Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 823

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 820Archive 821Archive 822Archive 823Archive 824Archive 825→Archive 830

Help with setting up a new article about a person (question of notability)

Hello, I'm a Wikipedia newbie and would like to write an article about a (deceased) person I have done extensive research on in the past years, J.J. Proferes, who was once knows as the "leader of Washington D.C.'s pornography industry" by the Washington Post, who has in the 1960s written a large number of pulp fiction novels and who in the 1970s has had a number articles written and published about him. My first question, going through everything that's written on the "Your first article" page: does this qualify as being "notable"? If so, is the Article Wizard the best place to start? Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpitupandstartagain (talk • contribs) 14:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I guess it was in the nature of his business that he didn't publicise his name. This might lead to a usable source, but it's behind a paywall. Maproom (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Rpitupandstartagain, I'd say Proferes sounds notable, as you mention he "had a number articles written and published about him". If those are in reliable sources and discuss him in some depth, they would mean he meets the general notability guidelines. I didn't find very much skimming through Newspapers.com very briefly, just some mentions of him being charged for showing Deep Throat, and this one referring to him as "Washington's Porn King" and saying he decorated Kenneth J. Gray's "now-famous houseboat Roll Call". It doesn't matter what I find though, it matters what you've found, and that you include the references. Note that offline sources are fine. Not everything has to be online. You might find some subject-specific help and advice at WP:WikiProject Pornography. Yes, Article Wizard is a good place to start the actual writing. Best of luck, › Mortee talk 20:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Barbara Dusty Roads

I'm disappointed that I could not find the historic Dusty Roads on Wiki. Please please offer her info as it's much more relovate than movie and pop star info. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StardustJJ (talk • contribs) 13:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Found this: https://www.apfa.org/womens-history-month/4784-barbara-dusty-roads Definitely a worthy "Women in Red" project. David notMD (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

For those possibly not familiar with the topic: David notMD meant Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. :) CiaPan (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

StardustJJ, I've added Dusty to WP:WikiProject Women in Red/Labor activists, so at least she's on their list. › Mortee talk 20:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Why My article is not approved to tell me the exact reason?

Why My article is not approved to tell me the exact reason? My username is thebrainplow— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebrainplow (talk • contribs) 21:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Thebrainplow I suspect that the reviewer thought that "renowned in the IT circles as an acclaimed firm in devising & building bleeding edge …" is promotional. I agree. Another problem is that you copied text from a copyrighted source. Lastly, I don't think the subject is notable. You may want to read our notability guideline for companies. Vexations (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@Thebrainplow: I would add that, for your company or product to be deemed 'notable', you must also include references to Reliable Sources that are completely independent of that company and which describe it in depth (i.e. in detail). This you have failed to do. If you are unable to provide such references then, I'm really sorry, but it will not be possible for your company ever to have a page on Wikipedia. We only care what other sources have said about a subject, not what the subject has said about itself. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Thebrainplow. The reason(s) Draft:BrainPlow was declined are given in the comment left by Chrissymad the top of the draft's page. Basically, you're trying to write about a company, but you have not established how the company is Wikipedia notable for a stand-alone article in accordance with Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). In addition, not only have you not provided any citations to reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia) for any of the information in the draft, the tone of the draft is too promotional for Wikipedia's standards. Wikipedia articles are written about subjects, not for subjects; moreover, pretty much all article content is expected to supported by citations to reliable sources (preferably secondary and independent) so that it can be verified as necessary. I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything for a brief summary of the types of subjects deemed acceptable for Wikipedia.
Finally, based upon your choice of username and the name of the company you're writing about, it appears that you might have a conflict of interest with respect to BrainPlow. Wikipedia doesn't expressly prohibit conflict-of-interest editing, but it does highly discourage it because it can sometimes lead to problems. I've added some templates to your user talk page which contain links relevant to conflict-of-interest editing. Please take a look at them so as to better familiarize yourself with the kinds of things the Wikipedia community expects from editor who have a conflict of interest. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Uploading photos disabled.

Hi..

I'm editing Prof. Nisar Ahmed, a renowned poet from Kannada language. Im not able to upload his photos there. Please help in this regard.

Also, If I want to create somebodies page, should I get any permission from you guys?

Best regards, Prashanth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashanthudupa (talk • contribs) 16:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Prashanthudupa, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's hard to help when you don't tell us what the problem is that you're having. You need to find photos that are licensed in a way that they can be freely copied, and upload them to Commons. If you own the copyright yourself (eg you took the pictures) then you can license them at the same time as you uploaded them. But if the copyright belongs to anybody else, then unless they have already released them under a licence such as CC-BY-SA they need to explicitly license them: see donating copyright materials. In general, see Help:Upload.
As to your other question: no, you don't need permission from anybody to create an article; but it is hard, and many people who try it when they have little experience of editing Wikipedia, have a frustrating time. I suggest you don't think of it as "creating somebody's page" but "writing an encyclopaedia article about somebody": it is not their page, and it should be almost entirely based on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject. Please start by studying your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Seeking assistance!

