Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 569

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

Greenwood Meadows F.C. now have a new logo. After a new owner and management team the club have new image. The Image can be seen on their Twitter page. Could you replace the image, I don't want to try and do it myself and make a mess. Thank YouArnold villa (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there,

Can someone please add the book cover to the info box of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_The_Cannibal%E2%80%99s_Pot:_Lessons_for_America_From_Post-Apartheid_South_Africa

I can't for the life of me figure it out.

Thanks.

Kc2290Kc2290 (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems that Graeme Bartlett has done this, Kc2290. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand the copyvio problem, as Wikipedia is full of lists, and Wikipedia has to be verifiable, when I place sourced lists on Wikipedia, the lists are removed because of copyvios; giving a free pass only to unverifiable lists. Wikipedia must be verifiable, with lists as no exeption. Lists are part of Wikipedia, so why did, out of the necessity for verifiability, verifiable lists get deleted, because their verifiability triggers the Earwig Copyvio Detector. The fact that it is impossible to reword a list can be interpreted as a copyvio, as the proper nouns that make up the list cannot be reworded. And it has. Try rewording "Massachusetts" and stating it in your own words. Most lists are made completely out of proper nouns. (David Dylan (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC))

Hello David Dylan and welcome to the Teahouse.

You seem to be confused. Lists on Wikipedia are compiled by editors from verifiable sources, not copied from other sources.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: Well, let's start with basic English. Is it possible to reword a proper noun. Do you know how to reword "Massachusetts". If you can't, try to reword the following.

List of states in New England/York

• Massachusetts
• Connecticut
• New York
• Vermont
• New Hampshire
• Maine
• Rhode Island

In other words, there is the same amount of plagiarism without copying and with copying.

I hope you can find out what I should do. (David Dylan (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC))

Does anyone know what I should do.— Preceding unsigned comment added by David Dylan (talk • contribs) 21:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright in lists is complicated. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@David Dylan: I'll reiterate. The "list of attractions" was compiled by the site you referenced and you copied it (although that must have taken some work, since the site does not present the list in this format). Taking a list from a single source, where it can be argued that editorial judgement has been exercised in creating the list, constitutes copying or plagiarism. Normally, when a copyvio is discovered, an admin is asked to delete the revisions that contain it, since otherwise they remain available to all users who know how to look at an article's history.

The difference between the "list of states" and the "list of attractions" is that the list of states is a simple factual matter, even if I've never heard of a grouping called "New England/York" before. The "list of attractions" is not so clearly a simple factual matter. If you independently compiled the list by finding just those sights that have Wikipedia articles about them (or, arguably, if you had used that to filter the kctrailillinois.org list), then I would expect the list to be allowed. But other editors with more experience may have a different view, so what I say here is not something that can be blindly relied on. (Thanks to Finnusertop for the pointer.)  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi David Dylan, welcome to the Teahouse. As Finnusertop noted, copyright law (especially where it concerns lists) is extremely complicated. I've had a look at the list you added (which was subsequently removed for copyvio). I'll try to (crudely) summarise the issue at hand (as I understand it).

The issue with copyright on lists is not only that the text may be copyrighted, but also the selection criteria and manner of arrangement (see Wikipedia:Copyright in lists:"Copyright in a list may exist in the content of the list or in the way that the content was selected and arranged. Copyright does not protect facts, but it does protect opinion. If a source is based on "value judgments", it may be protected by copyright, even if it looks very similar to fact. And even if the source is fact, copyright may still protect its selection and arrangement if these are creative."). The list you created was about attractions along the Kaskaskia–Cahokia Trail. While the proper nouns (i.e. names of attractions) cannot likely be reworded (and is probably uncopyrightable), it is completely unclear what the selection criteria was that lies at the heart of KCTrail Illinois's inclusion as 'attractions'. Furthermore, 'attractions' is likely a subjective selection criteria, which is likely subject to copyright (see Wikipedia:Copyright in lists#Selection). Furthermore, as the arrangement of the enumerated attractions do not seem to be based on an uncopyrightable method (such as alphabetical or geographical), the order in which the 'attractions' are listed/enumerated/grouped is also likely subject to copyright (see Wikipedia:Copyright in lists#Arrangement).

