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.
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?
First off, also best wishes for 2013 to you! I gad another look at the article, and it is a definite improvement over the last version. The only point i'd raise is that the article contains an opinion here an there - though this is really a minor issue. Examples would be "to be the leading cinema of the circuit" (Which is a so-called peacock word) and "Luckily it was rebuilt" which (strictly taken) is an opinion. Sound like nitpicking? Not a strange thing, since that is what it really is. As for the review - adding it back to the queue will result in someone giving the current article another fresh look which will likely (and should!) include another copyright violation check. That one should turn out ok though, since i can see that the blog is now correctly marked as CC-BY-SA.
There are some things that i should point out though. First, expect that if will take quite a bit longer before the review will be done - It is not rare for article's to be in the queue for over a week or even longer before it is picked up. The reason the previous review was so fast, is because i tend to do a quick check on new article's for problems (If there is a severe problem that would always cause a decline, it makes no sense to have people wait a week for that). Second i cannot guarantee that the article will be accepted - another reviewer may spot something that i missed or didn't check for. Even so, in its current state it is definitely well prepared to face that trial. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:03, 1 January 2013 (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.
Many thanks for your answer. I understand the sensetifity of the content of a BLP. I know the content is correct, I'm not afraid of that. My aunt read it and confirned the content, but I understand that's not enough. Of cource. I have to find more sources and references. I will find it.
I must admit i didn't see this reply, and seeing that the article has now been accepted the question might have lost some relevance. Either way, an AFC submission is kept indefinitely when it is declined. The only time a submission is actually deleted is when it is a copyright violation or otherwise against the law (Or the page is just a bunch of swear words or similar). It is not a guarantee that a declined submission will never be cleaned up, but right now they are all kept around. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)07:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mathew Daley Page
Hello,
Thanks very much for your review - hoping you can help me get a good friend up on wiki for an act heroism. Given the existing wiki page on Eric Fortier:
This page falls under the so-called BLP1E policy, which prevents adding biographies for people who are only notable in the context for a single event. The logical question of course is why Éric_Fortier does have an article, while there is little difference between the article's. The answer to that is that this article dates from 2006, before this specific policy was drafted. After the policy was drafted it is quite likely that no-one has seen the article (Or tagged it for removal) which is why it is still around to this day. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rank Uiller article
Hi Excirial.
First, I want to say thank you, for your time. And Happy New Year! I've made some changes on my article and I want to know if they meet the guidelines regarding Reliable Sources.
Kind regards, Zoe.
Zoepe (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there Zoepe,
I might be wrong, but at first glance it would appear that the references used are the names of several expositions that art was showcased on? I fear that this doesn't fall under reliable sourcing as these references cannot be looked up by anyone (While being also of temporal nature). Since the article is a so-called BLP page, a Biography of a Living Person the requirement for sources is several notches higher than it would be for other article's to be accepted.
What you are looking for are sources such as newspapers that can confirm what is written in the article itself. There might also be coverage in other literature such as magazines that can qualify as reliable. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Syrian Civil War
Thanks for reverting my "test" word on the above. You beat me to the revert button. I just did that because there was a confusing message about the page being semi-protected and I didn't know if I could edit it or not. So I did a tiny test (which I was going to revert if successful). Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
deleted page
Hi Excirial,
I saw that you deleted my page for a copyright violation, however I did reference that the page was a copied biography off the artist's facebook site, and included the link to it in the references section. Can you advise me on how to modify the page to not be deleted? Is there a writer/editor on Wikipedia who can rearrange the format to better serve that of Wikipedia pages?
Page creation review for Entertainment Media Research Digital
Hi, first of all happy new year! And of course, thank you for reviewing my first (ever!) created Wikipedia page.
You have mentioned that most of the sources do not mention Entertainment Media Research. This is not true, as I specifically selected articles that specifically mention EMR. People and publications often tend to quote research but not the people who did it! The references I used all mention Entertainment Media Research.
Here's the list with more detail:
1. The Guardian Newspaper: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/oct/13/netmusic-musicindustry
"Entertainment Media Research" is mentioned in paragraph 2, line 3 as well as in paragraph 6, line 4. In fact the whole article in the paper is about EMR and EMR's research.
4. Music Tank (A serious site run by the University of Westminster who have a superb music faculty): http://www.musictank.co.uk/resources/speaker-biographies/russell-hart
"Entertainment Media Research" and the CEO has earned a dedicated profile/bio page for their notable contribution of research to the music industry.
6. I have included one of EMR's latest surveys as this material is used by university students for dissertations and other serious works.
This is a major EMR's survey report and "Entertainment Media Research" is mentioned on page 2, page 4 and page 125 (see credits). I would have thought people on Wikipedia (particularly students and industry people) targeting the EMR page would have found this survey truly very useful.
7. Radaris: http://radaris.co.uk/p/Peter/Ruppert/ I quoted Radaris as it has a very comprehensive profile of the company and one of the major personalities behind the company. (I read the Wikipedia terms, and I understand we can't quote the official company site, hence I went for Radaris)
8. Rassami: http://www.rassami.com/snapshots.html "Entertainment Media Research" has its own section and its written about quite comprehensively. Starts on paragraph 9 from the top.
9. sk-kultur.de: http://www.sk-kultur.de/dancescreen99/english/e_pre_4e.htm - I have quoted this source because (although not very pretty), this seems like a serious site - from what I understand (I used Google translate), they work with government funded projects and subsidies and help artists with funding, research and support. I understand this is like a government/culture site, so it should be a very good reference. I quoted Peter Ruppert from this source who is the founder of EMR.
10. I also quoted Peter Ruppert's profile on Linked In as that has a very good Summery of Entertainment Media Research as well as the founder. However, I can remove this if this is deemed inappropriate.
The only mistake that I have done (just realised!) is with the reference of the Common Sense Media article, where they used "entertainment media" phrase a lot in their article and I got that confused with "Entertainment Media Research" name - I am happy to correct this by removing it.
I would've thought that most of the sources I used (including newspapers, universities and government sites) would be deemed as reputable sources. I have quoted research because that's what the company does - they provide research intelligence, and this reseach is used by academics and industry people throughout a very large portion of the world.
Like I mentioned at the beginning, this is my first post, and perhaps the referencing format is not perfect, and whatever else, but I don't mind learning how to fix that. I happy to learn how to edit Wikipedia and I would be happy to receive any guidance from you.
However, please do reconsider this submission as I have referenced reputable sources and they all mention Entertainment Media Research. The company is well known in the industry for providing insightful, useful and reputable research and universities encourage students to quote this research in their dissertations.
Hi Excirial, Happy New Year!
Thank you for your feedback on my article for submission. I have taken on board your feedback and think in hindsight I placed too much emphasis on the company's own website, therefore i can see why you thought it read too much like a promotional piece. I have also looked at another trade event, the World Travel Market, and taken some pointers from their wiki page. I have removed quotes, and some other references, which although factual, could be also seen as promotional. I hope this second attempt is an improvement and welcome any further pointers if not. Best regards and thanks for your work. Artur
.jpg)