Hello Wikipedia friends,

I'm in the process of helping to clean up the Wikipedia entry for Clark Hewett Galloway. Two issues: one his name is spelled incorrectly in the headline (it's presently spelled Hewitt, but correct spelling is Hewett). I submitted what I thought were the proper steps to get it changed, but hoping someone involved can tell me if I made any missteps in that process.

Second, I have two photos of him both, from Galloway Family Archives. The family gives permission for these photos be used. Can you tell me how they would 'fit' in the photo posting process? I'm lost.

Thank you in advance to answers to these questions. I appreciate any help that can be offered.

ForHattie11 (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia friend, welcome to Teahouse . It looks like someone made the move for you now. You can see their reply at Talk:Clark Hewett Galloway. There were two little mistakes in your request 1) you missed off the closing braces; 2) the first parameter should be just the new title, in this case "Clark Hewett Galloway", rather than "name change to Clark Hewett Galloway". Once you're auto-confirmed (once you've made ten edits), you'll be able to make moves like this yourself, if they're clearly uncontroversial (e.g. to fix a spelling mistake), and you found the right template for requesting moves you're less sure everyone will agree with. Best of luck with your work on the article, and welcome to Wikipedia. › Mortee talk 19:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
As to your second question, ForHattie11: permission to use images on Wikipedia is not enough: the copyright holder needs to release the images under a licnce which will allow anybody to reuse the images for any purpose, requiring them only to give attribution. The steps the copyright holder (who is probably the photographer or their heir, not the family) must take, are at WP:donating copyright materials. See also Help:Upload. --ColinFine (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

No subject

How do You Get Ban? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallout 1080 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't :) Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
@Fallout 1080:, the blocking policy is here. › Mortee talk 02:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Seriously... —AE (talk • contributions) 03:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Reading back, I realise that what I wrote might be seen as WP:BEANS. I took the question (AGF) to be, "under what circumstances do people get banned, so I know what to avoid doing". If the question was actually "I want to get myself blocked, how do I do it?" ... that's a very strange question for such a new user, but the answer is WP:SELFBLOCK, not to be confused with User:Bishzilla/Self-requested pocketings. › Mortee talk 22:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I am the writer/creator/director of a TV Series and book based on it starring Ghostface Killah

How do I add it to Ghostface Killah's page and create their own articles? These definitely are notable works. THanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbrightly (talk • contribs) 23:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jbrightly. The information that you provided above shows that you have a conflict of interest and should immediately comply with our mandatory paid editing disclosure. You assert that these topics are notable but you have to prove that by providing references to independent reliable sources that devote significant coverage to these topics. Please read and study Your first article, and, because of your conflict of interest, use the Articles for Creation process to draft articles, rather than writing them directly. You must understand that Wikipedia is not a venue for you to promote your career, or your client's career. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Jbrightly, since your work relates to the subjects you're thinking of writing articles about, it's important that you read WP:COI for our conflict of interest guidelines, and particularly WP:PAID, which includes some requirements (as opposed to guidelines). Once those are satisfied, you have the option of requesting the article at WP:Requested articles or trying to write one yourself, with suitable disclosures, in which case WP:Your first article gives the instructions. One consideration will be notability. For films, for example we generally don't have articles until principal photography has begun. If that's the case for the series, it probably also applies. There's more general guidance at WP:TVSERIES, though it could be clearer, and at WP:GNG for the broad principles. All that said, Ghostface Killah is well enough known that even I've heard of him, so it might be better to just wait. Interested editors will make this spontaneously, as they have done other articles involving him, and if they don't have ties to him the process is likely to be smoother, and with better results in the end. Whatever your choice, remember that Wikipedia is not intended to facilitate promotion, and as a series creator/director you have better options to achieve that, if it's your goal. Best of luck, › Mortee talk 00:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Blacklist?

What is this header tag? I've never seen it before ... very confusing ... How do I rectify the problem within the article? local or global blacklist Maineartists (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Maineartists, welcome to Teahouse. I haven't seen that before either, but I've seen related warnings. It means links to anything on files.wordpress.com are automatically flagged as probably being bad. In this case, the warning is about the second-to-last reference in the Career section. If you're sure that the link is to a worthwhile source, and one that's not been uploaded to WordPress in violation of copyright, the place to request an exemption is MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. If you can find an alternative source to support the same claim, or another, more clearly official, place where the same source is hosted, it would be simplest to replace it. › Mortee talk 23:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@Maineartists: The former reply is inaccurate. The tag means the link https://dandemalion.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/ica_send.pdf was blacklisted at the time the tag was added, i.e. that the link could not be added at all. It was only in the article because it was originally added before it was blacklisted. But since the tag was added, files.wordpress.com has been whitelisted at the English Wikipedia [1], and also removed from the global blacklist [2], so the tag can just be removed if the source looks acceptable. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction PrimeHunter. I misunderstood that. › Mortee talk 00:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Incidentally, if there are old warnings like this lying around that no longer apply, is there a bot currently clearing up? Would requesting one be a good idea? › Mortee talk 00:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Wow. Thanks to you both. Once again, it looks like in the "war vs. machine" humans win again. So, in this instance, I would say that the "source looks acceptable" re: PrimeHunter suggestion. I vote to removed the tag since the bot actually cannot "read" the PDF. Maineartists (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
That sounds right to me, but I misunderstood once already so... › Mortee talk 01:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

What is the difference between the link, reference and redirect option, kindly Guide?

