Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sianirose (talk | contribs) at 04:20, 16 March 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


March 10

01:59:17, 10 March 2016 review of submission by Mim.cis


I would like to change the title from Beg_Dense_Image_Matching_via_LDDMM to a title that is more generic along thelines that I followed to make it accpetable. To introduce "Diffeomorphic Mapping" as a general field with Beg's version a particular one etc.....


How do I change the wiki page to have the title wiki/Diffeomorphic_Mapping


i KNOW HOW TO USE redirect SO ONCE i HAVE THE PROPER TITLE WHICH IS GENERIC i CAN THEN REDIRECT SUCH MORE PARTICULAR ONES LIKE beg_..... TO THE MORE GENERIC.

Mim.cis (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Mim.cis:, please see WP:Move page for how to change a title. Absolutely do not simply copy-paste the current page onto a new one, use the Move tools to make sure the page history is properly recorded. If you have trouble, inquire at WP:Teahouse for help. MatthewVanitas (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

05:19:16, 10 March 2016 review of submission by Rajesh ghangurde


Need help regarding my draft page 'Kokan Region'. Reviewer had raised question regarding my submissions and would want to reply to it. I have already edited the Draft and resend for review. however i would also like to highlight that there is no separate page as 'KOKAN' mentioned in Wikipedia in regard to coastal Maharashtra while we have separate pages for Nort, South Goa and Karavalli and Kanara although they too are part of 'Konkan' please admit the citation. regards. Rajesh ghangurde (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Rajesh ghangurde:, the main problem is that you simply make a case for how you think Kokan and Konkan are two different things, but what you must do is show that some experts believe that they are two distinct things. A Wikipedia article is not a place for your to present your argument and justify it, it's to show other experts' arguments. Do you have any citations to news articles, books, etc. where an expert writer lays out the case that these are not simply two words for the same place? MatthewVanitas (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

07:14:05, 10 March 2016 review of submission by MIFTWA

WE ARE A NGO ORGANIZATION SET UP TO LOOK IN TO THE SKILL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA OF FILM AND TV IN MALAYSIA. ALL THE WORKSHOPS,SEMINARS ARE FREE OF CHARGE FOR THE MALAYSIAN INDIANS.WE TRAIN THE SCHOOL DROPOUTS,SINGLE MOTHERS,AND YOUTHS WHO WANTS TO START A SMALL BUSINESS RELATED TO MULTI MEDIA OR MEDIA STUDIES.

MIFTWA (talk) 07:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @MIFTWA:, you have not written an article that is ready to publish. We don't need you to come and advocate for why you think your NGO is great, we need you to follow the suggestions we have given you to improve the article. Have you read the guidance in the pink boxes at the top? Do you have any questions for us about how to follow that guidance? You must follow that guidance if you want the article to publish, we will not publish an unready article simply because it sounds like a good cause. MatthewVanitas (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

08:33:30, 10 March 2016 review of submission by Davitashvilli

Good afternoon, i'm interested in what is to add to said page, what sources are counted as relevant and so on. Basically we are a small and cose museum with sole goal of motivating future generations. And as a museum - the wiki page is really helpful thing. Since both Wlad and Vitaliy Klitchko are common people to visit us - getting "proved\authentic" is not a problem.

So really need a hand in creating page, never done it before so it is rather challenging and fun at same time.

Davitashvilli (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Davitashvilli: You do not just need to prove it exists, you also need to prove ti generated sufficient attention (see WP:N) and is described in what we call reliable sources (WP:RS). These sources do not need to be in English, they can be in Ukrainian or Russian or Georgian or whatever, but they need to be reliable. Museums usually stand a good chance of being notable, but you need to demonstrate it.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rita Moussa

16:23:50, 10 March 2016 review of submission by 66.131.69.248



hello i am contacting you because i would like the following url o be deleted from the internet and from the history. thank you

http://wpedia.goo.ne.jp/enwiki/Wikipedia_talk%3AArticles_for_creation%2FRita_Moussa

Hello @66.131.69.248:, that site is not a Wikipedia site, it is a mirror website that copies from here that Wikipedia does not control. We cannot do anything to help you, you must contact the administrators of that site. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20:34:45, 10 March 2016 review of submission by Aali451


Hi there,

Thank you for your review of this submission. I added more newspaper articles and award demonstrating the notable subject. Would you please specifically let me know what kind of sources I need to add in the references?

