Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 81

Archive 75

←

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

Archive 83

→

Archive 85

Query about the edit I made which was later removed as "unimportant".

NOTE: I originally posted this query on WikiProject Feminism talk page and on the Notability/Noticeboard but I haven't had any takers so I'm re-posting it here.

On 6 July 2012 I made the following edit on Kayden Kross's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayden_Kross) page:

"From June to September 2011 Kross co-presented fourteen podcast episodes of Kayden's Review (http://trigg.la/episodes/kaydens-review/) with the comedian Dane Hanson. The podcasts were for Trigg.la (http://trigg.la), a spin-off podcast and blogging website operated by Kevin Spacey's TV/film production company Trigger Street Productions."

It was deleted 3 days later by MikeWazowski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MikeWazowski) as "unimportant".

In recent years the mainstreaming of the pornography industry and the sexualization of the media has become a matter of much discussion and research. The podcasts were all filmed at Trigger Street's offices and I felt it was a valid point of interest that such a mainstream name / company should have this association. More recently Trigger Street Productions has announced it is set to make the film version of "50 Shades of Grey".

I was going to contact MikeWazowski but clicking on his user name I see that he is a prolific and experience editor and I think he may just argue against it on notability grounds. I thought, therefore, I would ask here first for advice about the 'note-worthiness' of contributions.

The Vintage FeministThe Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi TVF - I definitely see why you would think it is a valid point of interest, and I would agree with you that it is. However, Wikipedia tries to constrain what we write about to what is said in secondary sources - it doesn't matter that you and I think it is significantly interesting, it matters that sources with editorial oversight think that it is significantly interesting. This is in some instances an unfortunate rule, but I think that it works out well on balance, because it lets us avoid a lot of arguments that would otherwise occur.

If you'd like to reinclude the information on Kayden's page, the best way to do so would be by finding a secondary reliable source that discusses the podcast. I'm not sure what your best shot at finding such a source would be, but it wouldn't surprise me if even just a google news archive search turned one up. Feel free to ask for more help here if you need any, or to poke me on my talk page about any future issues you come across. Also, tangentially, although it has been relatively inactive lately, you seem like you might enjoy joining gendergap-l - the Wikimedia Foundation's list set up to discuss issues surrounding the gender gap among editors on Wikimedia projects. (If you were unaware, only around 10% of Wikimedia project editors are women.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your quick response. I have added the information again with a few more sources, in particular a piece (http://www.rogreviews.com/28119/kayden-kross-joins-triggla-tv/) by Roger T. Pipe whose bio appears on Wiki already.

In addition I have added a link to a clip showing of Kross's podcast which co-stars Trigger Street's Vice President Carter Swan and a further clip of Swan in a Trigger Street / Jameson Whiskey film competition promo.

Thanks again.The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse Birthday: stories and reflections wanted :)

Hello Teahousers! We are having some birthday celebrations as Teahouse turns 1 year-old next week. We'd love to hear your story:

1. What were your first impressions of the Teahouse?
2. What do you like most about the atmosphere at the Teahouse?
3. What experience at the Teahouse stands out for you as a highlight?
4. How has the Teahouse enabled you to empower yourself or other editors?
5. What do you hope for the Teahouse as she continues to grow up?

Selections may be used in a Wikimedia Foundation blog post which will run on the big day. Thanks again for making the Teahouse an awesome and helpful place. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

responded in the host lounge --Go Phightins! 22:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

My response is in the host lounge too :). --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

What the heck, I'll answer in the host lounge too. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 02:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

One year on reflections:

1. I ran into it late one night when I was a new user, seeing invitations going on new users' pages but not on mine. I thought it was in Australia. (It was 3AM and it was tea, not coffee.). It turns out I had started editing just before Teahouse started, so I hadn't been left out.
2. Much of Wikipedia converses in its own jargon with specialized terms, abbreviations, almost a secret language. What I like best about the Tearoom is how real world the conversations are.
3. The highlight was when I was able to answer an editor's question myself, and that editor immediately finished her page and started working on a multitude of other things.
4. It's helped me because I use it as a reference. Sooner or later almost every strange thing I have run into gets asked as a question here. The archives are wonderful.
5. As the Teahouse grows I almost hope it doesn't become too popular and lose its unrushed friendly atmosphere.

I'd like to hear from other Teahouse visitors here. The hosts are responding at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host lounge if you are curious. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Responded on my talk. gwickwire^talk_edits 21:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Search

Ih ave just made a page but when I search for it on wikipedia it doesnt appear? what am I doing wrong? (Laurabrantwood (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Laura, welcome to the Teahouse! You seem to have put your article draft at User:Laurabrantwood. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

So what do I need to do to change this?? Thanks for your help - I am clueless! Laurabrantwood (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Laura, something happenened to one of the curly brackets on the 'submit' code. However, you really don't want to submit your User page for review. Your User page is a place for you to tell everyone a bit (or a lot) about yourself.

Instead, if you look at the top of your screen, you should see a link to your "Sandbox". Create your article in your Sandbox and, when you're happy with it, submit the page. Before you submit it, I strongly suggest you find a few sources for the information in your article and list them. Wikipedia articles should generally be written using information from sources that are reliable (trustworthy) and independent from the subject. Sionk (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I have helpfully moved the draft to a user subpage at User:Laurabrantwood/Brantwood Specialist School. I also removed the bad template and the duplicate submission template. The current template has put the draft in the queue for review, but I echo Sionk's suggestion about references, and would add that the tone in some places is a little promotional.--ukexpat (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I submitted an article, but didn't create a talk page with it, is that a mistake?