What is the difference between the link, reference and redirect option, kindly Guide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omar Mahmood Hayat (talk • contribs) 10:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Omar Mahmood Hayat Welcome to Teahouse - Brief answers as follow:
  1. WP:LINKS - Wiki link is clicking the subject which already has a article in Wikipedia.
  2. WP:References - inline citation where sources is indicated of the content claimed in the article.
  3. Redirect - (1) subject is redirect to a existing article where the redirect subject is related where it is not yet qualify a page in Wikipedia but will be in the near future. (2) Same subject but with different names such as MBA basketball player Earvin Johnson Jr. is redirect to Magic Johnson (common name), Phillip Jack Brooks (WWE fighter) is redirect to CM Punk, Marshall Bruce Mathers III / M and M (rapper) is redirect to Eminem and etc.
cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA "licking the subject" is one of the better typos I've encountered recently › Mortee talk 23:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Mortee Thank you for pointing it out. I laughed crying when I noticed it. :) cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Article's rating query

I came across a very short, two paragraph, article that is "B CLASS" rated how can this be corrected to Unassessed or another appropriate classification, here is the article: Bhadreshkumar_Chetanbhai_Patel. Vwanweb (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC).

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vwanweb. Article ratings are assigned on each article's talk page. You can edit the wikicode at Talk:Bhadreshkumar Chetanbhai Patel to change the rating. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

How to create/translate an official wikipedia page from an other language?

To whom it may concern,

I'm writing to enquire about how to create an official wikipedia page for a Hungarian youth association, Fekete Sereg. This association has very good fame in Europe due to works with the EU. I had already created a Hungarian article about it, and I decided to create an other one in English. I tried to translate with the official page, but it didn't work.

Sorry for the disturbing, and thank you for your help in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csasza28 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Also posted at Wikipedia:Help_desk#How_to_create/translate_an_official_wikipedia_page_from_an_other_language? Meters (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Csasza28, Welcome to the tea house. Have you looked at: Wikipedia:Translation and Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@Csasza28: I've worked on a few articles translated from their other language counterparts. You may simply create the article, and translate the contents while inquiring for the assistance of WikiProject Hungary using this template Template:Expert needed, and place this template Template:Expand language on the top of the article as well. Rosalina2427 (talk to me) 22:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Csasza28, and welcome to the Teahouse. It might help you to understand what is going on if you realise that there is no such thing as "an official page for" any organisation on English Wikipedia. (I suspect the same is true of other Wikipedias as well, but they may have different rules.) If English Wikipedia has an article about your organisation, it will not belong to the organisation, it will in no sense be "official" for the organisation, and it will not necessarily say what the organisation wishes to be said. Rather, it should be almost entirely based on what people who have no connection with the organisation have chosen to publish about it - including material critical of the organisation, if that happens to exist. If you have a connection with the organisation, you should read about editing with a conflict of interest before you attempt to work on the article. --ColinFine (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it a good idea to publish wikipedia page for "Aubrey Chernick"?

Aubrey Chernick, 68, is a Canada-born, recognized software entrepreneur in the United States. He is the founder of Candle Corporation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momentouspov (talk • contribs) 10:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

These sources 1 2 3 suggest to me that he's notable enough to justify creation of an article. Maproom (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Which references are notability references and which references should be deleted.

Hi,

I have a draft on Jasmin - http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Jasmin_(website) and I would like to know which of my references are notability references and should stay on my draft and which have to be deleted immediately from the draft due to them being press releases (or other reasons). Additionally, in addition to the notability references, I have also added some links from where I have taken some information for the draft. However if you objective is to publicise a subject, you should instead use a site such as Facebook where that would be acceptable.

The links that I am using are as follows :

http://www.blikk.hu/sztarvilag/sztarsztorik/titkairol-vallott-a-magyar-milliardos-gattyan-gyorgy/kt0slmk

https://avn.com/business/articles/video/class-of-2017-the-new-inductees-into-the-avn-hall-of-fame-707363.html

http://popcrush.com/flo-rida-hey-jasmin-video/

http://www.itone.lu/actualites/gyorgy-gattyan-simple-recipe

https://civilhetes.net/a-playboy-tv-t-veri-gattyan-uj-csatornaja

https://www.channelnomics.com/channelnomics-us/news/2370385/figure-the-odds-sex-site-offers-it-cure-for-jezebel-s-porn-problem

https://www.ivy.com/events/la-art-night-a-private-preview-meeting-jasmin

https://redhot-society.com/meeting-jasmin/

http://www.payoutmag.com/event-calendar/

Now i have some major queries as I have been getting different advice everytime I log on to live chat.

