IMPORTANT NOTE - PLEASE READ IF YOU ARE HERE TO ASK A QUESTION REGARDING AN ARTICLE YOU WROTE: I review a lot of new article's, and as of such i receive a fairly large number of questions regarding those. If you have a question, do feel free to ask and rest assured that i will answer it. However, do understand that due the sheer amount of questions it may take a day or two before i can give you a decent reply.
Alternatively, you can ask your question at the help desk or the #wikipedia-en-help chat channel, which may result in a faster response.
All messages posted here will be replied on your own talk page as well as saved upon mine to prevent fragmenting, unless requested otherwise.
This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present.
I made a change
I made changes to the Screen Protector page. As the original Inventor of the screen protector. The description you have is not accurate. It is a non licensed reference to there product. I have original timelines of the actual creation along with the meetings that took place in Arlington VA at the US patent and Trademark office. Regarding the screen Protectors.
The only other page I made is on a page listed under Schulmiester. Which was a family member. Either or both pages was corrected only for accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inventorb (talk • contribs) 17:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the very first newsletter for WikiProject Articles for creation! If you find any errors or have suggestions on what to improve/include in future newsletters, please leave a message here.
v4.1.16b2 is now available in the beta channel! Reviewers can use the beta version of the script by following the instructions here and should report bugs here! Release notes can be found here as well as in the source code.
If you are JavaScript savvy, please contact Nathan2055 (talk·contribs) if you wish to help with development.
Reviewing articles and more since 2005!
Delivered 00:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC) by EdwardsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the spamlist.
Ah, that explains a thing or two. Normally AFC pages are developed on the talk page instead of being developed on the project page (which is somewhat counterintuitive now that i think about it). Since the review tag was placed on the talk page, and since that page contained a references section it looked as if that page was intended for review.
To be frank it doesn't matter where the content is placed - just place the review request template on the page that is intended for review. I see that you already did that though, and i see Alexrexpvt had now reviewed the project page itself. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rising Leaders Academy
Hello,
I received a message that my article for Rising Leaders Academy has been rejected because the information was taken from the Rising Leaders Academy website. I am the founder of the school and created the website. I agree for Wikipedia to have the same information as that on my website. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuhaAJaber (talk • contribs) 15:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About the copyright issue. I used the information from there as I am good friends with the blogs owner, and in far edited several sections of the blog, including all the history sections. Not sure how to proceed, but could Lesley email you with permission providing in affect creative Commons? I only did the work because she doesn't have a wiki account or experience to create such a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Privatehudson (talk • contribs) 15:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No matter any more, the page was deleted by Tonywalton last night. I find it very frustrating that he has done this without having the courtesy to check whether I'd tried to address the issue first. I'm now going to have to re-write the entire thing from scratch including sorting out the formatting again. I'll take that up with him though, not your fault, just thought I'd make you aware that this is a somewhat moot question now.
The removal of the page is unfortunately a result of the way copyright works. Since the article was copied from another website without clear copyright status the page was essentially a copyright violation which is against the law. Actually i should have removed the page myself when i saw that, but i kind of prefer a second set of eyes before pressing the "nuke" button.
As for some good news though: Deleted article's on Wikipedia aren't entirely gone. In fact, the only thing that happens when an article is deleted is that they are made invisible \ inaccessible to anyone without administrative permissions. This means that the article can also be restored with its former content and formatting without to much of a hassle if so required.
As for the copyright issue itself, there are two ways to proceed:
You could add a disclaimer on the blog itself, stating that the content is released under an open policy compatible with Wikipedia such as CC-BY-SA (Akin to the Copyright: 2012 small text often present on websites).
An alternative to this is releasing the copyrighted materials for use on Wikipedia. Note that this is essentially the same thing as suggestion one (Everyone can use the material you created, not just Wikipedia), though in this case there is no need for a licensing small print on the page.
If you are fine with releasing the copyright in this manner and choose option 1, just give me a nudge on my talk page when the disclaimer is up. I'll be more then happy to restore the removed page for you. In case of option 2 a member of the OTRS team is likely to ask an administrator to do so as well, so in most cases that option should sort itself out.
I'm sorry if I've caused any trouble, hopefully you can appreciate that I'm new to creating articles, so when I heard that the page had been deleted, and hadn't received any prior contact from the person who did so, I just assumed it had gone for good. Unfortunately had Tony sent me something at the time of the deletion it would have saved a lot of confusion. His action also removed from view the instruction you had previously sent me about the copyright issue, so thanks for sending it again. I just didn't realise that the article can still be restored and approved just as soon as the copyright issue is cleared up. I fully understand now about the copyright thing and can appreciate its important.
Tony did send a reply to me earlier today to say that it has now been put under my user space (User:Privatehudson/The Futurist Cinema, Liverpool) so I'mn guessing that it would need to be restored from there?
Anyway I'm going to add the following to the blog's history pages (all the info used comes from those three) "The information on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License." I used the Creative Commons website to get the text.