Thank you,

Aali

Replied on user talk page. Worldbruce (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:32:59, 10 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Tydero



Tydero (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 11

03:47:20, 11 March 2016 review of submission by James strecker


James strecker (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Currently I was rejected for an article I submitted on the Bio of Ceil Clayton who was a very well known Musician and Piano Player in the St Louis Region and other cities. I am looking over criteria and they only thing I can figure out of a rejection is that I need more references.. How do I show references if they are articles from newspapers and magazines that I only have clippings from?... Is there a place to scan them an upload so you can actually read the articles?

I have in possession her own handwritten tax records that shows all the places she performed over a 15 year period that she used for her own IRS taxes yearly

I have listed a few books she was mentioned in how do I show them?

She is in the MO state and St. Louis Hall of Fame Jazz singers/Players... Should I list that and how do I show it?

She has played over the years on Radio.. I have knowledge of it since there is newspaper articles on it but radio stations archives are sketchy ( I think they have no idea where the history archives are stored at)

She was part of the Gaslight Square scene in Saint Louis MO and they had specials on TV and the History Museum on Gaslight Sq. and she was on them

So what do I need to provide for your approval.

Thank you for your positive pro-active feedback

Much appreciated

James Strecker

James strecker (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James strecker, I've left a detailed reply on the draft. Worldbruce (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:59:42, 11 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Erzeeshan



Erzeeshan (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I frequently receive a pop-up , telling AFCH error, User not listed

Please inform me, what this is tellig...& what I have to do --- I couldn't understand.

Please also inform me ; if I continue work as I'm doing now ignoring the message ; what problem would occur?

Thanks Rajarshi Rit 16:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Rajarshi Rit 16:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Rajarshi Rit 16:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RIT RAJARSHI (talk • contribs)

17:17:57, 11 March 2016 review of submission by Poi ponder


Aloha! My first submission got declined, saying this subject already existed. I went to the link to the University of Hawaii at Manoa page, and didnʻt see the Library and Information Science Program listed there. I did see the library. I noticed there was a page for the UIUC Graduate School of Library and Information Science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UIUC_Graduate_School_of_Library_and_Information_Science

I was wondering if I could create something similar, where is it only about the LIS program, and not the entire University of Hawaii? I changed the article heading, to try and place more emphasis on the LIS program and not the University, since this may have been confusing. Iʻm new to this, but enjoying the experience so far. :)

Hi Poi ponder, I'm Glad you're enjoying editing. Wikipedia favors large, comprehensive articles. This means that information about particular parts of a University almost always belongs in the main university article, not in a stand alone article. See the essay Wikipedia:College and university article advice's section on faculties, academic colleges, and departments, and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which notes that except for law schools or medical schools, parts of universities are not inherently notable. Whether UIUC Graduate School of Library and Information Science is an exception to the rule, or an article that should be merged into University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign I can't say without studying it further. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality and low quality content. There are lots of bad examples out there that new articles should not be patterned after.
There's an entire WikiProject Universities dedicated to articles about universities. Their article guidelines, referenced above, may help you see how to incorporate some of what you've written into University of Hawaii at Manoa. You can also ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities or Talk:University of Hawaii at Manoa. I think the founder, date of founding, name change, and accreditation would be worthwhile things to mention. Leave out the vision, values, and mission. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18:57:11, 11 March 2016 review of submission by Kms49



Hi, could you tell me what I need to do to correct the article? Is it more references that I need? Thanks

Hi Kms49, It isn't the number of references that is the difficulty, but the type. To show notability as a creative professional, there must be significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of Sheehy. The cited sources are:
  • one obscure book (held by just 4 libraries worldwide) with an unclear amount of content about Sheehy
  • Sheehy's own website and other writings (not independent)
  • Two self-published sources (not reliable)
  • Outside In, a website for artists to publicize themselves (not independent)
Some editors might count the book towards notability, but none of the other sources count. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

23:40:31, 11 March 2016 review of submission by Mirialova


Hello,

I have been adding sources and other information to this page in preparation for resubmitting it.