I submitted my article to the AfC, but there is no talk page associated with it. Did I make a mistake? I tried to follow all the directions, but am afraid I've done something wrong.

Here is the link to the page: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Russian Machine Never Breaks

Thanks very much for your help! --Kaleidscope-Eyes (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

No, you did all of that correctly - articles for creation submissions don't have talk pages for technical reasons. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

thanks very much for your help, I appreciate it.--Kaleidscope-Eyes (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

How to indicate references on a list

Dear editors: As suggested by several editors on this help page, I have been reorganizing the page List of fiddlers using tables. I was told that if the list had only links to Wikipedia articles on it, it would not need duplicate references. However, this list has not only the names of fiddlers, but their nationality and fiddle styles. If I copy all of the references from the various pages, there will be hundreds of them. Also, this page will be edited by a lot of people wanting to add fiddlers, and it's easy to mess up tables. I would like to indicate beside each fiddler's info in a brief and simple way, after checking, that the fiddler's article adequately references the facts shown. I could use a named ref tag, and have the reference text say "References for this information may be found in the article about this fiddler". However, when you use a named reference many times, you get something like this at the bottom: (1)abcdefghijklmnopqurstuv before the text. Is there a better way? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, Anne. The List of fiddlers is looking great compared to when you started. To your question: Several possibilities exist but I recommend that you use {{Reflist|group=Note}} at the bottom and add a note to the heading with the explanation rather than each entry. Use <ref group="Note">References to support this information are in the article about this fiddler.</ref>. Using that wikimarkup, you can still have another section of References with {{reflist}} to list separate references. Is that a help?

Thanks for the suggestion. However, I am unable to figure out from your explanation or from the Template:Reflist page how this will help me to accomplish my goal, which is to mark each fiddler that has references to nationality and fiddle style, while leaving the others unmarked or marked with a "citation needed" until someone gets around to checking or improving the references in the fiddler articles. Am I missing something? The explanation on the Reflist page is confusing. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Another suggestion is to add "width=95%" after {| class="wikitable" border="1" at the start of each table. That'll make all of the boxes the same width. Unnecessary but more visually appealing. See what you think about the look. With apologies for creating so much work for you, take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 20:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do this for every table except the top one, which has to leave space for a large box of violin information. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Updating the Information

Hello everyone. I am editing a wiki page which has a little bit old information on it. I would like to update that information but I am a afraid that I can be banned for some reasons I did not know. Could anyone please help me to find out what should I know before posting the new info on a wiki page so my account will not get bocked. Thank you JPice40 (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! One of the good things about Wikipedia is that we assume good faith here. Meaning that if you do make a mistake, the worst that can happen is that someone will revert your changes and leave you a gentle note on your talk page. So, basically, it's almost impossible to get blocked/banned when editing in good faith. So, you can certainly be bold and fix the changes. Good luck and happy editing! ^King Jakob _C2 13:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi JPice40. Don't worry - unless you're actively trying to damage the article or fill it with spam, you're extremely unlikely to be blocked. At worst, someone might revert your edits and drop you a note telling you why. To ensure that your edits "stick", you'll need to provide sources showing that your information is correct - for something like QUAKE, mainstream games magazines are one of the best sources. If you're not sure how to cite references, drop us a line here or have a look at this essay. And again, don't worry - speaking on behalf of the admin corps, we're generally pretty hesitant about doling out blocks: you need to do something really bad before those sort of sanctions come into play! Yunshui 雲‍水 13:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please help me finnish my first article

It's a Notable person and an actor me and my sister are big fan off. I've been trying to read and do it myself but It would be some much quicker to have someone take a look at it now.

Also the actor has like 34.000 followers on Twitter and is Top 5000 on IMDb most viewed in the world, I don't know if I need to put that somewhere to push for his notability.

The article is for Johan Matton Johan Matton Thanks

Sebastian Changingfilm (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

What is exactly the article you want to finish? — nerdfighter^(academy) 02:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! — nerdfighter^(academy) 03:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that you start the page on your sandbox and that you should also read Wikipedia:My First Article. Good luck, changingfilm. i'm sorry that i couldn't be anymore help to you, but be brave, because your not the first one to have this problem, you and won't be the last. Sincerely zeroro(edits) 05:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

How do I report violations/abuse?

I've come across some apparent abuse where the editors seem to be referencing themselves (or some other person they really favor?) across several articles. I don't have the time/know-how/authority to clean this stuff up the way it should, but I'd like to alert people who would be able to address the issue. How do I 'flag' or alert someone to apparent abuse?

Higgyrun3 (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Try an appropriate noticeboard for the situation. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 19:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Although I agree with TBradley, you should really leave a note on the editor in question's talk page first highlighting your concerns. — nerdfighter^(academy) 21:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Free images

Hi,

Is an image taken before 1923 (say, in 1914), is it automatically in the public domain?

Thanks,

^King Jakob _C2 15:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi KingJakob! Glad to see you back again. It depends on where the image was created; do you have any more details on the picture (namely, country of origin)? Note: if it was taken in the US, this is quite a useful site. Cheers, —Theopolisme (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Um, if the image does meet the public domain requirements with age, but the website hosting them says, and here I'm quoting...:

"All photographs, art and maps are the property of Andrew Hoke/Berwick Railfan (2009-2011) and can not be used in any way without permission."