Some told me that I need to have 2-3 notability references and the rest of the articles can be other articles in case I need to attribute certain sentences to a source. Some told me that each of my references need to be anotability reference. Additionally I am having some trouble figuring out if some of the articles are press releases released by organizations other than ours. I would really really appreciate if someone could actually help me on this rather than giving me generic or conflicting advice. Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BelliniGirl (talk • contribs) 09:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

BelliniGirl: what you write above shows confusion on your part. If your objective is to improve Wikipedia, I suggest that you choose a simpler task than trying to create a new article, particularly one on a topic of doubtful notability.
I'll try to answer some of your questions. Every questionable statement in an article should by attributed to a reliable independent published source. Ideally, every statement should be attributed to a reliable published source. To establish notability, you will need several references to reliable independent published source with in-depth discussion of the subject (not like the second one you list above).
You also appear confused about what you're trying to write about. Some of the sources you list above are about a person, some are about a web site. Maproom (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
"...released by organizations other than ours." To me, this indicates a paid relationship to the company in question. if true, have you complied with WP:PAID? It appears that you have tried to put that on your User page, but need formatting help. I recommend that PAID also be added to the Talk page of the draft article.
I agree with Maproom that many of the references in the draft do not meet Wikipedia's definition: a rapper's song, a mention at a list of AVN awards, an artshow... David notMD (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Zidane Hamid

I had created an article of a child prodigy Zidane Hamid on July 13 2018 and it is still not published. I want it to be reviewed and want to know its status that how long it will take to publish.

I have deleted the draft. It was, I am sorry to say, utterly unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia; the entire page was one of the most horrific examples of puffery that I have seen in all my years here. While Zidane Hamid might be a suitable topic for a Wikipedia article, what you had written was unsalvageably promotional. It would require a complete re-write, from scratch, to stand any chance of being reviewed and accepted. Yunshui 雲水 14:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Question

Can we create our own page at wikipedia if so please leave the answer for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samar Baniya (talk • contribs) 07:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Samar Baniya. Please read and study Your first article. You should not think of your work here as "our own page" because any article you write can be edited by other people at any time. Take a close look at Conflict of interest as well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Samar Baniya: Your sandbox also appears to be an autobiography, which is something we highly discourage. Please realize that Wikipedia is not social media or a personal website. However, you can write a little bit about yourself on your user page. The user page guidelines detail what type of content is and is not considered acceptable. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Unsure why my article was rejected

Hi, I am a new editor and wrote an article on a fairly new organization that seemed interesting to me. I utilized all the information I could find about the organization online and I was wondering if I can get some assistance in getting the article accepted. Please see the draft below.

thank you, Kareem

misplaced draft

Draft

Overview The International Association of Innovation Professionals (IAOIP) is the world’s only innovation certification body, providing members with the knowledge, skills, and opportunities to deliver real change in their industry or field. IAOIP is the only innovation certification body following the “requirements for certifying bodies” as prescribed by ISO. The GISH (Global Innovation Science Handbook) is internationally awarded handbook. The Body of Innovation Knowledge (BoIK) was developed and is maintained by members through a transparent and democratic process that assures everyone the opportunity to contribute. The BoIK is the scientifically-anchored worldview of your peers and professionals from the community of practice. The Certified Professional Innovator (CPI) - Base Level exam, the Certified Design for Innovation exam, Tools and Techniques, Certified Chief Innovation Officer, and Certified Manager of Innovation exam are currently offered, with additional certifications under development within the working committees. Members are can sit for these on-line exams at their convenience.

History Innovation has been a buzz word thrown around by industry and academic professionals alike, however there’s been no scientific evidence to support their claims. For over 10 years, Dr. Brett Trusko (Texas A&M), Dr. Abram Walton (Florida Institute of Technology) and Dr. Joseph Nadan (New York University) founded and edited the International Journal of Innovation Science, where they curated research papers pertaining to the art, science and practice of innovation. During this period, they noticed that there were many individuals claiming to be innovation professionals at a time when there was almost no university training in the discipline. During the summer of 2012, they debated on the idea of creating a stand-alone handbook that contained the scientific information that every innovation practitioner should know. The book is based on the contribution of a community of innovators and everything that enters the book must be vetted before entering. Due to the success and interest of the Global Innovation Science Handbook, in 2013 the trio founded and launched the International Association of Innovation Professionals. The association was created to maintain a standard for innovation knowledge across the world. With this goal, in 2015 their Certified Professional Innovator (CIP) certification was launched in February of 2015. To date, they have over 10,000 members in over 100 countries. Over 400 members currently hold certifications in various disciplines of innovation and the organization continues to grow.

Global Innovation Science Handbook The Global Innovation Science Handbook(GISH) was developed by the editors of the International Journal of Innovation Science and features contributions from more than 40 innovation experts and thought leaders. The GISH presents a proven approach for understanding and implementing innovation in any industry. This pioneering work is based on a defined body of knowledge that includes intent, methodology, tools, and measurements. It challenges the popular paradigm that "learned" innovation is impossible, and lays out a systematic process for developing innovation skills. Each chapter can be independently read and utilized in the daily practice of innovation. Real world case studies from financial, governmental and educational sectors illustrate the concepts discussed in this definitive resource.

Authors of the GISH, include Richard B. Green, Steven G. Parmelee, Praveen Gupta, Brett Trusko, Laszlo Gyroffy, Michael Grieves, Ellen Di Resta, Heather McGowan, Melissa Sterry, Klaus Solberg Soilen and Jorn Bang Anderson and many more.

Credentials Since being founded in 2015, IAOIP was chartered to follow the requirements of the ISO 17024 standard for bodies operating to certify individuals. IAOIP, is the only innovation certification organization that is qualified to be an ISO accredited certifying body for innovation. The organization is currently preparing for ISO accreditation under this standard.

