User talk:Delbert7
Your submission at AfC The ABC Preon Model was accepted
[edit]
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Spetember 2017
[edit]
Your addition to Absolute theory has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. - DVdm (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- I am the creator of the material. I do not however own the copyright, as it is owned by Physics Essays Publication. I did get permission from the editor to use the material on Wikipedia prior to upload, as I knew that was important. I did not know however about the further requirements found in Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. I will write to the editor to ask if Physics Essays will be willing to take the extra steps needed to release the copyrighted material. Also, note that the introduction of what I uploaded was not copyrighted and that portion (edited to remove the segue to the copyrighted portion) could likely remain as an improvement to the page, although if we go that route several citations should be added to the introduction. (Since I feel the copyrighted work covers this topic excellently, the original upload left the citations as they appeared in the copyrighted material and I did not add them to the introduction.)Delbert7 (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note that this is not only a copyright issue. Wikipedia is not the place where we can publish our own work—see WP:NOTESSAY. I think you don't need to bother writing to Physics Essays about the copyrights. The content wil not be allowed here—see wp:NOR. Wikipedia is not a collection of essays, and all content needs reliable wp:secondary sources. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- I had already sent the request to the editor, and so I just followed up with a cancellation of the request. Would Wikipedia welcome the intro section (which was entirely new content) with appropriate citations? In addition to publishing my own works, I have also prepared over 100 reviews for Physics Essays, so I have a certain level of expertise in this area. Let me know. - Delbert7 (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- No, alas, entirely new content, even with appropriate citations, is not allowed here in this encyclopedia. One of the most basic policies is that everything must be backed by reliable secondary sources—see wp:Secondary sources, and in a broader context: wp:Verifiability and wp:No original research. Again, please have a careful look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Regards. - DVdm (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- OK, thank you for handling this in a most professional manner. I do wish to explain a bit more though. What I wrote was, I believe, a good fleshing out of a stub that was asked to be fleshed out. Everything I wrote was quite verifiable, as the citations in my copyrighted paper go back decades and are easy to find in physics libraries, and those citations are to reliable sources (they are almost all peer-reviewed publications, many extremely well-known). However, I will admit that many of those citations are primary sources, not secondary. As a scientist, primary sources are preferred. And with so many sources, to such a well-known topic, I thought (and still think) that what I had written was a good addition to Wikipedia. Most of it certainly wasn't original thought - absolute theory goes back to Aristotle. I did get permission from the editor to publish. So I thought all was well. By the way - Wikipedia is chock full of other scientific theory, some rather new. Note that I am not writing this to try to argue that it be kept up, as I am OK if you wish to delete it. I just wanted to explain my point of view since a lot of this appears to be a rather grey area to me, even after reading the instructions. Bottom line is that you have the power of deletion and if you choose to use that power I will not pursue this any further.
- I had already sent the request to the editor, and so I just followed up with a cancellation of the request. Would Wikipedia welcome the intro section (which was entirely new content) with appropriate citations? In addition to publishing my own works, I have also prepared over 100 reviews for Physics Essays, so I have a certain level of expertise in this area. Let me know. - Delbert7 (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)