Would this be sufficient for the purpose of your first suggestion, or do you suggest something else? If its OK I'll add it asap and then let you know.
Don't worry, you didn't cause any trouble whatsoever. Wikipedia can be quite the confusing place when you just start out and the amount of policies doesn't help either. Besides, the word "Delete" normally doesn't mean "Hide it from public view" so that often causes some confusion. The article itself was already restored by Tony, and he moved it to a subpage for your account so that you can continue working on it just like before. As for the copyright - adding that line to the history pages is perfect, as that clearly indicated the content is released under a license that can be used on Wikipedia.
On to something slightly different: I had a look at the page itself and made a few changes to the page and its structure so that its structure and formatting is more in line with the other article's out there. (There is actually a Manual of Style that contains literally everything regarding page formatting. But do yourself a favor and don't even try to read it for a first page since it is ungodly large and overly detailed). There are also a few suggestions i would have for the page itself (Note that none of these are crucial to get the article accepted though):
You may want to add interwiki links in the article. That is, links that users can click to navigate to relevant other pages. Some easy to follow help for that is present here: User:Chzz/help/linking.
You may want to change your references to inline citations, which allow users to quickly see what reference is used for what part of the text. Some easy to follow help for this can be found here: User:Chzz/help/ref
You may also notice the "Sandbox" header i placed about the page. I mostly placed it because it contains a link that can be used to submit the article for another review. Otherwise it would be a matter of placing the template manually, but without guidance or knowing the template that can be a bit of a hassle. If you want it gone, just remove the {{user sandbox}} text from the top of the article while in edit mode.
First of all thank you for the work you did tidying up the article, I really appreciate both this and the helpful suggestions that you made. I've done some editing of the article itself based on your reccomendations, and also edited the blog's history pages to add the line we discussed. I wanted to get your opinion before submitting the article, also when it is submitted, I presume someone will re-check the blog to make sure that the information used is now listed as copyright free?
Excirial,
I feel and request the "Aon Creative" line I added be reinserted on the Aon page to help readers understand the difference between Aon Inc. the Insurance Company and Aon Creative the Marketing Design company.
They have an internal creative services department which some individuals get confused with Aon Creative. Having no external link is ok with Aon Creative.
paul@aoncreative.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.177.3 (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hiyas there 64.132.177.3,
Disambiguation pages, as they are called, are used to direct a user to Wikipedia article's that have similar names and meanings. However, if there is no underlying page to link to, a term is generally not included on the disambiguation page. Just google around a bit - there is an Aon insurance company, an Aon creative an marketing company, an Aon company dealing in keltic art, an Aon PLC, an Aon eSolutions and its an acronym for "Akademia Obrony Narodowej" and "Airdale Ops Network" (Et cetera et cetera). If you would include all of these the page would be unusable, especially since 90% wouldn't direct a user anywhere. Bottom line: If it has a stand-alone article its included on such a page, otherwise its left out. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bettie de Jong
Dear Madam, Sir,
I am living in the Netherlands and new on Wikipedia English version.
The article of Bettie de Jong was made for the dutch version of Wikipedia. Please see http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bettie_de_Jong. This was done because Bettie de Jong is well known in the modern dance business. I had many times contact with John Tomlinson, Executive Director Paul Taylor Dance Company and with Bettie de Jong (my aunt) herselve.
After I put it on the dutch version I have translated the article in English and have put it on the internet.
I dont realy understand why you declined the article. I read that the content has unreliable recources. Could you please tell me which of the content you mean, because I want to make the corrections.
Excuse me for my english, I am not very experienced with that.
I am looking foreward to your reaction.
Kind regards,
Willem van Iterson--87.211.183.169 (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Willem,
There are two major issues with the sourcing of the article:
Not all the content in the article is supported by a source, causing it to fail the biography of living persons policy (I'll explain that in a second as well).
Well, so much for quoting an array of awfully long policy pages and time for some human readable language explaining them. The subject of the article itself is a so-called BLP page, or a "Biography of a living person". These pages are especially sensitive, since they describe a living human being. If - for example - an article such as Battle of the Bulge contains an incorrect statement that would be annoying but unlikely to have any serious repercussions. Mistakes in biographies can be quite a bit more harmful for a person if they are present so those article are treated with exceptional care. As a result everything in these BLP article's should have a decent and reliable source that can be used to verify the content in that article.
A second issue is that the article only contains one underlying reference - a biography on the "Paul Taylor Dance Company" website. This is what they call a primary source, or a source of information that is close to the subject of the article. Wikipedia itself only uses Secondary sources, which are sources somewhat further away from the subject of the article such as newspapers, academic journals, the larger news websites and so on. This criteria is there for two reasons: Sources close to the subject are often not entirely unbiased, and they are used to determine if the subject is notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article.
CURTAINTOAD!TALK! — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
.jpg)