...then what is the best course of action?^King Jakob _C2 23:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Do you have a link to the site? If these were published before 1923, they are essentially okay for use on the English Wikipedia. For your second question, if he does not hold the copyright, he legally has no claim over how we use them. US copyright law does not recognise scanning as giving a new copyright. Now, to be polite we could ask permission. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

If I edit my submitted Afc, will it be reviewed later?

Hi TeaHouse =], my name is Nicholas and I was just wondering if I edit my submitted article (Afc) will it be reviewed later everytime I edit it? cause I realized that few days ago (21st Feb) the 'AFC submission|||ts=20130221180259|u=Nicholance|ns=5' box on top of my Submitted Afc stated that 'There are currently 1700 smth submissions waiting for review at......' Today I realized I had some spelling mistakes and added additional source and then I realized it changed from 1700 something to 1888 submissions waiting for review. Even if that's the case, I'm just wondering if my submission will be as late today's submissions due to my changes to my Afc. Any guidance or help given will be very much appreciated =]

Here's my submitted Afc link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Liam_Hackett

Nicholance (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. The answer for your question is No, but since articles at AfC are highly backlogged, reviewers will give higher priority to articles which have been submitted earlier. There is no order for reviewing. Usually editors review them at random, giving higher priority to earlier articles. However, editing them will not cause the article to be reviwed later. Sincerely, Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 11:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay got it ! Thank you so much for your answer & reply Ushau97. Appreciate it ! Now all I hope for is my Afc to be accepted. Have a nice day & many thanks Nicholance (talk) 11:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Lal Singh Dil

My article on lal Singh Dil is on the watchlist for review. I had pasted lal Singh Dil's Photo in the Infobox but it does not show.Why? What can be wrong ? Tcghai (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for trying to create a new article. I have checked on your article and saw that no image appears on the infobox. That happened because no image have been uploaded in the name of Lal Singh Dil. I have done a search in Wikipedia and Commons and have found no images on the topic. So first thing you have to do is if you have a image of the subject, you have to upload it either to commons: or to Wikipedia. You need to be aware that not all images can be used at Wikipedia. It needs to be free. That means you can use only files which are allowed to be used on Wikipedia by copyright laws. Before you upload an image, make sure that the image falls in one of the four categories:

• Own work: You own all rights to the image, usually meaning that you created it entirely yourself.
• Freely licensed: You can prove that the copyright holder has released the image under an acceptable free license. Note that images that are licensed for use only on Wikipedia, or only for non-commercial or educational use, or under a license that doesn't allow for the creation of modified/derived works, are unsuitable.
• Public domain: You can prove that the image is in the public domain, i.e. free of all copyrights.
• Fair use: You believe that the image meets the special conditions for non-free content, which exceptionally allow the use of unlicensed material, and you can provide an explicit non-free use rationale explaining why and how you intend to use it.

So to make it short, you have to upload an image first & if you have no image which can be used that means you have to create the article with no image. However, don't be discouraged. Be Bold and help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 10:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Unsure if I should reference

I recently edited the Criticism of Second Life article, I went into detail about the age restrictions but I linked to the information instead of lining it wasn't a news article. if someone could look over it to tell me if I should change it to a reference it would be appreciated. --LewisHoward (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Lewis. I'm unsure exactly what you're asking. I find your contributions to the article sufficiently neutral and consistent with the references you cited. Pretty good work. Please sign talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~) to make it easier for us to find your comments. If you have more questions, ask away. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 20:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Doc and Lewis. Doc, I believe the editor was thinking that his use of bare urls was a link in the article and not a reference. Basicly, using the <ref></ref> tags around the url it becomes a reference with a "bare url address". This is no longer acceptable on Wikipedia, but the mistake is not horrible. It is still being done often by many inexperianced editors. Someone will eventually reformat those as proper inline citations. As long as the source is relaibly published, with editorial oversite or is the official website (citing information about the subject only), this is acceptable as a reliable source.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Missing Page

Hi

I am looking for a page for the company I work for. It appears to have been removed from Wikipedia.

The company is Money Expert Limited with the website address www.moneyexpert.com

The page was on the site at some point but I think it has either been removed or more likely redirected to Money Saving Expert which is a totally different company.

If anyone can point me in the right direction it would be appreciated as I am totally lost.

GazJonesUK (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I didnt add the original page by the way so I have no idea how to find it, I am new around Wikipedia so I have no clue where to start looking.

GazJonesUK (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The article was at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_Expert ... it was (apparently) tagged as being written in a promotional tone, having insufficient independent reliable sources to clearly establish notability, and likely being authored by someone associated with the company or product, for over two years... and there was then a proposed deletion which was uncontested for 7 days and thus it was deleted. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, on the basis I work there I don't want to write / edit a new page as it would be a a conflict of interest I suppose.

We only just spotted it had vanished and wondered where it had gone...