Current Certifications Include:

Certified Professional Innovator Certified Management of Innovation Design Thinking Methods and Tools Certified Chief Innovation Officer Other Programs The IAOIP Academy The IAOIP Academy was developed for IAOIP members to receive education in innovation utilizing an on-line format. To date, there are approximately 100 courses in the system, but can only be accessed by members of the IAOIP.

Education Program Accreditation (EPA) IAOIP Education Program Accreditation is a peer-review process which confirms that an institution’s innovation education or related program has been carefully assessed and that its scale, scope, and quality conform to a comprehensive international standard. It makes a public statement about the deep commitment of the institution and its faculty to ongoing evaluation and continuous quality improvement.

Preferred Education Provider The Preferred Education Provider Program was created to establish a global network of qualified education providers for individuals and organizations seeking innovation education training. Preferred Education Provider s are given the rights to the use of IAOIP intellectual property when teaching innovation education. Preferred Education Providers can help individuals and organizations prepare for IAOIP’s certification exams. They can also help organizations and professionals earn Professional Development Units (PDUs).

Working Groups IAOIP working groups continue to define innovation capabilities, improve our professional Global Innovation Science Handbook (“GISH”), and create and administer overall and specialized certifications in innovation. Our call to action is based on the desire of organizations to qualify employees and new hires, and for academic and other training institutions, and consultants to prepare individuals to undertake management and leadership positions in innovation.

Webinars IAOIP also produces several webinars, that are lead from some of the most sought out consultants and speakers in the industry. These webinars are pre-recorded and are posted periodically on their website. Previous speakers include Robert B. Tucker and Evan Shellshear.

To sign up for current webinars, please visit the IAOIP website: - https://www.iaoip.org/store/ListProducts.aspx?catid=528971

Conferences IAOIP has an annual conference, called Innova-Con, that celebrates innovation. Innova-Con allows for communication and collaboration among the best and brightest in the field. Where would the world be without the innovations that keep us moving forward. From smart phones, to taxi-disruption, to curbside grocery pickup, to the next big idea -- innovation continues to fuel our world and how we live in it. The goal is bridge the gap between the science and practice of innovation.

The conference is focused on providing attendees with proven tools and techniques to launch, quantify and scale innovation in their organizations.

Innova-Con allows for communication and collaboration among the best and brightest in the field. Together, we can continue to shape the field of innovation and move it forward as a recognized and structured discipline in business and academia.

Previous Innova-Con speakers include Doug Collins, Langdon Morris, Brian Buckley, Dawn Gregory and Neville Thompson.

References Category:Innovation

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpjackson27 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

This is about Draft:IAOIP - International Association of Innovation Professionals. Maproom (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Kpjackson27: your draft was rejected because it fails to demonstrate that its subject is notable. Indeed, it cites no sources at all. Please click on that blue link, and read Help:Referencing for beginners. Maproom (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

How long it take for an Article to be approved?

I have Published an article on 27 Aug and then made few minor changes on 29 Aug, the page is still in my sandbox and not visible in Wikipedia search. Can you tell me how long it takes for an article to be approved and actually gets published? Is there any way to expedite the process?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Omar Mahmood Hayat (talk • contribs)

You didn't publish an article, you wrote a user sandbox draft. You removed the {{User sandbox}} template in an edit in July. That template includes the button to submit the draft for review, so I have reinserted the template. Before you submit for review, please read the advice at WP:Your first article, and also the advice against trying to create an autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Omar Mahmood Hayat: The process takes roughly 8 weeks, but doesn't start until you have submitted it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Feedback on article draft

Hello,

My first article posted to AFC was denied, and a note on my Talk page suggested that I ask for help here. Here's the article and reviewer notes: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Justina_Blakeney I'd love feedback on how to make it more neutral. I tried to just stick to the facts and use neutral language, so maybe a more experienced editor can help me figure out what went wrong. Thanks, CharlieIsOrange (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Upon looking at it, I believe there's a bigger problem than the promo tone. That tone can hardly be avoided with the sources you have. Save one, all the sources are based on interviews with the subject of the article. And the one that isn't is a blurb from her Alma mater's newsletter. Notability is required to have an article on Wikipedia, and notability requires independent sources. Interviews are not independent. One's alumni newsletter is not independent. John from Idegon (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, John. I see that most of the sources do have a Q&A portion or seem to be based on one interview by the subject. However, most of the notable information in the sources appears before the Q&A. I would think that publications such as Forbes and the NYT would fact check that information. Is it still not allowed? Is information that appears alongside an interview automatically disqualified because it isn't third-party? Or, if she is interviewed and quoted for an article, does it mean that article is not third-party? Just trying to understand the rules.