I thought I had successfully uploaded a photo of the subject, Walter A. Scheiber, but now it isn't showing. I checked in Wikimedia uploaded files and it doesn't seem to be there. But when I tried to upload it again using the upload wizard, it required me to identify the article it will be part of. Then, when I wrote the name of the article, it said it doesn't exist.

This seems like a catch 22! Is it the case that I can't upload a photo until the article is published? If it is not the case, how do I upload the photo beforehand?

FYI, this is a free image.

Also, I want to upload a second image to appear in the body of the article. The one I am writing about is to be the main image, and I want it to go in the "infobox."

Thanks. Mirialova (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mirialova, Concentrate on getting the draft approved, something that isn't affected by the presence or absence of images.
From your description of the error message it sounds like you might have omitted "Draft:" from the name of the article where you planned to use the photo. There are also certain types of images that may not be added to drafts, but may be added to articles. The photo you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in January was deleted as explained here. Copyright law is insanely complicated. Time enough to tackle it if and when the draft becomes an article. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 12

21:06:09, 12 March 2016 review of submission by Jon Ingram 33


I have been asked to provide obituaries to confirm notability. I have managed to find copies in The Times Newspaper (Thursday 8 March 2001) and Independent Newspaper (Friday 6 April 2001). These I have in the form of an email, which I would be happy to attach but would need advice on how to do that.

I also have a hard copy of an entry from Who's Who (a publication of notability for people in the UK). Again, I would be happy to attach this with advice on how to do so.

I believe these documents should be adequate to prove notability.

It would also be useful to have your advice on how to upload a photograph. I have been sent an image by the National Portrait Gallery in London, who have given me permission to use the image. Again, I would like your advice on how to upload this as part of the entry.

Please could you advise me on how to provide all these supporting documents so that the entry can be uploaded?

Many thanks,

Jonathan Ingram

Hi Jon Ingram 33, There is no need to email the obituaries or Who's Who entry. Simply use them as references after material in the draft that they support. You can use other templates in the cite family to do so, such as <ref>{{cite news |last= |first= |date=8 March 2001 |title= |newspaper=The Times |location=London |page= |quote= }}</ref>. Just fill in what I've left out: the author's names if one is credited, the title, the page number if available, and the quote from the piece that supports the content where cited (omit the quote if it would be more than a few sentences). Use the {{cite book}} template for Who's Who. There are many similarly-titled Who's Who directories. Be sure to specify the title and publisher precisely.
With regard to the photograph, these two guides contain the community's collected wisdom on how to do it:
You may also find Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials informative, even though in this case you are not the donor. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 13

00:28:29, 13 March 2016 review of submission by 11lionsd


Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sandro_Mencucci#Sportive_Achievements

I would like to know if under the stated guidelines that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." if the following resources qualify being reputable secondary resources in Italy on par with the New York Times in the USA: La Repubblica, Corriere della Sera, Corriere dello Sport, Corriere Fiorentino is published by Corriere della Sera, La Nazione, Giornale della Toscana,[1] The Hindu, The New York Times, La Gazzetta dello Sport which publishes their online version also known as violanews.com, The Indian Super League, The Vietnam News Agency, The SportsPro Media Ltd


in addition to:

transfermarkt.com the leading website to know player an club values [2] tuttomercatoweb.com one of the leading European websites with news about calico [3] ilsitodifirenze.it is published by Il Sito d'Italia which features articles registered with the Tribunale Civile di Firenze n.5811 del 29 dicembre 2010. [4] fiorentina.it is published by C&C Media Srl and is registered in the press archives with the Tribunale di Firenze con il n. 5050/01 del 27 apr 2001. Partita IVA 06783020966[5] Calciopress.net specializes in articles that focus on first division news, interviews, editorials and championship results and classifications and is registered with the Tribunale di Firenze atto 5591 del 04/07/2007 [6] Firenzepost.it is an online edition published by Toscana Comunicazione srl registered to the Operatori della Comunicazione n° 23080 [7] womenssoccerunited.com is a worldwide source of information [8] sportbusinessmanagement.it portal specializing in sports economics and finance [9]

violachannel.tv is only referenced when the subject is directly credited and quoted for his contributions to the success and accomplishments instigated by the same subject. [10]

Please kindly explain how any of the above reputable resources are not "reputable published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"

Thank you for your time.

