User talk:Omer.turnstyle

TurnStyle Music Group

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Omer.turnstyle. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article TurnStyle Music Group, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
 * instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Ayub 407 talk 17:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of TurnStyle Music Group


A tag has been placed on TurnStyle Music Group requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.turnstylemusicgroup.com/team. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyright, notability, conflict of interest
Wikipedia cannot accept copyright material without a formal copyright release from the actual copyright owner, as described in Donating copyrighted materials. Assertion of permission to use is not enough.

Even if the copyright issue were resolved, this material would not be acceptable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for companies to post copies of their own promotional literature. There is an inclusion criterion called Notability, which is not a matter of opinion but has to be demonstrated by references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Significant means more than just listing-type mentions; reliable excludes Youtube, Facebook, blogs, places where anyone can post anything; independent excludes the subject's own website, affiliated ones and anything based on press releases. The test is, have people not connected with the subject thought it significant enough to write substantial comment about? See also Notability (summary).

Independent references serve two purposes: they confirm that the subject is of enough general interest to justify an encyclopedia article, and they provide source material on which an article can be based which is more than just the subject's own story about itself. Wikipedia is not for promotion.

There is some background to all this at User:JohnCD/Not a noticeboard, and there is good advice about how to write acceptable articles at WP:Your first article. You should also read WP:Conflict of interest and the WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. JohnCD (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Reply to your message on my talk page
You said on my talk page that you are an intern and have been " tasked with making a Wikipedia page for the company". Those who tasked you probably think, as many people do, that Wikipedia is another social-media site like Facebook which people and companies use to tell the world about themselves. It isn't: it's a project to build an encyclopedia, which is quite different, and what you have been asked to do may not be possible. The differences include:
 * People associated with a subject, such as company employees, have from Wikipedia's point of view a WP:Conflict of interest and are strongly discouraged from editing it. If they do, they need to declare their interest (as your username does) and to follow the guidance in the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide - don't edit directly, but make suggestions or submit drafts for review by uninvolved users.
 * Articles are not "owned" by anyone; not their first author, and certainly not their subject. If your company is looking to make an article about itself which it will maintain and control, Wikipedia is not the site to use.
 * Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion of any kind. Promotion includes what we find that many company representatives think is merely "telling the world" about their company's virtues.
 * Wikipedia is selective about subjects, It is not a business listing directory and does not expect or want to have articles about every company that exists. The criterion used is called Notability, and is not a matter of opinion but has to be demonstrated by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Significant means more than just listing-type mentions; reliable excludes Myspace, Facebook, blogs, places where anyone can post anything; independent excludes the subject's own website, affiliated ones and anything based on press releases. The test is, have people not connected with the subject thought it significant enough to write substantial comment about? See also WP:Notability (summary) and WP:Notability (companies and organizations).
 * That has the advantage of being a more objective test than "Do we think it's important?" and also of ensuring that there are independent sources for the article. It is quite a tough test, and many worthy organizations, especially new ones, cannot pass it. That is not at all to their discredit, but it means they are not suitable subjects for a global encyclopedia.

If you want to proceed, first think hard about notability. If you cannot demonstrate it, you will be wasting your time. Collect your independent references.

The read WP:Your first article, and use WP:Articles for creation to make a draft, taking the option, when it is ready, to submit it for review.

Follow the excellent advice of an experienced user in User:Uncle G/On notability: "'When writing about subjects that are close to you, don't use your own personal knowledge of the subject, and don't cite yourself, your web site, or the subject's web site. Instead, use what is written about the subject by other people, independently, as your sources. Cite those sources in your very first edit.  If you don't have such sources, don't write.'" Do not make any claims that you cannot verify from a reliable source. Read WP:PEACOCK and take great care to write in a neutral tone. No opinions or glowing adjectives: just plain facts about the company and what it has achieved, cited to reliable sources. I am sorry if you find this more difficult than you expected, but if Wikipedia allowed any company to post copies of their own promotional material, it would be no more use as a work of reference than Facebook. JohnCD (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)