Hopefully this answer helps you a little bit. As I'm not an expert in US copyright law, I could not even begin to provide any guidance in how to include these attractions. Wikipedia:Copyright in lists#Copyrightability of other factors does list a suggestion: "The best approach in the latter case [i.e. where the fact in a compilation are not copyrightable, but only the arrangement is copyrighted] is to utilize an entirely different arrangement, one which is either a "mere mechanical grouping of data" or creative in patently different ways. In the former, we may need to vary the selection by drawing in additional information to form a compilation around a different criterion or to limit it substantially in a new and different way". Unfortunately, I fear that you may run into problems with Wikipedia:No original research in such a case.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 23:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Talk2chun: Ok. I will create the list in a different arrangement. I was thinking that too. (David Dylan (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC))

@David Dylan: That might help, but I fear that it still might be removed for copyvio, since the selection of the attractions may also be subject to copyright. Your best bet would be to discuss this on the Talk page, and to involve the editor who originally removed your list.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 23:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I just did that. (David Dylan (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC))

@Jmcgnh: Do you understand that Attractions lists are based on views of the sites, not opinions.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by David Dylan (talk • contribs) 00:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@David Dylan: I'm glad we've been able to help, at least a little bit.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Could anyone create the list in a way that is not copyrighted, and does not omit information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Dylan (talk • contribs) 20:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Where can I find records for marriages in 1947 at the st Ann's church st Ann's well rd Nottingham — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cullington (talk • contribs) 20:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I suggest asking this at Wikipedia:Reference desk, Cullington. The Teahouse is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous210210 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Great question, Anonymous210210. In short, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia written collaboratively by largely anonymous volunteers who write without pay. If you'd like a full explanation, visit Wikipedia:About. --Non-Dropframe _talk 21:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wiki team. I am entering into the Film Production Business and have recently acquired the Rights to Dub and release the movie in another language. I have the following query - Can i Create and Upload an article about this soon to be released film?Niranjankumaryadav (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Niranjankumaryadav: You should not do that because you have a conflict of interest and such action could be seen as promotion or advertising (which Wikipedia does not allow). Ian.thomson (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse,Niranjankumaryadav. I have a slightly different view than Ian.thomson. Because of your business relationship with the film, you definitely have a Conflict of interest, and should be very careful when editing. It is possible to edit with a disclosed conflict of interest, but it's not easy. Do not use Wikipedia to promote the film in any way. Any article must be neutrally written and not an advertisement for the film. Please start by studying our notability guidelines for films. If principal photography is underway or completed, and if the production has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, then perhaps an article about the film may be justified. Read and study Your first article. Because of your conflict of interest, use the Articles for creation process, so that experienced editors without a COI can review the article before publication, to be sure that it complies with our most important policies. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

You can.

Pedro nduca (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

An open question exists on the pages for National World War I Museum and Memorial and National World War I Memorial asking if the first should be merged into the second (though I think it would be the reverse). I see that Liberty Memorial already redirects to the WWI Memorial article, so I am wanting to make sure I know the difference between a merge and a redirect, and wondering if a redirect is automatically created when two pages merge. RM2KX (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I just answered my own questions, all there at Wikipedia:Merging, but any additional input on the specific pages is welcome. RM2KX (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi

I've had my second attempt at a contribution and a bit puzzled at the terse rejection for notability etc, given the listing is modeled on an accepted contribution, but with more verification and independence. Any suggestions re https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Takeflite and how to proceed? Neilm35 (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Neilm35! I do apologize if those rejections seemed a little harsh but they do actually contain quite a bit in the way of useful resources. I'll do my best to explain and if you have any further questions, let me know. In short, all articles need to meet the general notability guideline. This guideline basically says that a subject needs to have received significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources. Clicking on that link above will explain in-depth. It's your job as an author to demonstrate notability by adding reliable sources and this page will explain how to cite these sources in your article. Finally, I'd like to draw your attention to our page on conflicts of interest. In the event you have a relationship with the company you're writing about, you should avoid writing an article on that topic. Again, if I can be of any further help, let me know! --Non-Dropframe _talk 22:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Neilm35. Let me provide some additional information. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent, reliable sources say about a topic. Consider the Airline Software source. Their website says "All information in our directory are based on data provided by vendors". Accordingly, this is a directory listing rather than an independent source. Similarly with PR Newswire. That is a service that distributes press releases, so it is not an independent source. Also, your references are not formatted properly. See Referencing for beginners. Remove all references that are not independent and base your article on summarizing what independent, reliable sources say about the company, and format your references properly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I have edited a page for Joan Ryan MP, Mr Philip Cross has reverted the edit stating the that external reference that I cited was tendentious. I do not agree, how do I proceed to have some dialogue and avoid editing wars? This is all new to me but i do not want to let the issues pass without trying to restore an external link to the particular reference.