References

  1. ^ http://www.giornaletoscana.it/
  2. ^ http://www.transfermarkt.com/
  3. ^ http://www.tuttomercatoweb.com/
  4. ^ http://www.ilsitodifirenze.it/
  5. ^ http://fiorentina.it./it/category/home.1/home-page.html
  6. ^ http://www.calciopress.net./
  7. ^ http://www.firenzepost.it/
  8. ^ http://womenssoccerunited.com/
  9. ^ http://www.sportbusinessmanagement.it./
  10. ^ http://it.violachannel.tv/?lang=it

11lionsd (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 11lionsd, You have listed many fine publications. I examined a few citations at random:
  • Does [1] support any part of the text where cited? No it does not. Possibly the draft is confusing budget with market value.
  • Do any of the following contain a significant depth of coverage of Sandro Mencucci: [2], [3], [4], [5], and[6]? No, they do not. Each contains a sentence, perhaps two about Mencucci, often in the form of direct quotes. These brief mentions are useless for the purposes of notability. What constitutes significant coverage of a sports team CEO? Here are two examples for George Steinbrenner: [7] and [8].
If the rest of the sources are like the six chosen at random, then the draft fails to demonstrate the subject's notability. If three in-depth sources like the Steinbrenner examples are hidden among the others, then the bulk of the article should rest on them and the remaining sources should be ruthlessly cut back. Including sources of so little value is a form of WP:CITEKILL that hurts the draft's chances of approval.
The point of the Bibliography section is unclear, since none of those books listed there is cited as a reference for anything in the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Worldbruce, Thank you for the detailed description. You make some fine points. There are indeed more in depth examples in the Bibliography. It will be a good idea for me to reference more of those. I think the issue here is that the subject tends to speak more about his initiatives rather than his personal contribution. While in the books the author's take more time to speak about the subjects contributions and successes. I will work on refining the references as you have indicated. For example, the feature article which speaks exclusively about the subject and his contributions and also happens to have an interview such as the following: [9] "Dopo nove mesi resucita la Fiorentina" would be a better example of what I believe you are trying to convey to me. All of those books took a significant amount of time compiling and making sure that the subject was featured.

Let me work on this using your example of Steinbrenner. Thank you once again. 11lionsd (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

02:12:51, 13 March 2016 review of draft by Vinceeric07


Vinceeric07 (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Vinceeric07:, what is your question? MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

14:59:39, 13 March 2016 review of submission by 2600:380:985F:CE86:907F:40C4:452D:8F8F


Why is my article rejected by an editor who does not associate with IP editors? "Also, I rarely respond to anonymous IP editors. If you want to participate here, please create an account. It's not hard and allows your work to be associated with you."

If he doesn't want to interact with me, and doesn't want IPs participating at Wikipedia, maybe he should not deal with IP posts at AFC or AFC at all.

2600:380:985F:CE86:907F:40C4:452D:8F8F (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC) 2600:380:985F:CE86:907F:40C4:452D:8F8F (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now the article has been rejected because I did not include page numbers. How do you ever get articles written on Wikipedia? Page numbers is not an AFC requirement. 2601:283:4301:D3A6:79FB:F747:82E7:C781 (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17:02:44, 13 March 2016 review of submission by Oriabr

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

17:02:44, 13 March 2016 review of submission by Oriabr


Dear Robert, I am not sure that I understand your recent remark:"Leaving speedy deletion template up. I'll let an administrator decide whether speedy is necessary. " If you can please advise on how I can upload 'NIRU Group' value to wikipedia.