GazJonesUK (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

As you say, it would be a conflict of interest for you to work on such a page. But if you can find the necessary substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the company, then it could have an article, and you could either request one at WP:Requested articles (but there is a backlog) or see if you could find somebody in an appropriate WikiProject, such as WT:WikiProject finance who would write the article. But if the company does not already have this coverage, I would advise you not to bother. --ColinFine (talk) 11:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Deleting images

Can one delete or update an image uploaded by him?Haephrati (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Haephrati. Whilst you can't technically do it yourself, you are allowed to request deletion of images you've uploaded. If you've uploaded the image to WikiMedia Commons, you can do so via the "Nominate for deletion" link in the Toolbox menu on the left of the image's Commons page. If it's on Wikipedia, you can add the tag {{db-g7}} to the top of the page. Neither of these guarantee deletion, but if there are no other overriding concerns, most administrators (on both projects) will delete images at the uploader's request. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

No. The question is about deleting the image, not an article that contains it. Images are uploaded separately. See: [Uploading_images]. But can an uploaded image be removed?

Haephrati (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

As Yunshui said, you are allowed to request deletion of images you uploaded here on Wikipedia. Any image uploaded locally (here on en.wikipedia.org) should be deleted if a) you request it and b) it isn't used in any articles. On http://commons.wikimedia.org however, if the image is in any way useful to anyone, you'll likely meet some opposition to having it deleted. I see no uploads in your logs, so you may want to check your log at the commons link above. gwickwire^talk_editing 19:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

On Commons, images can be "updated" as long as it is "updateable". Some images have been restricted against such editing, but in general most images do have a special button to uplaod a newer image. I do this often as I tend to aquire better software to improve qulity and in some cases have even replaced images with entirely new images. That is generally frowned on at Commons but there are some exceptions such as this one I recently did: File:Portrait of Julius Caesar (color).jpg (at commons).--Amadscientist (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Long wait for a review

I have been waiting since 08-Feb-13 for someone to review this page--> Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Review Raja. Please let me know the estimated time or queue number if its going to take a while.Kirukp (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kirukp. The time that a review takes can vary since the queue can be longer or shorter. Right now, a review may take over a week.

Fortunately, I just reviewed it myself, and I declined it since an article for the subject already exists (Review Raja). However, you are welcome to improve the current article instead. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 07:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

My goodness. I was sure before submitting this page wasn't there. Can you please tell me when did this come online?

Thanks for your time, The Anonymouse.Kirukp (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparantly 03:25, 13 February 2013‎ as show here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Review_Raja&oldid=537891887 Regards, Ariconte (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Ariconte.Kirukp (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I am following this discussion with interest. If Kirukp wrote and submitted his page first, and another user later created a similar page while the first page was waiting review, shouldn't Kirukp's page have priority here? It's not his or her fault that the queue was long.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The Review Raja article was not created through the AfC process, it was written directly in mainspace, so there is no substance to any suggestions of "jumping the queue" - it was never in the queue. By far the majority of articles are created directly in mainspace or in user sandboxes, the AfC process handles only a small minority of new articles. I have started 27 articles myself - none through AfC and all of them still exist. BTW writing articles is not a competition. Roger (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that article writing should not be a competition. I was thinking more of the wasted effort here. Normally, if a user starts to create an article that already exists, Wikipedia's software will let them know. Couldn't articles under review be included in that notification? My previous comment was not meant to suggest "queue jumping". I am sure that the person who created Review Raja on Feb. 13 was genuinely unaware of the previously written article under review. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The guidance at WP:MERGE is relevant as one would merge the draft into the existing article, by keeping the best non-duplicated parts of each and combining them into a single coherent text.

I have noticed that many article writers who use AfC are under the impression that it is the only way articles are added to WP. Many of the AfC help page posts contain questions such as: "My article is just like this, that and the other similar articles in mainspace which you guys passed so why are you declining mine?" - thus implying that the poster thinks all articles go through AfC. Roger (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

People think this because the AfC page is very unclear in my opinion. It basically says "whether you are an unregistered or registered user, you can use the Article Wizard!" with a giant 48pt "Create an article now!" link. Instead it should say something like "AfC is primarily for unregistered users, if you are a registered user there is no need to use AfC, you can publish your article in a matter of minutes, see instructions here". What we have now is strongly guiding new users, even registered ones, through AfC. It's also not advertising a big advantage of having an account. Silas Ropac (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I started a thread on this over at AfC's talk page, if you are interested. Silas Ropac (talk) 08:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Anne Delong for bringing this up or I would never know about the use of 'mainspace'. I started this article back in July 2012, it was put in the long queue and got declined. When I found few more references I resubmitted this month. Again this time after the wait for review I came to know mine was a duplicate. I almost gave up the idea of writing an article again, mainly considering the time taken for a review.Kirukp (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The emphasis is on AfC because it's generally thought to be kinder to let a person "build" an article with some guidance than to let the user create it and see the article get deleted because it has no references or is a promotional article, etc.

Do I add data to an existing subject or create a new one? and How?

I have been looking for the word/phrase 'Camelephantelopelicanary' and i have assembled a few paragraphs and links to web items, but the word/phrase does not exist in Wikipedia.

I feel it should be part of the 'Litery Nonsense' as that is what it is, and goes back to at least the turn of the 19th century.

Being new to wikipedia it seems so complcated to edit, and nothing like using Word. Is there a means for data to be submitted so that expert editors can include the data? That would be better than me making a mess of an existing subject?

Hope someone can help?