Here are some sources that I don't think are interviews, but that could change depending on your answers to the above:

And then this Forbes article, which contains an interview but has a lot of information before they get to the Q&A: https://www.forbes.com/sites/karineldor/2017/12/05/how-jungalows-founder-cultivated-an-online-following-of-over-2-million-fans/#e911cda10fd3

Thanks for your guidance, CharlieIsOrange (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

CharlieIsOrange - You were close, but a few things got you dinged for promotionalsim. I did some minor clean up, removed the most promotional info, added some additional info with sourcing, and resubmitted the draft. Word of caution - there's a bias here against social media follower counts being used for notability, so it's better to leave that info out. It will also help if you create a user page so your name isn't redlinked. If you're rejected again, it'll be for needing more sourcing, but what's there now looks sufficient. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Timtempleton, thank you! This is incredibly helpful information. I've reviewed your edits to my article and I understand why you made them. Thank you for taking the time. I will put something on my user page. CharlieIsOrange (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Batchas, Questions About Draft, and a Rant

I reviewed Draft:Batchas and declined it, saying that the draft did not specify how the subject met musical notability. I noted that, although there were footnotes to the discography listings, there were no sources for the description of the artist’s career. User:Myringa then replied on my talk page: “Hello I'd like to know what makes the page I created for an artist I admire, less elligible than this one:Deutsch Nepal? Could you help me please understand. Thank you in advance Best regards Morda”. I have a request, which is for other experienced editors to review the draft and comment on whether it should be accepted, and a comment that is sort of in the nature of a rant.

Many new editors come to Wikipedia and want to contribute to the encyclopedia by writing one new article. This may not be the best way to get involved in Wikipedia, because writing a new article, with its references, is the hardest task that there is for an editor. It would normally be more prudent to take on some role in improving some of the 5.6 million articles that we already have rather than providing one article that we do not have. (Actually, many of those editors have a reason for focusing on one article, and that is a conflict of interest. However, many good-faith editors also think that writing one new article is the way to become involved in Wikipedia.)

Also, some new editors, having decided that they do want to write one new article, decide to use an existing article as their model or prototype. They then ask why their contribution didn’t pass and the existing article did. It may not be the best approach to try to model a new article after a specific existing article. There may be some subtle difference that a new editor doesn’t see. Or the existing article maybe really shouldn’t have been accepted. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is not an argument in favor of accepting or keeping an article. Sometimes the other stuff shouldn’t exist. In the case in point, the existing article has no references, and should be tagged as having no references. Using an existing article as a prototype or model isn’t always the best strategy.

So what I can help the author to understand may be, first, that the draft is inadequately sourced, and, second, that using an existing article as a model is not always the best approach.

Thoughts?

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking at other articles can be a good way to get ideas for how to structure an article, but that's not the issue here. The article looks pretty good. It was rejected because it doesn't show how notable the subject is. Comparing with another article is a risky way to judge that. In the case of Deutsch Nepal, it was begun in 2006 when things were (I assume) quite different. If it came through AfC in its current state it would be rejected too, for having no references, either to establish the facts or demonstrate notability. I agree with your rejection of Draft:Batchas on similar grounds. While it does have references, they're only for the discography section. All but two of the references are to Discogs which, because it's crowd-sourced, is not reliable. One is to a Wikipedia article, which has the same problem, as well as being circular. The last is this, which is a bare mention. It might be OK for verifying a fact, but it can't establish notability because it's not in-depth and, as it's from a record label, it's not independent of the subject. I don't see anything in the article that, if referenced, would in itself prove notability under WP:MUSICBIO, so the author should be looking for in-depth coverage in newspapers, reliable websites and so on (WP:GNG). Hopefully this helps them to understand the issue, and they'll be able to solve it. › Mortee talk 19:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I will mildly disagree, as I have often advised an editor to take a look at other articles as a model. However I usually direct them to find something relevant at GA. If they pick something that just barely meets our guidelines and follow a little short they will be understandably disappointed, or worse, if they choose something as a model that should've been deleted but has escaped our attention. Obviously, a new article doesn't have to live up to GA standards to be acceptable, but if you aim high and miss a bit, you probably will create something that's worthy of inclusion.
I do agree with the advice that a brand-new editor starting to start their editing career by creating a new article from whole cloth is a bad idea. I'm trying to come up with the ideal metaphor, but I'm thinking of something along the lines of saying this is like deciding to take up jogging, buying a new pair of shoes and entering yourself in a marathon. Not the right way to start.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I assume that you mean buying a new $200 pair of shoes and entering a marathon. Buying a new $80 pair of shoes isn't a bad idea, at least if you don't try to run a 15K in them. You need shoes anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that User:Sphilbrick and I disagree about existing articles. I think that we agree that if you pick a random businessperson or musician or small company, you will likely be picking a topic that will never be a Good Article, because you can't make a Good Article out of a marginally notable subject. The editors that I have dealt with who picked a model article typically picked a marginal subject for the article. I don't think that we disagree much. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, as I suspected I think you and I are pretty much on the same page regarding use of existing articles as models. I was just mildly concerned that your statement could be read as implying that looking at an existing article is never a good idea and I think it can be, but one should avoid marginally accepted articles as models.
Regarding my metaphor I guess I have to work on it. As someone who has run marathons, although very much in my past, I have poked fun at people who decide to run a marathon and get a new pair shoes for the big event. Choose a much better today than they were when I was running marathons but back then one definitely needed to break the men and you didn't want to break them in with a marathon. However, that wasn't my point. I'm thinking about somebody who doesn't run at all and decides to take up running. One ought to start with short distances and a slow pace. You don't decide to take up jogging and pick a marathon for your first attempt at running. Maybe I should drop the reference to the shoes as that was misleading.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I think Robert hit on the problem in his OP. A new user who comes here with the desire to write an article on a specific subject most times is motivated, whether due to COI or more pure motivation, by a desire to in some way (again not always bad-faith) to publicize the subject, not improve the encyclopedia. Hence, when searching out an article for a model, they purposely choose what we would call a poor article, as they are looking for the lowest bar they can jump to get their article published. Is there a solution? Maybe. Language could be added to MFA about how to choose a model article. Perhaps language should be added to the automated rejections for notability discussing the concept of OSE. John from Idegon (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure it helps to suggest an editor isn't motivated by improving the encyclopedia, much less that they cherry-pick bad examples. I expect they're trying to make an improvement, they just don't understand what it takes to meet the bar we insist on about provable noteworthiness [edit: and that not all existing articles have been properly vetted against it]. I like the idea of adding to WP:Your first article. I've only skimmed it recently, but I don't see any suggestion there about looking at other articles for inspiration. That would be helpful, and it could include advice about which articles to choose, and the WP:OSE issue. › Mortee talk 23:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
S Philbrick, I agree with the nuance you added about looking at Good Articles. The article's presentation benefited a lot from looking at the (not Good) article mentioned; the notability claim didn't because there was nothing to benefit from. As for the metaphor, I like it (maybe without the shoes). I'm sure chefs are another option... maybe trying to bake a soufflé without getting some egg-breaking practice first? Doesn't quite work, but I swear there's something there. A surgeon working on live bodies before cadavers would be apt but unnecessarily grisly... it's harder than I expected to come up with a golden one. › Mortee talk 23:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, no, live articles would be more like live bodies in that situation. Maybe a builder trying to make a house from scratch, without trying DIY improvements. › Mortee talk 23:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm, I like the souffle example, and maybe the builder example.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Sphilbrick - I agree that breaking in a new pair of athletic shoes in competition (e.g., running shoes in a 10K or marathon) isn't a good idea. Break them in in practice before competing in them. Of course, buying a new pair of walking shoes is seldom a bad idea, and you can always use your running shoes or basketball high-tops or cross-trainers as walking shoes. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Inserting photo into the infobox with informal license from the author