Any help appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KEVIN10BROWN (talk • contribs) 21:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi KEVIN10BROWN, welcome to the Teahouse. The appropriate location to discuss the content of an Article is always it's corresponding Talk page. Assuming you are referring to Joan Ryan, the corresponding Talk page would be found at Talk:Joan Ryan. Looking at the talk page, I can already see that the reference concerned (a report by Al Jezeera) is already being discussed Talk:Joan Ryan#Sourcing: 2017 Antisemitism scandal. Feel free to offer your opinion there, noting of course Wikipedia's policies on Article content (including Neutral point of view and Due weight, and in this case, Biographies of living persons). I hope this helps.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 23:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The answer, KEVIN10BROWN, is that you do what you are doing, apart from the edit warring. You discuss it on the talk page, as you are doing, and try to reach consensus. If you cannot reach consensus, there are further steps outlined in dispute resolution. What you don't do is to keep applying your change: once somebody (or several people) have reverted it, you need to find a consensus for a change before applying anything. By the way, on talk pages (and project pages like this one), please sign your contirubtions with four tildes (~~~~). --ColinFine (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Podcasting is new in Pakistan and this podcast is an effort to make to create awareness about social issues like Harassment etc. How to avoid speedy deletionMzaidkhan1 (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

To avoid speedy deletion, follow the guidance at Your First Article, make sure your subject is notable and that you provide citations to reliable sources. RudolfRed (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mzaidkhan1. This is not a notable topic and so no amount of editing will result in an acceptable article at this time. There might be a time when a suitable article could be written, but that potential is in the future, when reliable, secondary and independent have already covered the topic in detail. You mentioned on the talk page that a Wikipedia article "is a crucial step in making it big and ... important". This places the cart before the horse. Wikipedia, as a tertiary source encyclopedia, only properly has articles on topics the wider world has already written about in substantive detail in independent sources, and it cannot contain original research. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mzaidkhan1: @Fuhghettaboutit: Please link to the article you are discussing. Thanks. RudolfRed (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: I assume it's about GupShup, which seems to have been CSD'd.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 00:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to add a picture to a steam locomotive reference box (see NKP 765 for example) onto a similar page but the photo appears extremely large. Any help would be much appreciated Dolothedolphin (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Dolothedolphin! Sorry to hear you're having a bit of a problem. I assume Nickel Plate 779 is the article you're working on? I did a bit of digging and somewhere along the line, a few parameters of that infobox were removed. I replaced the parameters for the image, image size, and caption for that infobox and I believe everything is working just as intended. Take a peek at the page and let me know if something is incorrect. In the future, if you're having an issue with an infobox, looking at the original template (Template:Infobox locomotive in this case) should give you a list of parameters that the template is capable of using. And, of course, the Teahouse is happy to help too! --Non-Dropframe _talk 01:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I've heard a very interesting Pakistani group, and I see that they have not a page on Wikipedia. I was looking for information and they have been interviewed in Daily Pakistan, and on a music magazine of their country, are those two sources sufficient for a short article? Thank you!Ane wiki (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ane wiki and welcome to the TeaHouse. The problem with those interviews is that they contain what the group has to say about themselves. Such sources can only be used for limited basic claims, and they must be only a minor part of the sources that support the article. The sources we need are where reliable, independent sources have written about the subject. --Gronk Oz (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gronk Oz, thank you! These are the sources, are they valid and sufficient? I have many doubts because I never made articles about music bands, and although it is not a band with international projection, it is important in that country:

• Https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/campus-news/yles-2017-madlock-put-forth-an-exceptional-performance-at-the-lums-gig-last-night
• Https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/lifestyle/daily-pakistan-global-collaborates-with-independent-theatre-and-madlock-to-bring-you-jam-packed-theatres-this-nember
• Http://ebuzz.pk/all-my-life-cover-by-madlock/

The remaining source is not online, and is an interview in a Pakistani site about music, called Phaser Mag.

I feel it is not enough...or that it will only be for a 15 line article.--Ane wiki (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know very weel how I can edit!!!I need halp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro nduca (talk • contribs)

Hi, Pedro nduca! I'd be happy to help you out! My best suggestion for you would be to go on the Wikipedia Adventure. In a short period of time, this fun tutorial will get you started on the basics of editing, show you what you can do to help out, and what sorts of things to avoid. If you need any further help after that, feel free to reply here! Have fun! --Non-Dropframe _talk 23:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Pedro nduca. I have another suggestion. Based on your user page, I suspect that your native language is Portuguese, and that you may not be fluent in English. If I am correct, then I suggest that you consider editing at the Portuguese Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

L need help so that l can write perfect articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takudzwa Chaita (talk • contribs) 21:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Takudzwa Chaita! I'd be happy to steer you toward some really helpful resources regarding article writing. First, this page is all about writing your very first article. It'll guide you through things like picking a topic, finding references, and making sure your topic is notable. Once you've read through that and think you're ready to begin, consider using the Articles for Creation process. Going through this process will subject your article to review by experienced editors who will be able to give you feedback regarding weak spots in your article. Finally, if I can personally be of any help, feel free to drop me a message on my talkpage. --Non-Dropframe _talk 21:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Takudzwa Chaita. Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for coming to the Teahouse. I'd like to add to the above quality advice one thing. There are numerous things you can do at Wikipedia besides write articles. You can copy edit, patrol changes for vandalism, expand and or correct existing articles, translate if you're multilingual. It helps to understand the policies that apply to editing here prior to attempting an article. We're all glad you're here and glad to help any time. John from Idegon (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