I appreciate your assitance. Ori



Hi Oriabr, I've left a comment on the draft explaining why you should not anticipate Wikipedia adding an article about NIRU Group. Worldbruce (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

22:39:43, 13 March 2016 review of submission by Edgfeinberg


I have edited the original draft, putting in references in the proscribed manner - which I did not do before. As an additional reference I have available a picture of the subject's gravesite on Mt. Olives which ties into the end of the tale. Is this a proper thing to add to an article and if so, how do I do that?

Hi Edgfeinberg, Unless you took the picture yourself, you probably aren't allowed to upload it. The copyright is generally held by the photographer. Whether you may upload the photo or not, anything shown in it, such as a marker, is a primary source and thus has limited value. A marker that shows a date of death likely would be accepted as a reliable source for the date. There is a {{cite sign}} template that can be used to reference such a source. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 14

05:55:54, 14 March 2016 review of submission by Katie.e.carr


Hi. I have a couple items I need help with on this page. I would like to add an info box below the photo about C. K. Gunsalus, but cannot figure out how to do that. I would also like to add categories, but haven't been able to figure that out yet. Additionally, I got permission from the photographer via email to use the photo on the page, but am not sure how to submit it correctly. Right now it says that I took the photo, but that is not correct. Can you please help me with these items? Thanks! Katie Katie.e.carr (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Katie.e.carr, This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Since C. K. Gunsalus has already been accepted into article space, it's outside our scope. I've added a basic infobox and a couple categories to the article to get you started. You can find more information in:
If you have further questions about this, please consider asking at the Wikipedia:Help desk - where editors will try to answer any question regarding how to use Wikipedia. Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

05:55:59, 14 March 2016 review of submission by Janep67


Please could you help me with 2 things. Firstly, i created 'Leonard Jacobson (Author and Teacher)' as a new submission and I accidently saved this, meaning it is out there as a wikipedia page in the namespace. i deleted the content because it is not correctly referenced. Then I created a draft in the articles for creation space, which is what i meant to do in the first place (sorry!) I have submitted this for review. Now there are 2 pages with the same name. Can the 1st one be deleted? Secondly, I read your citations guidelines but i am still stuck. My references section has ended up being listed in numerical order 1-20 instead of 9 references and where repeated, listed as a, b, c etc Could you please help me? How do i keep repeated references together under one footnote?? Thank you so much for your assistance, Kind regards Jane

Janep67 (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12:17:34, 14 March 2016 review of submission by 79.78.155.119

This draft of this article has been denied. Can you tell me the reason for this?

79.78.155.119 (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 79.78.155.119, I've elaborated in a comment on the draft about what is keeping it from being accepted. Worldbruce (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:19:28, 14 March 2016 review of submission by Solers1501


Hi there! I've just created a new page on Wikipedia, and I had problems with the images I uploaded. I wanted to modify the position of some of them and when I pressed the "Save" button, they dissappeared - not the legend but the file. I've sent the article for review without those references, I hope you accept it and then I could add the ones left.

One more thing.. I want to help Wikipedia and become a reliable user by editing some articles, but my mother tongue is Spanish . So.. Could you tell me how can I get to edition-needed articles in Spanish?

Thank you!

Stefania Solers1501 (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined For the reasons explained on Draft:Cosmopolita Scotland.
Here are some of the ways fluent Spanish speakers can contribute to Wikipedia:
--Worldbruce (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:27:57, 14 March 2016 review of submission by SoRU2

Hi I got a message from a friend of mine: she had written her first article ever, trying to get everything right on the topic she wanted to write about (the European Union's first macro regional strategy: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:The_European_Union_Strategy_for_the_Baltic_Sea_Region_(EUSBSR)&action=edit&redlink=1 ). She can not (because of reasons) do anything about this at the moment and asked me figure out how the information can be retrieved so that she can rephrase it if necessary. - I'm also a newbie, as you might have realized by now :-)

She wrote a draft, got a flag for clear copyright infringement: "This article or image appears to be a direct copy from wiki.polskibreivik.pl/page_Draft:The_European_Union_Strategy_for_the_Baltic_Sea_Region_(EUSBSR).html "

- my problem with this is that the article that the link leads to doesn't contain anything except for some links leading to pornographic material (or so it claims, I didn't really follow the links all the way after the "are you younger than 18?"-warning...)

