User talk:ANDROMITUS

Talk.

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Committed Men by M. John Harrison (July 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Committed Men by M. John Harrison and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:The Committed Men by M. John Harrison, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ANDROMITUS! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Committed Men (July 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The tone of the summary reads more like an excerpt from the back cover, rather than a regular summary. Needs more reception. Was it a best seller? Was it reissued? When was he approached to do a film adaptation?

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Committed Men and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:The Committed Men, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

ANDROMITUS, welcome to Wikipedia. I saw your great edit on Homesick for Another World and the creation of Labrador and wanted to let you know that your work is appreciated and that I hope you stick around. Please never hesitate to reach out if you have any questions. — Mainly 20:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I saw your response — hope you didn't remove it because I was slow to get back to you. Without repeating myself too much, really can't express how great it is to have another editor focused on 20th/21st-century literature, as it's a subject that simply doesn't get enough coverage on Wikipedia. In addition to answering questions, I'm also around to work on articles together if you want, or assist with research — I have access to (most) JStor content and I have subscriptions to a number of major newspapers, including a few like Financial Times that do review books but which are behind paywalls. — Mainly 19:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed my response because I am still getting acquainted with how the Talk pages work and thought maybe I was supposed to respond on your page. So thank you for still responding, haha. And I’m glad to hear that you are interested in 20/21st century literature. Creating and adding to book pages is going to be the majority of my contributions on here, I’d say. Wikipedia has been my favorite resource outside of professional reviews for discovering new authors to get into and it has always bugged me how many great authors don’t have individual pages for their work and how many pages don’t include referenced critical reviews. I have subscriptions to The New York Times and Washington Post, and constantly sleuth The Guardian, NPR, andThe Atlantic which don’t have paywalls yet. Paris Review and New York Review of Books have solid Daily sections. And I would definitely be interested in possibly collaborating on articles. Do you have any page projects you’re working on? As of now I’m just steadily adding book pages for authors I love and Critical Reception sections for all the book pages that neglect them. It’s been a solid way for me to get acquainted with editing. ANDROMITUS (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going to address your question on my talk page and your response from above here.

As for the issue with Hell the strikethroughs are due to the copyright vio that Diannaa pointed out. I don’t know exactly why that’s the way admins have chosen to resolve vios, but the strikethroughs eliminate the previous versions of the page, so purging the vio from all the instances of the page on which it appeared. I don’t know what the upper limit on copy and pasting is for summaries, or if the policy is one of zero tolerance, but either way I’d try to avoid it altogether going forward and remedy any instances other than the now-resolved Hell if any exist. Otherwise, it will likely lead to blocking/sanctions eventually. I don’t mean to come across as didactic or patronizing—hope it doesn’t seem that way.

Hell doesn’t appear on your list of “Articles created” because another editor (In ictu oculi) made the page into a redirect for the 1908 Barbusse novel. What happened is that In ictu technically “created” the article, albeit as a redirect. It won’t appear on the “official” page of your “Articles created” for this reason, but any editor who spends more than a few seconds looking into the matter will know you created the bulk (or all) of the content, and if you intend to create some sort of showcase/list of pages created for your User page (or elsewhere) you should absolutely feel comfortable including Hell.

As for my current projects, the recent work by you and others has made me more interested in revisiting the article for My Year of Rest and Relaxation. I loved the book and with some more sources and expansion I think it could be a Good Article candidate. I’m also interested in expanding The Nickel Boys further, although the shoddy quality of the article for Dozier School for Boys caused me to get bogged down in research about the school rather than the book itself.

Hope that the answers about Hell helped! — Mainly 20:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response, it was very informative. My one follow-up question is: are raking the concise summaries from publisher pages against the rules? I understand that taking the sort of back cover summaries that include descriptors like “powerful” and “spellbinding” are not good. But can summaries featured on publisher pages that concisely sum up the plot without editorializing be used? For my Samedi the Deafness page, I took the summary from Random House’s page, but included quotes and a source. When it comes to Wikipedia plot descriptions, I’ve always preferred synopses to detailed plot summaries, but of course I don’t want to run into copyright issues.

Your projects in progress sound fascinating. I’d love to help you get My Year of Rest and Relaxation to be a Good Article, Moshfegh is one of my favorite new(er) writers, I’ve read all of her work. What exactly is needed to an article to reach Good status? ANDROMITUS (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I had a better answer for you, but I'm not sure if the non-editorialized versions are acceptable even if they are neutrally worded. Even if they're not copyrighted, so to speak, "freely using" them might still not be allowed. I've never interacted with Diannaa, but if you ask them this specific question, or direct them to this exchange, they almost certainly have a better-developed answer than what I can provide. There's also this page: Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. It might help but I'm not sure.

As for what constitutes a “Good Article”: the standards vary from WikiProject to WikiProject. The criteria for WikiProject Novels is here: WikiProject Novels Assessment scale. It describes what goes into making an article GA. Unfortunately, it doesn’t have example articles from within the project’s scope to illustrate what each tier looks like, but for GA I think the article about Eugenides’ Middlesex (mostly by editor Cunard) is a good example. — Mainly 14:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello ANDROMITUS, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Hell (Davis novel) have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi ANDROMITUS! You created a thread called What exactly are Page Reviews? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Plot descriptiopns you included in The Memory Police (novel) and multiple other articles have been removed in whole or in part, as it appears you 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 very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I misunderstood the original reason my previous summary was taken down, which I could explain but it isn’t necessary. I understand now, and it won’t happen again. Best, ANDROMITUS (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Thank you for starting new articles about books. I noticed in several of them that when you mentioned newspapers and magazines, the titles were in plain text. Wikipedia style is to italicise these; you can find the details at MOS:TITLE. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Unnameable

I have reverted your move of The Unnameable (novel). The move had not been discussed on the talk page and unnecessarily complicates the disambiguation. In use. If you want to start a discussion about why it should be moved, I’d be happy to contribute on the talk page. Fob.schools (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are cordially invited to the SPIE Photonics West edit-a-thon on 02.02.2020

Join us for the SPIE Photonics West edit-a-thon this Sunday, 02.02.2020!

I am delighted to invite you to the SPIE Photonics West 2020 edit-a-thon, at Park Central Hotel (Franciscan I, 3rd Level / 50 Third Street / San Francisco, California), on Sunday, February 2, 2020, at 5:00-7:00pm.

Newcomers and experienced Wikimedians are welcome to participate alongside SPIE conference attendees. Admission is free. Training will be provided.

Details and sign-in here

See you soon! All the best, --Rosiestep (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Invitation to Local Wikimania Event in San Francisco this Friday

Hi!

Wikimania is happening and hopefully you're enjoying the sessions. While it's fairly last minute, you're warmly invited to participate in the local Wikimania-themed meetup in the Wikimedia Foundation office this Friday (tomorrow!). You will have to register in advance, but we would love to see more people from the WikiSalon community participate! For more information and registration, please check out meta:Wikimania 2022/San Francisco Meetup.

The event will involve hacking, teaching, learning, and celebrating and we'll have snacks. We will have the opportunity to watch live sessions at Wikimania together in the afternoon. The rest of the day we'll have opportunity to participate in the hackathon, and we may have some on-demand workshops/learning sessions.

In case we run out of space, it's first-come-first-serve so let us know soon! Hope to see you there.

(Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

On behalf of the Bay Area Wiki Salon team and Bittakea, Effeietsanders