Thanks

Colin Morgan23:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinMorg (talk • contribs)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If i understand your question correctly, the best way to do this would be to start a discussion on the talkpage of Literary nonsense found here. Use the "New section" button at the top right of the page and create a header title and write the proposal in a neutral manner with your references and sources. be sure and give some detail as to why you believe this to be notable enough for inclusion.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Linking a search to a part of an article I just wrote

Hello! I am new here so I am sorry if this question has already been asked. My first edit was adding a section to KevJumba's page entitled: Hang Loose (it's his movie). There is no other article on that movie. When users search for "hang loose" in the search bar, it redirects them to the "Shaka Sign" page. How can I make a link or disambiguation link to direct users to the Hang Loose film article I typed on KevJumba's page? Thanks! 10v350n9 (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello 10v350n9. I am Amadscientist, a volutnteer here at the Teahouse. To make a direct link to that specific part of the article you would use the pound sign or # along with the title of the article and then the section being directed to like this: [[KevJumba#Hang Loose]] which directs to that section and not the top of the article. KevJumba#Hang Loose.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Now, one other small trick is to name that link in any manner you wish by adding the | character after the section and then placing any wording you wish like this: [[KevJumba#Hang Loose|Hang Loose movie]], which then becomes: Hang Loose movie--Amadscientist (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much!

10v350n9 (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

can I write on stories that I was told?

I was woundering if it is okay to fill gabs about different subjects and if I could write short stories I was told. There is no written record on those things I want to write. Only I was told by people who lived the events. And some information are not released by the countries, is it ok to write on these subjects? Smalllulu (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless you can find third party (outside) sources that mention these stories then I'm afraid not. This is because that counts as original research. — nerdfighter^(academy) 23:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

How Do I Suggest An Award?

I would like to to suggest some barnstars and awards. Where would I be able to do that? Missionedit (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there and welcome! I think the best place to go for that would be Wikipedia talk:WikiLove. Happy editing! ^King Jakob _C2 22:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of ways to do this. You can use the discussion at the page indicated above as well as on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards. Also, if your barnstar suggestions are more individualised or specific, you can make these suggestions at the relevant Wikipedia WikiProjects. For example. If you want to suggest an award for for images you can use the talkpage at Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media. Happy editing!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

videos

how come when i try to watch video on wikipedia it only lets me watch half of it then freezes?Sincerely zeroro(edits) 21:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It could be your general browser, I'm not sure if Wikipedia can help as they usually do work for me. Perhaps a browser problem. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 21:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

shows user name

When I look for my entry on Wikipedia it shows the following User:Jeankinney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jeankinney

Did I do something wrong? 50.40.222.148 (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jean, and welcome! As a Junior Wrangler here at the Teahouse, I've added a userspace draft template to the top of your draft article. When you're happy that the draft has references to independent reliable sources that discuss the winery in detail, you can click the "Submit the page!" link so that the draft will be sent for review to see if it's ready to become a Wikipedia article. You may find Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners useful in improving the citation format in the draft. Good luck! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

How to use the same reference more than once?

Hi. I know that after I add <ref>{{cite web|url=|title=|publisher=|accessdate=}}</ref>, that produces the initial reference. How can I use that same reference twice without having to retype everything. Thanks. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 15:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, JHUbal27! Hang on here, there's going to be a bit of code. You have to write one reference with a name assigned to it like this: <ref name = "something">Example</ref>, and then to refer to the reference with <ref name = "something"/>.

So, to show you how this works here's how a reader should see it:

Wikipedia is a great encyclopedia. It has millions of articles.

Hi King Jacob! I would like to give you a friendly reminder to please sign your comments. Thanks for the answer! I guess I'll test it. <ref name=Google>http://www.google.com</ref> Can I still use the cite web template or not? I'm still a little confused. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 18:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The easiest way is probably to go to prefererences/gadgets and select ProveIt. It is an easy visual citation adder. Thanks! — nerdfighter^(academy) 19:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Just name the ref <ref name = "something">Example</ref> ... for the second or third entry just add </ref name = "something">.Moxy (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Rating of pages

Dear editors: Pages that I have created directly and not through Afc have never been rated for quality. These are Peterborough Canoe Company and Pineridge Bluegrass Folklore Society. How do I submit them to receive a rating? —Anne Delong (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anne. The easiest way to do this is to add the appropriate WikiProject banner (or banners) to the talk page of the article. Members of WikiProjects usually patrol their article lists to check for unrated articles and rate them on the talk page banner. I've added them for you for both articles. In these cases :WikiProject Canada is probably the most appropriate. In the first one, I also checked the parameter for their sub-project on Ontario and for the second, their sub-project on Canadian Music. You can also post directly to Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board and let the members know about your new articles. Hope that helps. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again!—Anne Delong (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Glad to help! :) If your articles tend to focus on Canadian subjects, Template:WikiProject Canada lists all the possibilities. The ones you're most likely to need can be added to the article talk page with the following code:

• {{WikiProject Canada|on=yes}} for WikiProject Canada + Ontario
• {{WikiProject Canada|music=yes}} for WikiProject Canada + Canadian Music

If you have written a biography, you can also add:

• {{WikiProject Biography|living=yes}} if the person is still alive, otherwise living=no.