How add any Place or Village as article on Wikipedia.. is there any special category for it ?Ainul.Axom (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ainul.Axom, welcome to the Teahouse! If you have time, I recommend reading the page Wikipedia:Your first article, as it does a good job of explaining the process and expectations for creating a new article on Wikipedia. For places and villages, we use a somewhat complicated guideline to determine whether they are notable enough to be topics for Wikipedia—the most important things to remember are these: In general, you should be able to find significant coverage of the place or village you want to write about in reliable sources, such as reputable news media and academic publications. Typically, "populated, legally recognized places" are presumed to be notable enough for Wikipedia, whereas "populated places without legal recognition" are typically considered on a case-by-case basis, depending on how much information is available in reliable sources about the place.

I noticed that you have already started a draft at Draft:Tirap Gaon, Ledo. The next step for that draft is to add references to reliable sources that verify the information in the draft. Once you feel that the draft is ready to publish, add the following code to the top of the draft: {{subst:submit}} An experienced editor will then review your draft and will either publish it or offer comments on how the draft could be improved. If at any time you feel you need help or have any additional questions, please feel free to ask here at the Teahouse, and we would be glad to clarify anything. Mz7 (talk) 05:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm cleaning up some resources in my industry of expertise: Bitcoin.

I have a company/product that recently rebranded (from BitX to Luno) and I need some help in updating the Wiki page URL: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitX)

Not sure if I should just make the edits on that page or if it should be a completely new page with the old one to redirect to it? Werneravr (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I see that the references in the BitX article use the name "BitX", not "Luno". Wikipedia policy for the title of an article is to use whatever name the subject is generally known by, rather than its "official name". Maproom (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Two points to add to Maproom's answer. Firstly, if a subject does change its commonly-used name we would usually move the article rather than starting a new one. Secondly, if it is your company/product you oughtn't to be editing the article yourself. Please read about conflict of interest and paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, I would like to thank Finnusertop for the constructive response regarding the article Stanley Leopold Fowler. Secondly, I will be, probably asking a lot of questions and at my tender age of 53, although a tad savvy with the laptop, I get lost in the abbreviated and technical jargon. The question: I have permission from Stanley Fowler's daughter, Sally-ann, to use images and videos to support the article and possibly a few more articles to come, to celebrate her father's extraordinary achievement. When trying to upload the screen asks to tick a box as if it's my work. What do I need to do to pass this hurdle? Thank you for the answer in advance (as sometimes I dont know how to reply to messages :/)

Thewayweis (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Thewayweis. If the daughter owns the copyright to the images and videos, then she must consent to an appropriate Creative Commons license in writing. You cannot upload the images based on verbal consent. The easiest and quickest way is for her to open her own account at Wikimedia Commons and upload the images herself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen for the answer... I do have written request via e-mail...is this sufficient... Thank you :) Thewayweis (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a relatively new member of the wikipedia community, and I've just completed an article I'd like to submit. It falls under the African Military History Taskforce of the Military History Wikiproject. Is there anything I need to do before clicking "save page"? Washoe the Wise (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Washoe the Wise. Unfortunately, since I can't see what it is you have come up with, I can't offer quite specific advice. One option that's definitely open to you is to create the article as a draft, by saving it as Draft:ARTICLENAME, and submitting it at Articles for Creation, where it will be reviewed prior to publishing by experienced volunteers. TimothyJosephWood 13:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

[WIdFaQpAMFEAAI7MFJoAAABJ] 2017-01-24 12:15:37: Fatal exception of type "ConfigException.61.2.171.110 (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

This was a temporary problem lasting about 2 minutes which affected articles and user pages, but not "admin" pages such as this one - see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Fatal exception errors on user and project pages - Arjayay (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.61.2.171.110 (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

please I do ask for help all of the goods that I create are to be extinguished for already a similar one exists want to contribute in the wikipedia with my goods but no longer I know how anybody can make me a suggestion? Pedro nduca (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Pedro nduca. I would first echo Cullen's advice to work in your own language, on the Portuguese Wikipedia, as I'm not sure your English is strong enough to do valuable work here. For example, I'm guessing that when you say "goods" you are translating a Portuguese word and you mean "good things"; but "goods" does not have that meaning in English: it means "items intended to be sold".