Since my friends article is deleted, I can't really see what she wrote, but from what she has told me, I don't think it was a copyright infringement - the only thing I can think of is if she used a picture that wasn't CC-tagged.

She has written to one of the two users who either flagged or deleted her article (don't know which one) but has not yet received any reply some ten days later, so I ask you instead: is there a way for me to get the original text back to make the necessary changes?

Revision as of 18:44, 10 February 2016 by Robert_McClenonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robert_McClenon (Notification: Your Articles for Creation submission has been declined (AFCH 0.9))

Latest revision as of 04:16, 3 March 2016 by Boomer Vial [[10]] (Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Draft:The European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR). (TW))


SoRU2 (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't get an original version of an article undeleted or userfied if it contained copyright violation. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:46:28, 14 March 2016 review of submission by Nmalekal

Hi, I recently wrote a userspace draft for Association House of Chicago. It was deleted due to copyright violations with the history and mission sections. I needed to rewrite those sections, however before I had the opportunity to remove and rewrite that section, the page was deleted. I am asking for the AHC draft to be readded to my userspace so I may continue to work on it and then resubmit it for review. I would like my work not to have been completely deleted as it was limited access to my userspace. Thank you, Nmalekal Nmalekal (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has been resolved; an administrator has restored the non-infringing content at Draft:Association House of Chicago. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 20:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21:10:25, 14 March 2016 review of submission by Jean T. Cullen

Cullen328 and others: I find it amazing that you didn't check or understand my citations (Mike Ashley, SFE, etc) but went right ahead and blocked my article.

The story I have to tell is factual. There is only one piece of opinion in it, which I can delete because people will figure out the truth for themselves from the facts. Let the world decide: Either Clocktower Books was or was not in 1996 the first publisher (and I the first author) in history to publish true e-books online according to the criteria I have very carefully listed after years of consideration and experience in the subject matter:

1) proprietary, not public domain, therefore no comparison with Michael Hart's Gutenberg Project; 2) entire novels, not sample chapters or teasers; 3) totally online in HTML format; no CD-ROMs, floppy disks, or other portable media involved;

I don't know of anyone else who did this before I began publishing my novels online in spring/summer 1996. Let historians decide, unless you want to decide for them. If you want to take it upon yourself and make the call to block this article, I apparently cannot stop you. Whatever, the fact remains that we were doing this in 1996. That information also belongs on the timeline (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-book).

There are two components (required Wikipedia pages) to this story: (1) Clocktower Books: the publishing effort my friend Brian Callahan and I launched in April 1996 quickly became a publishing house, growing out of two small, primitive websites. We really were innovators on many fronts before e-commerce. This is not opinion but fact, and I have the citations to prove it. It is not original research (I've gone back to read Wikipedia on synth and sources--primary, secondary, and tertiary).

(2) On 15 April 1998, Brian and I launched what became the world's oldest professional Web-only online magazine of speculative and dark fiction. We published 72 issues over a decade, including many talented authors who went on to win all the top awards and/or nominations in the field (Hugo, Nebula, Sturgeon, Prix Aurora in Canada, British Fantasy Award, Bram Stoker, etc). All this is cited by Mike Ashley at SFE, and will appear in print soon from University of Liverpool Press in the UK under Mike Ashley's name. I'll be happy to put you in touch with him if you need to verify it. I have not yet submitted the draft. I don't need to bother if you block the first one.

None of this is opinion. All of it is fact. I don't see you belittling Simon & Schuster or Harper or Hachette or Bertelsmann in New York, so why go after me? It's been an uphill struggle for twenty years effective next month, against all the resistance in the world from the print industry and their acolytes. I can remove the one opinion piece--whether our 1996 was first--but the facts will speak for themselves if you allow them to be on Wikipedia--it's an important piece of history for historians to decide. In 1996 we already had readers around the world.

What I do know for sure is that in 1996 I was publishing my novels on line, in a way that led to important consequences (like being a recognized publisher at International Thriller Writers, and having a unique publisher ISBN, and more) and from there a chain of events unfolded that affected many people and still does today.