The first thing I do after creating a new article is to add at least one project banner to the talk page, as it helps integrate it into Wikipedia and helps the various projects keep track of articles within their scope. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Getting back into user page

How to I get back into my user page after logging out? I'm creating a new page. Ripeditor (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! What do you mean by get back into your user page. You can edit it while logged out if you want, but it's best to stay logged in. If you mean how do you log in again once you've logged out, just click log in in the upper right corner. If that didn't answer your question, please pose it again...I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Go Phightins! 23:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ripeditor, I see you have edited User:Ripeditor/Baltimore Presstman Cardinals both before and after posting here. Is that the page you want to get back to? When you are logged in you can click "Contributions" at the top right of any page to see pages you have edited. You can also use your watchlist to monitor pages of interest. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Once you are logged otu just use the search function to return to your own user page (as being logged out no longer displays your page link at the top. Just remeber to type User:Ripeditor and then hit the little magnifying glass icon and it takes you straight there.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all very much, you answered my question. Ripeditor (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Images copyright tags went missing when I view them anonymously (not logged in)

Hi TeaHouse =], my name is Nicholas and I guess I might need some help from you guys again.

I've recently (this week) uploaded two images to Wikimedia Commons. To make things easier, let's just call one Image A and another one Image B. Image A is an image of a person which is the founder of an organisation and is used in my submitted AFC page, while Image B is an image of a Logo of an organisation and is used in an article. Both were tagged with copyright tags 'cc-by-3.0' which appeared in a box when saved. NOTE: Image A(person) is actually the founder of the organisation which uses the logo which is also Image B.

Here's what happened, after I logged out of Wikipedia and check back into both my submitted AFC page and the article and clicked both of the images, I realised that both Image A&B copyright tags (boxes) are gone.

Image A have a box with red lining and a 'no entry' sign stating that, 'This media file does not have sufficient information on its copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the file will be deleted seven days after this template was added:(20 February 2013)...' And also another box which is orange in color with an orange 'C' stating that, 'The uploader did not provide sufficient information (a valid and suitable tag) on this media' s copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the file could be deleted seven days after the upload (20 February 2013)..'

Image B in other hand only have one box which is the orange box with an orange C just like Image A also the same date.

The date about deleting the images freaked me out and I dint know what to do. And also I would like to know if both of my Images are suitable to use the 'cc-by3.0' tags.

Below are my images link and information: Image A : The owner of Image A attached his photo and e-mailed to me when I told him I needed his photo for creating him an article when I reached out to him from the org official website. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Liam_Hackett.jpg Image B : I downloaded Image B from the organisation's official website, the organisation stated in the website that 'feel free to download our images'. But since I've told the founder of the organisation about updating the article, I think its fine. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ditch_The_Label_Logo.png

Any guidance or help will be very much appreciated. If clarifications about my question is needed feel free ask, I'll try and clarify them =]. Nicholance (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nicholas :) Welcome! The issue is most likely that you don't own the copyright to either image. In this case, you'll need to have the creator of the images follow the instructions here to release the copyright under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Hope this helps :) gwickwire^talk_editing 00:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Howdy, Nicholas. Copyright issues can be complicated. The suitability of Mr. Hackett's portrait will almost certainly be questioned since you do not own the copyright. That he emailed the image to you isn't adequate unless he specified that he both owns the copyright and specifically releases the image under a suitable license. The copyright may be held by the photographer, not Mr. Hackett. That would be the usual case in the USA but I'm not familiar with UK copyright law. The Ditch the Label website specifically states: "Material on this website, including text and images, is protected by copyright. It may not be copied, reproduced, republished, downloaded, posted, broadcast or transmitted in any way except for your own personal, non-commercial use. Prior written consent of the copyright holder must be obtained for any other use of material." and "No part of this site may be distributed or copied for any commercial purpose."

All isn't lost. Wikipedia (and Commons) provide specific guidelines for obtaining permission to use an image and release it under a suitable license. There's even sample text. Permission should come from the copyright holder and be sent to "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org". You can resend your request to Mr. Hackett specifically asking for permission and release. Add a {{OTRS pending}} template to the image page to preserve it while awaiting permission. If the portrait is deleted, it or another with a suitable license can be added later.

The organization logo does not appear to be a problem. The updated image page states, "This image only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain." Some jurisdictions may limit its use because of Trademark laws. It appears that another editor recreated the image using vector graphics and text. That image is identical in appearance to what you downloaded but was made independently.

Hope this helps. Take care, DocTree(ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 01:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks to both of you DocTree & gwickwire. I've sent an e-mail to Mr Liam Hackett requesting for copyright permission and I've also added the OTRS Pending tag to the image(s). One more question now that I am just waiting for e-mail confirmation and then after that when I've received the confirmation I'll send it to 'permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org' ? Is that the e-mail address ? or is it permissions-commons AT wikimedia.org ? If its not an e-mail address how do I forward the confirmation e-mail to the OTRS team? =] Appreciate your help. Nicholance (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

ILLUSTRATIONS

I've just completed the keying-in of a very complex architectural article. It runs to about 1000w and includes 4 or 5 references to significant projects in Britain and Holland. My piece would be greatly enhanced if thumbnail images of some / all of these buildings were included. Is it up to me to a) source the images and b) 'insert' them alongside my text? Or do I send the Wikipedia team a note of these visual references and leave them to 'capture' them and add them to my text?CORREZE (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Correze! You are part of the Wikipedia team, as are the rest of us! To illustrate the article you could either search Wikipedia amd Wikimedia for suitable images that have already been contributed, or take photos and upload them yourself, or find images online that have been released for free use with a Creative Commons license (and upload them). Instructions for upload/insertion are WP:UPIMAGE and WP:PIC. Looks like an interesting article! Sionk (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If there are no availbale images to use, you may also request images be created at Wikipedia:Requested pictures. If there is anything within the immediate area of Sacramento, I am willing to create images. Let me know. I am a part of Project Architecture and Project photgraphy as well as Project Illustration.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

here is a google image search for "church reordering" with the right license from geograph.org [1]. you could upload those to commons. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 02:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Update to archived question on George Kennan's memoirs

Note: The rules are against updating archives, so I'm resuming the discussion here. I'm repeating the information in the archives to maintain continuity. The article in question is on the New Deal, particularly the subarticle called "Charges of Communist."