Hello all, I am editing my first wikipedia article in a decade (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Judit_S%C3%A1ndor), and I want to insert a photo of the person into the infobox on the right. The author of the photo (https://vegeldaniel.com/portrait) has given me permission informally, in an email, but has not uploaded the image into the Wikipedia Commons for easy and officially licensed use. This is where the photo appeared in public, it says "Image credit: CEU/Daniel Vegel" – How should I proceed? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miksa.v (talk • contribs) 03:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Miksa.v. To be frank, this informal authorization by email is worthless on Wikipedia/Wikimedia projects. By far the easiest solution is for the copyright holder to upload the image to Wikimedia Commons under an acceptable free license. It is possible to do this on paper, but that process is tricky, very slow and will be rejected for any errors in the paperwork. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both. I have prepared the formal email letter in the name of the author of the image – he responded positively but has not yet sent it to the Wikimedia Commons email address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miksa.v (talk • contribs) 19:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding images to Wikipedia pages

Hello, I am working on improving the pages on the Community Portal. I want to edit pages where 'an image' is required, but when I go to Wikimedia Commons, an image with that name or subject does not exist. I researched and saw that the images for that subject are available on Google. My question is: how do I make those images available on Wikimedia Commons from Google. --AlphaKGN (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid the answer is that you probably can't, AlphaKGN. The purpose of Wikimedia Commons is to make resources freely available for reuse, and so they will strictly accept only images that are either in the public domain, or have been explicitly released by their copyright owners under a suitable licence. Some images you find on the Internet meet these requirements, but the majority do not. If you do find a suitable image (it must explicitly say that it has been released under a suitable licence such as CC-BY-SA), you can upload it to Commons: see Help:Upload. --ColinFine (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@ColinFine: thank you for the answer. How will I know that the image on the Internet is explicitly saying that it has been released under a suitable licence such as CC-BY-SA. Shall I look for images that are labeled for free usage?

That's probably worth doing, AlphaKGN; but I don't know how good the searches are on that. What you have to do is, having found an image, look for the copyright information for the image, or failing that, on the site generally. If you can't find any, the default assumption is that the image is copyright and can't be used. --ColinFine (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Noted, thanks @ColinFine:. I will try if I can find that information and reach out to you for guidance.