The second point is that we are here to create an encyclopaedia and for no other purpose. Many editors have found it frustrating sometimes that the contributions they want to make are not accepted for one reason or another. But Wikipedia is not here to satisfy our wish to contribute: we need to find something that is actually required. Actually there is far more need for people to improve some of our five million articles, especially by adding high-quality references, than to create new articles; but would-be editors often don't want to spend their time on incremental improvements: they want to make a big statement by creating a new article. This is often not the best thing for Wikipedia.

An example of what you might do: if you were to take a category such as Category:Articles with unsourced statements from December 2016 (there are many such) and improve some of those articles, you would do a great deal of good for the encyclopaedia. --ColinFine (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Sako mohamad. I'm not sure why you have posted your personal details here, but this is not the right place for them. In fact, I am afraid that nowhere in Wikipedia, probably, is the right place for them. Wikipedia has articles about people and other subjects that are Notable: that means, that people unconnected with the subject have published substantial information about the subject in reliable places. If you are notable in this sense, then eventually somebody will write an article on you. Otherwise, you are like me and millions of other people in the world: welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, but not appropriate as a subject in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Could someone direct me to the place where you upload a photo for touch-up? CatcherStorm ^talk 16:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey CatcherStorm. I believe you're looking for Wikipedia:Graphics Lab. TimothyJosephWood 16:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Yep, I found it. Thanks. CatcherStorm ^talk 16:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I read through the guidelines and used the article wizard, but my article was nominated to be deleted because it was seen as "unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic."

I was writing about a new methodology that's been growing in B2B innovation.

Any input into how an article that discusses a new methodology could be written so that it wasn't seen as advertising would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks! LavedonLavedon (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Lavedon. It may be helpful to review our guidance on writing your first Wikipedia article. Also, since, according to your userpage, you "specialize in brand strategy, marketing and communcations", it may be a good idea to review Wikipedia policy on conflicts of interest. Failure to abide by the requirements for COI editing may result in sanctions including the loss of editing privileges. TimothyJosephWood 16:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this response - I'll read through the COI policy.

When writing the page, I had looked through other pages that are similar in content - explaining a methodology.

The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome-Driven_Innovation was not flagged as advertising a product/service/person, yet it contains content about a ODI methodology, including the creator Tony Ulwick.

Any insight would be very helpful!

Thanks, LavedonLavedon (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm looking to get a page created for new artist LiL PEEP.

I've created an account and written a draft for the page. It's been submitted for review. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:LiL_PEEP

The page was initially rejected because it does not fit notability standards but specifics were not really given on how I can update. This artist has gone on tour, featured in several blog publications and topped the Soundcloud charts.

If anyone could help me to write this article correctly, that would be amazing! Djcynthisizer (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Djcynthisizer. Notability standards for musicians may be satisfied in a number of specific ways, such as demonstrating that a musician has been successful by making a national chart, having a record certified gold or better, or winning a prestigious award. Notability on Wikipedia generally is demonstrated through including reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Using YouTube videos and or a person's SoundCloud does not meet either the standard of reliability or that of independence from the subject. TimothyJosephWood 19:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Djcynthisizer, welcome to the Teahouse. In order to show notability, you must prove notability by references to reliable sources. None of the sources you have on the article at this time are reliable by our definition. You can show notability for a musician in one of two ways (both would be great!): Either you must show that they meet the general notability guideline, or that they meet a specific exception for musicians to the general notability guideline outlined at WP:NMUSIC. In order to show general notability, you must provide references to multiple reliable sources that discuss the artist in detail and are completely independent of him. Reliable sources, such as Billboard or Variety. In detail, not just mentions in articles about other subjects. No social media, no Youtube. Or you could show that he meets one of the exceptions listed at NMUSIC, but you still must have reliable sources to illustrate that. Look around, read the links I've given you and decide whether there is enough at this time to actually write an article, or whether it is just TOOSOON. John from Idegon (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I would hope that Pitchfork would be considered reliable, John from Idegon. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, we now actually have an article about Lil Peep. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry That's what I was thinking. He's been featured on both Fader and Pitchfork which seem like they would be considered reliable sources. Look like the article is now up. Thanks all! John from Idegon TimothyJosephWood Djcynthisizer (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