I want to quote some passages from Kennan's memoirs for one or two articles. Does this violate any rules concerning primary sources? Thank you in advance. LesLein (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello LesLein, and thanks for the excellent question! If you would like to quote some passages, remember that you should cite where you got it from - you may want to read WP:CITE. Thanks again, Kevin12xd (contribs) 01:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

OR based on memoirs is seldom a good idea, especially if anything controversial is involved. Kennan was getting revenge against old enemies of his in the State Dept. It is much better to rely on the recent Pulitzer-prize biography of Kennan by John Gaddis.Rjensen (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen, what is your evidence? You write that we are not to use OR, yet based on the above paragraph we have to accept your assertion on faith that Kennan's memoirs were poisoned by his animosity towards the State Department. (BTW, Kennan first expressed his deep disdain towards American politics and democracy back in 1935, so that couldn't have affected his memoirs as you state in the New Deal edit history.)

Kennan detested McCarthyism. Kennan gave a speech denouncing McCarthy when Tailgunner Joe's popularity was near its peak (see the John Lukacs book on Kennan). Kennan expressed doubt about Alger Hiss's guilt. In the Wiki article on McCarthy John Earl Haynes indicates that McCarthy's charges usually had at least a little merit. If Kennan can't be used, is there anything wrong with referencing Haynes' work? The current New Deal subarticle "Charges of Communism" is completely one-sided. If providing another perspective (indicating that communist influence in government was not overwhelming but not trivial) isn't permited, it should be deleted as POV. It's barely related to the New Deal to begin with and is probably covered better elsewhere.

Kennan's 1967 volume of his memoirs won the Pulitizer Prize. It is hard to believe that Kennan's attitude towards the State Department, objectivity, and reliability degenerated so much over five years. His memoirs are cited multiple times in Wikipedia. The New Deal has other OR in block quotes from Hoover and FDR. Hoover's memoirs reflect obvious bias against the New Deal. FDR's block quote are not candid, being very inconsistent with what he said multiple times in private. If Kennan's memoirs can't be used, why should the other OR be retained?

Because Wikipedia is a tertiary aggregator of secondary sources. Basically, anyone can say anything they want to about themselves. People who write a book about someone, though, tend to be perhaps a little less biased than the person themselves, sometimes. You know, take it with a grain of salt. You could perhaps say something like, "so and so said X"<ref>blah</ref> "while this other person said Y"<ref>blah</ref>. If material is one sided, present the other side. We don't want to present either side as the "truth" (unless there's overwhelming consensus that one version is generally accepted as the truth, see for instance the Flat Earth article). Good luck. :)

Take That article- Semi protection needed

Hi, Being a Take That fan as well as a Wikipedian, i have noticed that the Take That page seems to get a huge amount of vandalism. Would it be sensible to semi-protect it? if so, where is the appropriate place to appeal for this protection? Thanks, Jonie148 (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Read through WP:PROTECT to make sure it meets the criteria first. Then you can place the request at WP:RPP — nerdfighter^(academy) 16:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Jonie148 (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Happy to help! — nerdfighter^(academy) 18:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for the prompt response, this has helped to clear a lot of things up for me. . . Didn't want to be adding things incorrectly(this is all new to me).

Thanks again

Bellsniff123 (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Main Page

I realise Main Page links straight to, well, the main page. So would that cause a potential problem for readers wanting to find out about a hypothetical song called "Main Page"? Adding a hat note would seem weird. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't we just call it Main Page (song) ? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Definitely, that would be a case where a disambiguating title was required.--ukexpat (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Then wouldn't a hat note be required? Where would that be placed? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 22:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 January 10#Hypothetical situation for earlier speculation. I wrote: "It would be decided by consensus at the time. We cannot say what the result would be but I guess it would require a very notable topic to get support for a hatnote. By the way, there is a guy called William Main Page." PrimeHunter (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright issue

Dear editors: I'd like an opinion from someone experienced with copyright issues. Here's a page Lonesome Pine Fiddlers created in 2008 which gives as its source [2]. On that web site, the group's biography is no longer there, and instead there's a note: Source: The Encyclopedia of Popular Music by Colin Larkin. Licensed from Muze. (The Encyclopedia is not freely on line so I couldn't check it.) I found the same text as this article on several web sites, but I wasn't sure if they were copied from the Wikipedia article. Then I found this site: [3] which gives the same oldies.com source and has large passages of identical material. Is this proof enough? Should I nominate the page for deletion? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello again Anne. No. Copyright issues are not an AFD reasoning unless you can demonstrate that the entire article is a copyright issue. This particular situation seems to clearly not be a copyright issue as the last link you gave clearly states:"Source: Wikipedia | The above article is available under the GNU FDL. | Edit this article".--Amadscientist (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops! I guess I didn't look carefully enough. I guess the only way to know for sure is to check th eencyclopedia. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

How detailed should story plot summaries be?

