve: I recently supplied email authorisation (for an image owned by the organisation I worked for) to the OTRS team and it took them just a day to approve and accept as genuine... its normally longer! I do feel this should be flagged up as a possible concern at Wikimedia Commons. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Nick Moyes ! This article is created by Liesbeth (-redacted-). But the photograph of the art work I possess as the creator...so it is safe regarding copy-right, I am the artist myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidasher (talk • contribs) 11:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Gosh, that was quick - I was hoping to escape! Anyway thank you, not a problem, per se. But you will need to do a couple of things. As a major contributor to the article about yourself, you must be open and declare a conflict of interest according to the guidelines you'll find there. (Saying it here is not sufficient). I see the two of you have met (according to her Twitter account) so should she be getting paid to work on your article, she, too, must declare a WP:COI, please, and you should invite her to do that soon.

Because Wikimedia Commons needs proof that you are you (if you follow my meaning) you will need to email their OTRS Team, sending it to them from the email address displayed on your website. They will then confirm you have the right to release your image. You will simply need to provide a link to the relevant image(s) on Commons and include a release statement to say that the image is free for anyone else to use. You cannot change your mind years later. The contact details and text are rather hidden deep within Wikimedia Commons, but here's the link to the guidance page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates. Just copy/paste the text into an email and edit accordingly, or use the Interactive Release Generator. The alternative is to put an appropriate Creative Commons release statement on your website, or adjacent to the particular image(s). I hope all this helps. Nick Moyes (talk)

Hi again...Nick Moyes :-) Well yes of course she knows me, Ms Liesbeth (-redacted-), that is why she uploaded the article. But there is NO PAYMENT !! She is not my agent or anything... is that a problem that she is not paid please?! regarding the copy-right of the image yes ok I can do that. That painting was nominated at the Global Art Awards, it is a very known piece... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidasher (talk • contribs) 12:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

No, there's no problem with that. (We have separate guidance for declaring editing with remuneration, so you can both ignore that one. But it is immensely hard for an editor to write in a neutral, encyclopaedic manner about someone they personally know - which is why we discourage it, but don't ban it. What we do require is for anyone associated with the subject to declare that connection. I simply suggest you follow the guidance on this section of our conflict of interest guidance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_disclose_a_COI (In case you're wondering why I redacted her surname, it's because we have a policy here of not, as it were, 'outing' the true identities of other editors. As this information isn't yet on her user page, I felt it best to remove it for her benefit.) Nick Moyes (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok thanks so much Nick Moyes! I sent the page you have referred to her for declaration. The regulation regarding conflict of interest does make sense of course. Just in my position I do not have a political orientation or something, so my subject is neutral per se. Thanks for all your helpful feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidasher (talk • contribs) 12:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you are far from neutral here! What do you think Harvey Weinstein would have chosen to write about himself? Probably just the good stuff, I'd suspect. But our encyclopaedia must take a neutral view, collating and using only what trustworthy independent sources that others have written about a topic. (See this if you're interested) I do recommend you to read this important page on Wikipedia:Writing about yourself. All this, and I haven't even looked at what the draft article says about you or your references! (This page will help you clean up some of your references which we call bare urls because they don't say what the link refers readers to: WP:BAREURLS) Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi (talk), oh by 'neutral' I meant the information given in this article is just factual information (where was born, where was published, etc)...people can google me after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidasher (talk • contribs) 13:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there

I was wondering why my article was declined... if you coupd help me with the footnotes, would be greatGutemberg Fox (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

In the decline message on your draft (and on your user talk page) the words in blue are wikilinks to places where you can find further advice. Similarly the error messages in your references have the word "help" in blue as a link to specific advice on the problem with your dates. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I got it! I'm sorry i'm new to this overload of text you guys seem to handle so peacefully.

Can you check my draft if I really got it right this time?Gutemberg Fox (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I think these changes may be what you intended to do with your references? --David Biddulph (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

At any rate, a book and a website by the guy himself is not significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

True. I now see that the user has changed his user name to Gutemberg Raposo. He may not have read Wikipedia's guidance against trying to create an autobiography, and presumably also hasn't read about the need for independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

space missing in new article name

I just posted a new article about a minor Virginia politician and Confederate officer. Problem is, when checking the links I noticed they didn't work, because I hadn't included a space after his middle initial. Can you or someone help? His name is Robert E. Grant and I added the qualifier (dentist) to distinguish him from a more famous British scientist. Thanks.Jweaver28 (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jweaver28: welcome to the Teahouse! I've moved the page for you. The new title should have a space 'tween the middle initial and last name, so the wikilinks will work now, hopefully. Happy editing! Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.Jweaver28 (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Steps to edit a Template

The Template:Shared_IP_gov template has a box that reads: "In response to vandalism from this IP address, anonymous editing may be disabled." and there is a red stop-sign with a white x, next to this message. In my knowledge, this is improper communication and is communicating that the person that this "welcome" template was added to caused vandalism, prior to the template being added to their page (it is so in my case).