how do i create a page? I can't seem to add in the contents of my page that i created earlier, it is titled 24SEVENS Football. please help me!Amcexp (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft at Draft:24SEVENS Football is about to be deleted as an obvious copyright violation, being a direct copy of http://24sevensfootball.com/about/. Your attempt at 24SEVENS Football will be deleted as it is effectively empty. Before you try again to create an article, please read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I just received an edit summary where I was called, cleaned up, "an eff-ing a-hole." I know there is a way to report the issue. Does anybody know how?LakeKayak (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello LakeKayak. I'm very sorry to hear that, as you know, personal attacks are never acceptable on Wikipedia. That page also provides some guidance for how to proceed, but in a nutshell, if this is the first instance of that editor attacking anyone, you should not report him but instead leave him a police message referring him to WP:NPA. If this is not the first time, you might consider following the instructions on WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. If the user is also vandalizing Wikipedia and is a clear cut case of WP:NOTHERE, and if they have been warned before about NPA to no effect, you may report them to WP:AIV; if the editor is just mad at you for some reason (perhaps a content dispute), then WP:ANI is the correct place to make the report. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to edit my first ever draft article "Jean Jepson: Dancer, Teacher, Choreographer". I am able to locate the draft but I am unable to actually get into edit mode to do the edit. Please help me to get started.CableHut (talk) 06:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, CableHut, and welcome to the Teahouse! Press the edit button (see the image to the right). More help is available here: Help:Editing. If for one some reason you still can't access the edit mode, you can use this direct URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Jean_Jepson:_Dancer;_Choreographer;_Teacher.&action=edit

Hope this helps. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

How do I post images I was given permission to post on behalf of an artist onto their wiki pages? I want to post images just like how this artist's page looks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masami_Teraoka Songuitar333 (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Songuitar333 and welcome to the Tea House! Permission sent to individual Wikipedia editors is not valid for the purposes of Wikipedia's stringent rules to protect copyright, unless that permission is also clearly stated publicly online by the artist. Not to worry though, if that permission was sent to you, you may forward it to c:Commons:OTRS. Or, if the permission was only verbal or non-email, you may request the copyright holder to send her own email donating the images to Wikipedia by following the instructions at c:Commons:OTRS. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Songuitar333. The fastest and easiest alternative is for the copyright holder to open an account at Wikimedia Commons, and upload the images themself. Then, the images can be used by anyone for any purpose. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Songuitar333. It addition to what Cullen328 and Psiĥedelisto, I feel it's important to the point out the difference between non-free content and freely licensed content when it comes to image files. A free license basically means that the copyright holder is agreeing in advance to allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the file at anytime for any purpose, including for commercial purposes. For example, some could actually download the files and use them in a way to make money and there's not a lot the the original copyright holder can probably do to stop them. It's important for the copyright holder to understand that this permission cannot be revoked once it has been given. That is why you don't find many artists agreeing to freely license their work and uploading them to Commons.

The other option is non-free content. Non-free files are uploaded locally to Wikipedia only for a specific use in a particular Wikipedia article. The permission of the copyright holder is not needed and the files are only required to be used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free use policy. This might seem a perfect solution to your problem, but the non-free content use policy is very restrictive and places a number of limitations on how a file may be used on Wikipedia in order to protect the rights of the original copyright holder. The tricky part about non-free content and works of art has to do with contextual significance required by non-free content criterion #8. For example, a non-free image of a painting can be fairly easy to justify in a stand-alone article about the painting itself, but much harder to justify in an article about the artist who painted it. That's because in the former the entire article is about the painting so the context for NFCC#8 comes from everything written in the article, and the image of the painting serves as the primary means of identification at the top of the article. In the latter, however, the article is about the artist and even though there may be some mention of the painting within the particular article, it might not be enough of a mention to justify non-free use. Generally in biography articles about artists, etc., a picture of the person is used as the primary means of identification and non-free images of their various works are only allowed when the work itself is the subject of sourced discussion within the article; in other words, simply wanting to show the painting as an example of the artist's style, etc. is not enough.

The images of paintings you see in Masami Teraoka were uploaded as non-free content, but simply because such files are being used in that way in that article does not necessary mean it would be OK to do something similar in another article. It also does not mean that files are being used correctly in that article per WP:OTHERIMAGE. In my opinion, one of the images used in the Teraoka article seems for sure to not comply with relevant policy and the other two others have some iffy aspects about them, so I would not be so quick to use that as article as a model when it comes to acceptable non-free image use. Anyway, sorry for the log post, and hope some of what I've written is helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Now that I have created a draft of an article in my sandbox, how do I post or send it for review? RLGraham (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I've added the {{userspace draft}} template to your sandbox, giving you a "Submit" button to use when you are ready. I have also added a "References" section heading, and the {{reflist}} template. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The draft has now been declined by an editor who took two minutes over this draft and then continued declining several drafts per minute. The assessor is unlikely to have had time to visit a library to refer to the printed sources. The comment left was misleading – notability for artists may be assessed using the normal notability guidelines, not only museum collections and major art reviews. The AFC assessment process is a serious problem for Wikipedia – it penalises substantial articles and rewards short, sound-bite articles on recent topics (with online references). I would have moved the draft directly to main space, so avoiding the AFC process. At this stage, I suggest removing all the material referenced by adverts and other non-independent sources, then shuffle the material so the best references are used at the top of the article. If that leaves something that would be attractive to someone looking at it for 30 seconds submit it again and hope to get it accepted. Later you can restore the article to how you would prefer. Thincat (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I've just done my first edit of an article and some of the flags are still present. So I suppose I am worried that I am not doing an adequate job or that I am supposed to have reviewed by someone. How does this work?PeterGamen (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Courtesy link to article in question Global Child Forum. Theroadislong (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello PeterGamen and welcome to Wikipedia! First let me explain to you a few things about tags: People who place tags rarely look later to see if the article has improved and remove them, so unless you ask the person who placed the tag for an opinion (perhaps on their talk page, or on the article's talk page via the WP:Notifications system), they may not see it. I can see that Josve05a removed one of your tags, but this is not at all evidence that he actually read much of your article or made sure that the other tags remain appropriate, and let me explain why.