Hello editors! I was reading an article In the Name of the Brother which has a moment by moment description of a television show episode. Is this appropriate? Does Wikipedia have any guidelines for this sort of thing? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anne, welcome back to the Teahouse! I have seen TV show descriptions run the gamut...one one hand we have The Big Bang Theory, which uses a couple of paragraphs and seems reasonable to me. On the other hand, we have The West Wing, which has an individual article on each episode. Personally, I think your particular article goes a little overkill; even Two Cathedrals (a WW episode) is relatively short and sweet. We have a guideline of sorts here; Wikipedia should not be an indiscriminate collection of information. An effective article should summarize what happens, not retell it. Hope this helps. Go Phightins! 02:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is a Wikipedia guideline. See WP:TVPLOT. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 03:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

And the main guideline can be forund at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, there is currently a discussion at the Village Pump concerning plot summeries at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Do "plot summaries" get a pass from WP:Verifiability core policy?.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The WP:TVPLOT says 250 - 500 words. In the Name of the Brother is up to 1500 or so at this point. Should something be done? When does a detailed retelling become a copyright violation? —Anne Delong (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Uhm...when it copies contents from another source. Length is not a copyright issue. It is a manual of style issue. Please feel free to be bold and edit the section! I support the bold edit. Happy editing!--Amadscientist (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I just mentioned the copyright issue because WP:TVPLOT talks about "derivative works". I do watch that show, so I probably could sensibly shorten it, if I take time off from the Bluegrass Topics and List of fiddlers pages that I've been working on. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Trying to address concerns about neutral tone and references for article

Hello. I am trying to help my father make an article he submitted be more fit for wikipedia. It has been rejected a couple of times for not being neutral enough and not having enough reliable sources.

My father was referred to the Teahouse so I am writing here to follow up on this endeavor.

Any assistance or more concrete input would be very much appreciated! Thank you Rebecca

Here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Joan_Susannah_Sadler_(nee_Wilkinson) Rebecca Creative (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rebecca. I can a couple of problems with the article as it stands. The first thing that jumps out at me is that the first citation isn't a citation, it looks like original research. We don't accept original research. All citations must be to independent, reliable and verifiable sources. The second issue I can see is that much of the article doesn't have citations. This, again, makes the large majority of the article look like original research. It's entirely acceptable to use the same source for multiple citations if that's your intent and ideally the entire article should be covered by citations. As it stands, most of the paragraphs don't have any evidence to back them up so they come across as original research and not as properly sourced material. It doesn't look that far off but in its current state I can see why it was rejected. Have you talked to user Stausifr about why he or she has rejected it? They can probably give you the most precise advice. -Rushyo ^Talk 13:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Subjects notability questionable?

My article has just been rejected. It says it does not adequately evidence the subject's notability. But I have given over 5 cited sources from magazines, newspapers, and websites.

The reason I am trying to get this article on Wikipedia, is because we have a distribution agreement Spotify Inc and iHeartRadio.

They encouraged us to create an article for our group, because that is where All Music Inc. pulls there information from. Spotify and iHeartRadio do not directly take the information from us. So basically, if we dont have material on Wikipedia, we cant have material on the distributions sites we need them on.

I dont know how else to gain notability at this point. We have played at the largest venues in the Midwest, with National Touring acts. If you have any advice, I would appreciate it. This has been a real pain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Silver_Heart_Club

174.124.5.136 (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello 174.124, and welcome to the Teahouse. Generally, what editors are looking for is a number of third-party reliable sources that have mentioned the group and its recordings. Record reviews would be a good example, as well.

That said, if you are connected to the group, technically you shouldn't be working on an article about them because of your conflict of interest in it. It is possible to edit such an article, but it requires such a high level of care and detail to prove that the edits are neutral and not meant to promote the group.

I hope this gives you something of an idea into what we're looking for, but feel free to expand on this discussion with additional questions and comments.

--McDoobAU93 01:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read the comments of the editor who declined your request. I've copied it below:

Comment: As of this post, this article is a copy and paste from http://www.thesilverheartclub.com/about.html, although per the OTRS tag here it appears that permission has been granted for the use of information from this site on Wikipedia. However, the submission still requires more reliable sources to verify information and to qualify the notability of the topic. The sources from VolumeOne magazine (one is lengthy, one is very short) and the Tribune Press Reporter (appears to be a very short article) are a great start, but the topic appears to have borderline notability at this time. Is the Tribune Press Reporter paywalled, or is this the entire article? Northamerica1000(talk) 00:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Basically, you need more sources and you need to rewrite the article so that the information can be verified. That means that it needs to look like a typical Wikipedia entry, not something copied from a website. Mono 01:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

A small note about conflict of interest. Just being close to the subject or even the subject itself does not mean one stand in COI. The main issue is: "When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.". Bringing this here instead of just going out on your own is a good step to show a lack of COI.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

On the same theme, you say that "if we dont have material on Wikipedia, we cant have material on the distributions sites we need them on." Unfortunately, this means that you are dependent on people who may be requiring you to misuse Wikipedia, since promotion is specifically not allowed. I appreciate that it is not you requiring this, and you are caught in the middle; but Wikipedia is not going to change one of its fundamental policies to satisfy another organisation that wants to use it for purposes it was never intended for. --ColinFine (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)