Am I allowed to edit the template? The template is in a lot of places and I don't want to waste everyones time trying to guide me in the direction of correcting this flaw in the template. I have found how to edit the template, I just want to know if I can just modify it as I can't find any rules about it.

I would like to change the warning to something like: "Note: Vandalism performed by users on this IP address will result in anonymous editing being blocked."

Please let me know. 134.186.234.108 (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

If you don't want to get messages for things that you didn't do, the best thing for you to do is register a username(which is more anonymous than an IP). I believe that the warning is a standard warning used in many places across Wikipedia, and it likely should not be changed without broad consensus. Users must be autoconfirmed in order to edit the template directly. If you truly feel that the wording needs to be changed, you could start a discussion on its talk page. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no vandalism occurring. The template is in error, whoever created it did not realize that the word "response" indicates that the action referred to has already occurred, in the past. Does that make sense? 134.186.234.108 (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

But what the template says boils down to "If there should be vandalism from this IP, the response may be to report it [etc]". So a hypothetical reaction in the future. I don't think it's ambiguous at all - in fact I don't see how it would be possible to interpret it as a warning for specific vandalism that has happened. --bonadea contributions talk 21:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Look up in the Merriam Webster dictionary: "response", specifically look in the section, RESPONSE Defined for English Language Learners 134.186.234.108 (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I shall start a discussion thank you, I believe this answers my question. 134.186.234.108 (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The message "In response to vandalism from this IP address ..." does imply that there has been vandalism from the IP address. I can find no evidence of vandalism from that particular IP address. If that is intended as a "welcome" message, to be posted on the talk page of innocent new users, it is misleading and offputting, and its wording should be changed. Maproom (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I have added to the talk page of the template. Please assist if you can 134.186.234.108 (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

How long should I wait to get the template updated, is there something else I should do? I believe that I am unable to edit the template myself, can someone who is experienced with templates answer please? 134.186.234.108 (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

134, if no one is responding to your request at the template talk page, that's a fair indication that there, like here, no one is agreeing with your assessment. First, the template you are discussing is not a welcome template, but an informational template to inform all users that the particular IP you are using is a static IP assigned to a particular organization. And your interpretation of the language is IMO faulty. "In response to vandalism from this IP address, anonymous editing may be disabled" simply says IF vandalism occurs from the IP address, one of the responses MAY be to disable anonymous editing. That is what one of the responses MAY be from any point of access to Wikipedia, whether anonymous or registered, to vandalism. It is there to let you know that if you register an account, and that IP is blocked, you will still be able to edit. Like virtually anything else on Wikipedia, that was at some point decided by a consensus of editors. Changing it also requires a consensus. The fact that you are getting no response is a fairly clear indication there is no consensus for the change. Like any other private endeavor you may choose to engage in, we have our policies and procedures here, which apply to all of the tens of millions of pages that make up Wikipedia (there are over 5.5 million articles alone, each of which also has a talk page, plus a userpage and a talk page for every registered editor, plus a talk page for every one of the IP addresses that have ever edited here, not to mention thousands of drafts and thousands more policy pages). I'm sorry, but the fact that you, apparently alone, find the wording on a template that is in use on thousands of pages, somehow offensive, is relatively insignificant. So how about ignoring it, and go about editing articles? That's why you came here, I'd assume. John from Idegon (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Two of us have responded to 134's message on the template talk page, and both of us have agreed with him that the wording looks anomalous. That wording is not used in the other Shared_IP templates which are mentioned at Template:Shared IP/doc, such as Template:Shared IP, Template:Shared IP edu and Template:Shared IP corp, and it is not clear why that different wording is used in the "gov" variant. I'm not sure why you refer to him "getting no response". --David Biddulph (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is a list of people who agree with me (I don't know how to properly add the sources): Abce2 (source), David Biddulph (source), Nick Moyes (source). Can someone please look into it? Here is a link to the talk page so you can see for yourself the reasons to fix it 134.186.234.108 (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Highschool yearbook photos, the validity of

I've stumbled across highschool yearbook photos of a person with an article. Are they good for use in articles? The Verified Cactus 100% 04:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, VerifiedCactus. As with many things on Wikipedia, there is no easy answer. One important issue is copyright status, and yes, yearbooks are subject to copyright law. Determining whether a specific yearbook photo is copyrighted depends on when it was published, whether the book included a copyright notice, and whether the copyright was renewed. Here is an excellent analysis of the copyright issues. Another issue is verifying that the photo is actually of the subject of the article. In many cases, this will be clear. If the person has a common name, though, and their high school cannot be verified reliably, then there is a chance that the wrong photo could be included. Be very careful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. The Verified Cactus 100% 23:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)