1. Sam Sailor placed the tag, but Josve05a removed it.
2. His edit summary contains the text AWB. This is a semi-automated computer program that some Wikipedians use called AutoWikiBrowser. It lets some editors, who like to do that kind of thing, make many small changes on the encyclopedia to things that computers can easily see: a computer can easily see that your article is no longer orphaned, but it can't so easily see that you've used reliable sources, for example.

OK, phew! Hopefully that all made sense. So, you may be wondering, how do you get a review so you can get the tags removed? Well, after I post this comment I will head on over to the article talk page and give you some comments, and perhaps even remove some of the tags, but for future reference, you can ask here at the Teahouse for a review or you can request a peer review. You can also, as a new contributor, get WP:ADOPTed by a more experienced contributor who you can use as a sounding board while you learn the ropes. Once you think you're ready to handle article issues that other editors bring up by yourself, you're even invited to be WP:BOLD and remove the tags yourself (but don't be upset if the other editor adds them back, take it to the talk page and try to find out why they don't think your edits actually solved the problem).

Hope that all makes sense. Welcome again! Psiĥedelisto (talk) 10:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi again! Thanks for the help! I've looked at your edits and will try to fix the issues you flagged. Being new I am wondering if my word choice/style/tone are appropriate. Also the 'This article reads like a press release, or is otherwise written in a promotional tone. (June 2014)' flag is still up. How do I fix that?PeterGamen (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello PeterGamen, you are quite welcome any time. The press release tag is not included in error. During my review of the tags on the page I decided not to remove that one, as I felt it still applied to the current version of the article. I gave you some advice for how you can satisfy Wikipedia's neutrality, tone and other requirements at Talk:Global_Child_Forum. Please do read that over, and let me know if there is anything you'd like clarified. After you attempt to satisfy the requirements, I would be happy to re-assess the article and remove tags if appropriate. Note that I am going to sleep shortly, so I won't be able to reply for a good twelve hours or so (this includes me getting ready, eating, my commute, etc. ). Psiĥedelisto (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I am looking at the Hitler Youth page and there is reference to a self-published article, or what I believe to be one. I can't access the source because this online company wants to charge me an 8.95 dollar fee to do so. Should I just delete the content that has used this reference? How often does this happen on Wikipedia? Can anyone just put in anything that was self-published?

Grace1701 (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Grace. See WP:SELFPUBLISH. SpecificallySelf-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. If this does not appear to be the case, the best thing to do initially, would be to see if you can find an alternate source for the information, and include it instead. If you cannot, consider tagging with {{cn}}, especially if the information seems likely to be true and there is likely to be, for example, sources available in another language you cannot read or access.

If however, the claim seems likely to be untrue or is particularly contentious, and you are unable to find a source, even a poorly translated non-English source, then it is perfectly acceptable to remove the information. If you do, consider posting on the talk page to give other editors a chance to weigh in, and potentially find other sources you may have overlooked. TimothyJosephWood 15:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_Adventures_volumes_(1%E2%80%9320) i've been editing this page and adding plot details but suddenly all the page looks distorted and not in a single style. Please repair. HighnessAtharva (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done. It looks like you accidentally pasted a url in the middle of the graphic novel list template. TimothyJosephWood 15:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I submitted a new article on Africa50, an investment fund for Africa, yesterday. I thought I had saved everything the way it should be through the article wizard but now cannot find any trace of it. Is there any way to know whether it is now being perused by editors or is there some way to get the content back (it took a fair amount of time). I tried through my account without success. thanksAfrica50 (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Africa50, are you sure you were logged in when you made the article? I presume the article was called Africa50? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Africa50. This is the only contribution made to Wikipedia from your account; and I can't find articles called Africa50 or Draft:Africa50 (which is why those links are red) or a log of a deletion of an article called Africa50. So I'm guessing that you did not manage to save your attempt - possibly there were blacklisted external links in it and you missed the message (that's one of the most common reasons for an edit not to get saved).

