Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 January 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< January 28 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 30 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


January 29

[edit]

09:58:15, 29 January 2015 review of submission by Trevorwills5

[edit]


Trevorwills5 (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


09:58:15, 29 January 2015 review of submission by Trevorwills5 {{Lafc|username={{Trevorwills5}|ts=09:58:15, 29 January 2015|link= }}

Hi I have had my article refused for copyright reasons, but I am completely confused as I wrote it myself. I am unable to check what was wrong because it has been deleted. Where do I go from here? How do I know what I did wrong?

Hello Trevorwills5, when you say that you wrote it yourself, have you perchance ever posted the same content on any other site? If, for example, you wrote an article at "trevorwillis.com" and later posted much the same text on Wikipedia, our 'bots would flag it as a copyright violation of "trevorwillis.com" since we can't simply assume you are indeed that person.
Did you copy-paste from anything already existing on the internet? That might be a reason. In whatever case, to get a copy of your draft back, file a request at WP:Refund and it will be emailed to you. But before putting the text back up on a Wikipedia Draft page, you need to figure out what about it is matching up exactly with some other website; check on Google if necessary. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:54:52, 29 January 2015 review of submission by ZRay22

[edit]

Hi guys, I submitted this but was told that it may be a copyright violation of this document here: http://www.brad.ac.uk/library/media/library/specialcollections/documents/CwlPTCCLDApr2010.pdf

I emailed the archive who responded back with the following:

"We write these documents to publicise our archives so that people will use them. We therefore license others to use them under creative commons CC BY-NC-ND 3.0. In other words, providing you acknowledge us as your source, we are happy for you to quote from our document in your Wikipedia entry."

I'm not sure this helps my case at all. Would the article still have to be edited before submitting again? If so, just et me know and I'll get right on it :)

ZRay22 ZRay22 (talk) 10:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ZRay22, nice work reaching out to the Archive! There's one more step though: for Wikipedia to properly verify that they are truly releasing the text, they need to send an email from an official brad.ac.uk/library email account making a formal statement to this effect. This is so Wikipedia can specifically note and file a legitimate CC license release. The instructions for sending said email are here: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
It is an extra step, but rest assured this is because we take copyright very seriously, so hopefully the Brad.ac.uk folks will understand we're being this thorough because we respect their rights and want to make every effort to ensure we're in-step with international copyright law. Hope this helps, and that you can work with them to knock out that quick email and move forward. Note that once they're in the process of filing that release, you can re-post your draft, but ensure you mark it as "license pending" with the "otrs pending" coding shown at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Let us know if you have any trouble. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, are you sure CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 is acceptable? I am still somewhat uncertain about these types of things, but my concern is prompted by its including "NC" which I've previously seen used to stand for "Non Commercial" which is not OK for Wikipedia. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @MatthewVanitas: just in case this hasn't been seen. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:11:30, 29 January 2015 review of submission by Dorraldavis

[edit]


Dorraldavis (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to ask a question but hopefully this works. I resubmitted my prior information regarding the initial use of the term dekatherm and cited the orders that approved the initial filing by Texas Eastern. I have copies of the old orders but I am not aware of any data base that can be linked by the average person. Please let me know if I need more. Just trying to help out an old friend and am not good with technology. Thanks. Paul Davis

@Dorraldavis: Please read our requirement for verifiability. There are sources like this from FERC that verify Dth is a unit of measurement equivalent to a million BTUs. The problem is that your draft makes a bunch of other un-verified and un-notable claims. Sources don't have to be websites, but they would have to at least be newspapers, magazines, and books that an editor could go to a library to check. I would recommend you instead develop this information at Therm, which makes a mention of dekatherms. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Paul, came here to say pretty much was Chris is saying. For any given fact, if you can't point to it being attested by some neutral and credible party (newspaper, academic article, etc), then you cannot include it. If you happen to have a ton of personal knowledge of Texas Eastern and want it to be in the public record, then you would have to be interviewed for an book or article about natural gas physics/history, and that book/article published. That way there's a series of checks (journalist/academic bounces your claims off others, applies scientific method, does their own research, publisher fact-checks) before the fact is "established". One can't simply establish facts by posting on Wikipedia and saying "I MatthewVanitas lived in Doha, Qatar in 1996 and personally saw this event"; that's simply not verifiable without a credible neutral party's involvement.
Fundamentally, we do need an article which notes that a Dekatherm exists and the term is widely used, but you cannot claim that Texas Eastern created the term unless you have a newspaper/academic article which says "hey, interesting thing is that the first people to invent the term were Texas Eastern employees in 1972" or whatever. Make sense? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:26:10, 29 January 2015 review of submission by AreejS22