Consider, for example, that Clocktower Books is already listed on Wikipedia. Take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_group-0_ISBN_publisher_codes. Look down the list to Clocktower Books.

7432 Simon & Schuster, Scribner 7433 Clocktower Books [1] (formerly Clocktower Fiction) Since 1996; refs include ITW-recognized [2]; SF-Encyclopedia [3] 7434 Pocket Books

What do we see on that list? We see Clocktower Books (prefix 7433) nestled between Simon & Schuster, Scribner (7432) and Pocket Books (7434).

What it tells a reasonable person (who checks facts and examines references, and does not see how fast he can kill new articles in draft form without understanding them) is that Clocktower Books has an important place in publishing history. I don't need to look up S&S, Scribner, or Pocket Books to ascertain that they have links on Wikipedia. A person researching publishers would well want to know more about Clocktower Books, so this is not "oh just any old thing that happened in the universe" as Cullen328 puts it so blithely. Wikipedia readers and researchers deserve to know what Clocktower Books is all about, I want to tell them, and you want to block the information.

Telling that true history requires exactly what I am trying to do here on the 20th anniversary of our founding of Clocktower Books and soon after that a history-making online magazine. This is something that should have been posted years ago. For historical reasons, it never happened. I don't care if I post it or someone else does, but it needs to be out there. It's not opinion, or advertising, or conflict of information--and it is not original research--it's purely historical fact, backed by powerful facts and references. I submitted a draft as I was invited to do, and you have nixed it without even looking at the references--your words, Cullen328, tell that story. You have no interest in this topic, and you didn't check the references. How can anyone block an article with wishy-washy language like "may" and "whoever the publisher maybe" and so forth?

You did not even address half of it. For example, why and how Clocktower Books has its own ISBN Prefix (978-0-7433); and a whole lot of other info the world will never learn if you block this key historical information.

Here is Mike Ashley (a world expert in the field, vetted by his publisher, Liverpool University Press in the UK, in addition to being a prolific author and anthologist) at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Ashley_(writer)#Story_of_the_Science_Fiction_Magazines_series Here is the SF Encyclopedia (online edition): http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/ and also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Encyclopedia_of_Science_Fiction Here is the page http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/far_sector on which he talks about both Clocktower Books (originally Clocktower Fiction) and our magazine Far Sector SFFH). Finally, here is his university press publisher, where he informed me he plans to elaborate about these projects I and other authors have been involved in: (see: http://liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/)

So, we can go one of two ways. You can help me get this information out there on Wikipedia in the best way doable--or you can block the information for all the wrong reasons.

There is a timeline (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-book) that Clocktower Books and Far Sector SFFH need to be on. Your call. I wanted to build the case step by step. We won't get there at this rate. So the missing pieces will not be filled in. Someone has to do it. I waited for others to pick up the ball (20 years) but nobody did. If I don't do it, nobody will. I didn't want to get involved in this, which is a major reason why it's taken so long, but here we are.

You may not know or care who Mike Ashley and SFE and Karen Wiesner are, or Locus Online or Georgetown University or SFF Net…. or how Clocktower Books ended up with its own ISBN prefix. Could there be a reason? You may not care about Internet publishing history or facts. Could people on the Internet and Wikipedia deserve to know? Do you really want to elbow this stuff off the table without even taking time to understand it?

I can move the citations from the Clocktower Books Museum pages to the proposed Wikipedia article. The citations are not mine to control (you are wrong about that and other things you said). The citations speak for themselves. I have rescued them from ephemera and loss through timely searches and researches. My articles are part of history and need to be there. I can make changes.