Fredericka Foster

Re: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Fredericka_Foster Hello, I published this article awhile ago. The first iteration was taken down due to issues so I reworked it. Just went back to check on the article and cleaned up the old external links. There are three maintenance template notices at the top of the article about issues that I addressed, all but the one about the external links, before I even published the second version. In fact I thought I had removed the first two notices with the rewrite but I guess not. So now all three notices are no longer valid and you can see that I noted the changes in the revision history. I went through the instructions on how to remove the notices at wiki/Help:Maintenance_template_removal twice. Still can't figure out how to remove the maintenance template. Could someone help me with that? Thank you. Ogmany — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogmany (talk • contribs) 19:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ogmany, welcome to Teahouse. I haven't checked whether they still apply because I don't think you're asking about that, but to remove the notices you just need to remove the three lines at the top of the article, here:
    {{notability|Biographies|date=October 2017}}
    {{COI|date=October 2017}}
    {{external links|date=October 2017}}
Hope this helps › Mortee talk 21:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
BUT, yes capital letters, the person who created the article that led to other editors adding templates is NOT the person who should be removing the templates. If the article has been enough improved, someone else will do that. In this case, 'The' removed one template. You should not remove the other two. David notMD (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I take it "The" above means Theroadislong and "you" means Ogmany. I agree that COI templates certainly shouldn't be removed by the subject of the WP:COI claim. If I'd looked at this more closely than offering purely practical advice I'd have said the same. Notability, probably the same because any claimed COI is a suggestion that one might over-value a subject. Purely in practice, if you see inappropriate maintenance templates on subjects you're not [suggested to be] related to, and you're confident in your judgement, that's the way to do it. › Mortee talk 00:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." tag can be removed once the apparent conflict of interest has been managed (see WP:COI) and the article has been checked for neutrality by an unconnected editor. The editor who performed the check can then remove the {{COI}} template. The {{connected contributor}} template that I added to the talk page can be to keep track of such checks for neutrality. Vexations (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Yikes! I just realized that I was the one who added the maintenance templates back in. This is what happens to a dyslexic on text and wiki. Did it yesterday. You can see it all there in the history. Have been Wiki obsessing lately because I was getting slightly more facile with it and trying to improve my articles. Somehow I mixed up the maintenance template notices from the earlier Foster article and added them back in, you can see it on my second edit of yesterday, August 27. You can also see where I had originally addressed the maintenance templates on October 6, 2017. Went back and changed it but the conscientious editor Vexations (talk) removed it. Could you check this out and revert it back? You can see the last version, before I went all cockeyed, on June 27. The tag or whatever you call it in brackets, Orphan|date=June 2018, is right there at the top of the article, like it should be and it had been reviewed earlier. Am pretty sure that works it all out but I reserve the right to to double check this tomorrow. Sorry about this. Thank you for the help and patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogmany (talk • contribs) 02:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Ogmany I'll have a look tomorrow. Please note that If you've been paid two write Fredericka Foster you must declare your conflict of interest. See WP:PAID. If you do not have a conflict of interest, could you please explicitly say so? Some of your contributions look like paid content. --Vexations (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Vexations I have no conflict of interest. Actually, I have had that issue come up before. Early on in Wiki I thought it was due to my writing style and that I used too many qoutations. Why would you ask? What is it in my writing that is of concern? Would appreciate the insight so I can correct it.Ogmany (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Ogmany Thanks for clarifying. I've removed the tags. As for why I asked, I think that saying that someone has a COI is describing a situation, not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity. It can be managed if dealt with properly. Why I thought that might apply to you is simply that the tag was there, and I thought I'd ask. As you note, other editors may have raised similar concerns because some of your writing has a promotional tone. Jean-Pierre Boccara for example, says things like "seminal clubs", "groundbreaking acts", "excellent cuisine", "critically acclaimed", "notable accolades" and "covered in media outlets". Regarding that last point; I'm not a fan of pointing out that a subject has been covered in the media. I'm interested in what the media have to say, not the fact that they have been covered, which is a basic requirement for an article, not something that is in itself notable. I often see things like that in articles about subjects that are not or marginally notable, and it's sometimes used by paid editors to hide the fact that the sources don't really have anything substantial to say about the subject. Vexations (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Images in Infobox Company template

What Do I need to do to add images in the fields in the Infobox Company template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cofeebk23 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cofeebk23, welcome to the Teahouse. If it's a logo, you need to add |logo=, |logo_alt=, |logo_caption=. If it's a different image, it's the same but with "image" instead of "logo". But note, only images hosted on Wikipedia or on Wikimedia Commons can be included. Images on Commons need to be free-use, i.e. not copyrighted. The Commons FAQ page is useful for that. For Wikipedia, fair-use images are allowed, including logos. You need to be careful to explain the fair-use rationale. See also WP:Image use policy and WP:Uploading images. Hope this helps. › Mortee talk 22:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there a way to view a list of pages with issues that need editing?

It will make editing a lot easier for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TamamaTheFrog (talk • contribs) 21:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@TamamaTheFrog: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I can recommend Wikipedia:Cleanup or Wikipedia:Typo Team. The former WikiProject is more for large-scale edits, but you may take a look at pages that require help from either project. Regards, Rosalina2427 (talk to me) 21:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
TamamaTheFrog there are also lots of categories of articles with specific types of problem. Three from my own to do list, in case they interest you: Category:Articles lacking sources, Category:Articles with empty sections, Category:Orphaned articles. There's a much longer list at WP:Maintenance § Maintenance and collaboration resources. › Mortee talk 22:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
TamamaTheFrog I will add another suggestion: Go to Wikipedia:Community portal and scroll down to the Help Out section. There you will find links to articles that need help ("Fix spelling and grammar", "Fix wikilinks", etc.). They are grouped in nine categories, and the articles in each category change frequently. Eddie Blick (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_823&oldid=1138690132"