[edit]


I have created a Wiki Article as a Draft, it is now ready and I want to move it to the live space. How can I do this? It says I must wait potentially up to 3 weeks for my article to be reviewed and published. Can an experienced editor please review my article and speed up the process, or give me instructions on how I can move the article to the live article space.

Thanks, AreejS22 (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AreejS22: no Declined You can't simply copy text from other websites. Wikipedia assumes everything is copyrighted even if the source doesn't assert copyright unless it's specifically labeled Creative Commons or public domain. Further, phrases like "has come to represent the best in international translation" is promotional nonsense. Finally, the publisher wasn't notable seven years ago and still isn't notable now. I blanked your draft but I didn't nominate it for deletion so you can start over from scratch. In closing, I'm glad I could speed up the process for you; I'm sure you are. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:53:17, 29 January 2015 review of draft by Hephzibah Yohannan

[edit]


I'm starting a new page and I'm really struggling with creating citations. I just want plain ones that go to the next number each time. It's ages since I did any writing or editing and it's really giving me a headache. I can see how to put the numbers in - [1] - I think that's right - but funny things are going on at the bottom of the page. I can't make head nor tail of the "Help:Footnotes" page, I'm not used to coding and I'm going cross eyed! Sorry! Hephzi (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hephzi (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ 1
@Hephzibah Yohannan: Fixed it for you. All you do is put the citation between the ref tags. The coding will automatically number them. Should you want to use a source more than once you'll use ref name instead of just ref. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris Troutman:Many thanks for your help. Hephzi (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22:31:09, 29 January 2015 review of submission by Fresnowalldog

[edit]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fresnowalldog I don't quite understand why my submission was rejected on the basis of "verifiable" It has been on the TV, Radio, and the Fresno Bee Newspaper, and the Fresno Business Journal to name a few. Do you need copies of any of the things I have mentioned? If at all possible could you explain more what you would need? Respectfully, FranCisco Vargas Fresnowalldog (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fresnowalldog: An article being verifiable means that the reader can easily verify the information presented. We can't just take your word for it, you have to provide a proper citation (even if it's an offline source) for the information you present. Please see WP:V for more information. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To follow up on that, Wikipedia:Citing sources is a good guideline to glance at. Like yourself, often folks say "But my topic has been covered in X, Y, and Z!". If so, that's great, but you have to show us that it's been covered, and that its facts have been established, by stating a fact and then cititing said fact to a place a reader could go. If it was painted in "1975" or whatnot, and the Fresno Bee verifies that date, when you say "1975" make sure you cite the Bee. That way any reader wondering "hmmmmm, was it really 1975?" only has to click your footnote and go "huh, yup, the Bee confirms it was 1975". Without a clear footnote, all your reader has is "some guy on the internet said...". All good? MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22:43:36, 29 January 2015 review of submission by AnnRos

[edit]


AnnRos (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a new article about Adrienne Haan https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adrienne_Haan&action=edit&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro

I received an email today saying the article was rejected because it contains copyrighted material. Can anyone tell me which part they thought was copyrighted? I know we are saving a spot for a photo and the photographer sent a request in to wikipedia giving the release, and we have not posted the photo. There's also some articles used as citations. Are those the problem?? Here's the email I received, any help will be appreciated:

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! The submission has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work. The existing submission may be deleted at any time. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.

If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors. (t) Josve05a (c) 17:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@AnnRos: There were no copyright infringement issues identified with Adrienne Haan. The notice you received was about the page that used to be located at User:AnnRos/sandbox which was copied from http://www.windsorsymphony.com/musicians/musicdirector.html --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2015_January_29&oldid=1125344733"