I am willing to work with you if you are willing to work with me. I thought that was the idea of a draft process. Let me know. Or we just move on, leaving an info hole that could have been filled in. Jean-Thomas Cullen Jean T. Cullen (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Jean T. Cullen (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

22:56:12, 14 March 2016 review of submission by Janep67


Hello, yesterday i had a page that I wrote accepted by the reviewers. It has been posted as 'Leonard Jacobson (Author)' Jacobson is predominantly known as a Spiritual Teacher rather than an Author (although he is the author of 5 books) Is it possible to change his name on wikipedia to Leonard Jacobson (Spiritual Teacher) ?? Many thanks Jane Janep67 (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Janep67:, these "disambiguation" descriptions in the parentheses aren't at all a binding summary of someone, they're just a way to try to distinguish people with similar names. They're always kept as short and simple as possible, so we often get people confused and displeased that we change "John Arglebargle (tennis player)" to "John Arglebargle (athlete)" since they feel it's over-simplifying, but the whole point is that if there aren't multiple athletes with that same name, "athlete" works functionally to help separate him from an artist or politician of the same name. In short, I really wouldn't worry about disambiguation terms unless they're totally inaccurate, or unless there are indeed multiple authors of the same name he's easily confused with. But your question is a good one, and never hurts to ask, but I don't think it's really a problem. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 15

10:37:21, 15 March 2016 review of submission by 49.150.52.75


How long is the reviewing 49.150.52.75 (talk) 10:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor. There are over 400 drafts in the queue waiting for review, so there is a bit of a wait time before drafts are generally reviewed. Having said that, I have reviewed and declined the submission at Draft:Jurisland since it appears to be a joke. Thank you, /wiae /tlk 14:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11:36:22, 15 March 2016 review of submission by Arafat Daura


Arafat Daura (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]



I want contribute in educational sector, so please to post my view on internet. Thanks yours faithfully, Yasir Arafat Daura from Nigeria +2347033332054

14:32:31, 15 March 2016 review of submission by Pepperah


Dear SwisterTwister, I've added 10 new references. Does the article has enough in-depth third-party sources and is it suitable for publication?

Best regards, pepperah

17:10:40, 15 March 2016 review of submission by Gregoryjlee


Gregoryjlee (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am trying to have the following page validated for publishing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Patricia_Gucci Can you tell me if any modifications are required for approval?

Thank you!

Hello @Gregoryjlee:, your draft is not currently in line for review, so I added the "submission" page markings for you, so you can click the Submit button whenever ready. That said, your draft needs work, so please see my comments and address before clicking Submit. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 16

02:40:04, 16 March 2016 review of submission by Fmuindi2016


Hello

my article has been rejected twice. I have included additional references but to no avail. Any help on improving the references could be useful.


Fmuindi2016 (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

04:09:06, 16 March 2016 review of submission by 12.130.117.192


QUESTION: Is Wikipedia anti-science? My article is NOT a research report (as claimed by the second reviewer). It is a summary of a series of greater than 100 papers and some news articles (one on NPR) about the significance of a modified Mediterranean Diet (PREDIMED) that resulted in a decrease in cardiovascular disease and breast cancer.

I want to raise this to the wider community: why Wikipedia is so difficult to get anything posted. It almost seems like the editors are trying to stop people from contributing. And I can assure you this is the word on the street.

What gives?

Sincerely, Mike

12.130.117.192 (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

04:20:10, 16 March 2016 review of submission by Sianirose


QUESTION: Is Wikipedia anti-science? My article is NOT a research report (as claimed by the second reviewer). It is a summary of a series of greater than 100 papers and some news articles (one on NPR) about the significance of a modified Mediterranean Diet (PREDIMED) that resulted in a decrease in cardiovascular disease and breast cancer.

I know the English is decent. The article is sufficiently referenced. The medical and health nature is consistent with other articles in Wikipedia. The submission augements the Mediterranean diet, which does have a Wikipedia page. I am not associated with this study, but think it is a significant advancment with proof that it reduces cardiovascular disease and breast cancer. I have spoken with friends (some medical and some not) and family about the significance of this PREDIMED approach to prevention of heart disease and they all get it.

Is it that the reviewers don't have medical knowledge? I don't mean to insult you, but I am genuinely puzzled by these responses.

I want to raise this to the wider community: why Wikipedia is so difficult to get anything posted. It almost seems like the editors are trying to stop people from contributing. And I can assure you this is the word on the street.

What gives?

Sincerely, Mike

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=710303191"