By the way, you need to change your username: user names that suggest that they represent an organisation are not allowed: it must be personal to you (it can be an alias: I use my real name, but many editors don't). Also, the fact that you are using that as your user name suggests that you may be associated with the company: if so, you need to be aware of WP:COI. --ColinFine (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I have worked on creating a page for an author, Essel Pratt, who is an author of Horror, Fantasy, and Sci-fi. He has been published alongside Clive Barker, William F. Nolan, and H.P. Lovecraft, to name a few. In addition, one of his articles from the Inquisitr was used as a reference for a Wikipedia article on Vegan Cheese. He is a rather prolific author that has had his newest novel, Sharkantula, widely publicized on various Internet sites. However, the Essel Pratt draft has been in draft form for over a month now. I continue to update it as I can. However, I am worried that it may be lost in the sea of submissions. Can someone spread light on when I may be able to find out when it may be approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immortalgaze (talk • contribs) 13:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I've moved this question to the top of the page (in the proper chronological location) on 14:55, 25 January 2017. --talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 15:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Talk2chun. In future, it's best to cut and paste rather than copy and paste, so that we don't end up with two versions of the question. I've struck this copy out. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry I must have copied the question instead of cut it after an edit conflict arose (with SineBot, no less). I'll try to remember to cut it instead in the future.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 16:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Immortalgaze. The general answer is, no. Nearly everything in Wikipedia is done by volunteers, who do what they want, when they want to. But the more specific answer for Draft:Essel Pratt is that it won't get reviewed until you submit it for review! When you think it is ready for review, put {{subst:submit}} (with the double curly brackets) at the top of. (I'm not saying that it isn't ready now: I simply haven't looked)> --ColinFine (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Oops. Looks like this was reposted again at the bottom and I moved it again to the top by mistake. TimothyJosephWood 16:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, Talk2chun copied it to the top but left the original question at the bottom of the page, which you then moved to the top. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh well. Too many answers are better than none. TimothyJosephWood 16:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not know how it is being done but my computer keeps being switched off by someone. The last time I was in my sandbox for approx 5hrs putting together a page regarding floor springs just as I moved my cursor to save my work my computer was switched off and I lost all I had written. Is there any way to retrieve this? I have asked this question elsewhere but have not got a reply so I am repeating it here. Please and thank you btwRod Fathers (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you are looking at the wrong sandbox. Your work appears to be in User:Rod Fathers/sandbox, not User talk:Rod Fathers/sandbox where you left another copy of this message. Meters (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Rod Fathers. Please take a look at User:Rod Fathers/sandbox for the most current version of your work in progress. It is a good idea to save your work every few minutes. There is no downside, and the advantage is that you reduce the risk of losing a significant amount of work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

If you use the "Contributions" button you can see the history of all of your edits (or the "History" button for everyone's edits to the current page). That way you can restore a previous version in case anyone ever does delete your work. My guess is that you left your connection open and it simply timed out. If you really did leave your Wikipedia connection open and someone accessed your account then your account is compromised and should be blocked. See WP:COMPROMISED Meters (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, just reread the above. Computers shut down by themselves to conserve power. It does not necessarily mean someone has had access to your computer. The length of inactivity required before this happens can be changed, or the shutdown feature can be disabled, but it is never a good idea to leave open applications on a computer. Meters (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm a noob here. I was reading an article of interest and an unreferenced statement was made giving a date and location that contradicts other published sources referencing the same event. I have no idea what the protocol is in such situations. Does one edit the article and cite the source or can you flag the statement as requiring a citation?

JKellough (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey JKellough. If you have a source that meets Wikipedia's standards for reliability, and it contradicts the information in an article, you should be bold and change the information while also including a reference to the source. If someone disagrees with your edit and reverts it, you should discuss the changes on the article talk page. TimothyJosephWood 19:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi JKellough. One of our most important sections of policy is WP:BURDEN (part of the verifiability policy). In short, any content that is unsourced (or sourced but not to a reliable source) may be challenged (typically by adding a {{fact}} tag) or simply removed, and the burden is anyone wishing to place back the material to provide a reliable source that directly supports the content, specifically using an inline citation. Where you have actual information, through a reliable source, that the existing unsourced or poorly sourced content is wrong you would always do as Timothyjosephwood advises here, rather than challenging the content while leaving it in place. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind telling me what you think about the lead of West Coast Customs, and whether this revision hurt or helped? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

It does make it seemed much less biased   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)