This help request has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please replace the code {{Help me-helped}} on this page with {{Help me}}, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
Hi,
I have tried to enter a new article into Wikipedia under my own name Hugh Leyton.
I opened an account on the 10th or 11th June ( Just 2 days ago. )
I was eventually able, with help from others and by using an existing Wikipedia article as an example, I have got almost the whole article in and working in My Sandbox, I think.
The Heading does not appear to show anywhere and I have now been unsuccessful in getting the first Diagram into the article.
I tried to upload one diagram, as File :
Fig. 6 Interconnections of a 'Leyton 3-2' Transformer configuration.png
I don’t know if it has got into Wikipedia or not, I don’t know how or where to look for it.
The article is called, or should be called
“Leyton 3-2” Transformer configuration
So I now need help.
I need help to get the Diagrams into the article.
I need help to review the article.
I need help to get into the Main Wikipedia
I can’t appear to get the Talk Page working properly
I certainly could not get that On-Line Help thing to work.
I have been using keyboard communications for 50 years, but that system of Wikipedia is the worst and hardest I have ever seen in 50 years.
The best thing is to communicate by E-mail or something similar, where I can pose my question and then later read replies.
Hello, Hugh Leyton, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! JohnCD (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that you have been having difficulties. You should find the links in the Welcome message just above helpful, particularly the Tutorial. If you take a little time to work through that, you should feel more at home.
There is a quick guide to "Wiki markup" at WP:Cheat sheet, and a more detailed reference at Help:Wiki markup. One particular point I see has been causing you trouble - you should not use leading spaces at the beginning of a line to indent text, that causes an effect
like this. If when you click "Show preview" you see that effect, it means you have a leading space somewhere.
If you want to indent, one or more colon characters : at the beginning of a line will indent the whole following paragraph.
To send a message to another user, click on the word "talk" after their signature and you will be taken to their user talk page; at the top of that, click "New section", fill in a subject heading and your message, ending with the four-tilde ~~~~ signature, and the system will place the message at the bottom of the talk page, which is the place for new messages.
To move it directly to the encyclopedia, click "Move" at the top of the page. If you don't see "Move", hover the mouse pointer over a downward-pointing triangle just left of the search box, which is at the right-hand end of the second line on the page.
In the form that appears, select "(Article)" in the drop-down box at the left of the "To new title" line, and type the name of the article in the box on the right. The move will leave a "redirect" in your sandbox page; you can simply edit over that if you want to use the sandbox for something else, or put {{db-user}} at the top (two curly brackets each side) as a request to have it deleted.
Alternatively, you can have the draft reviewed by an experienced user by submitting it to WP:Articles for creation. To do that, place {{subst:afc submission/submit}} at the top of the page. The article will be moved into a queue, and you will get messages on your user talk page telling what is happening. It may take a few days - the AfC reviewers are volunteers, like everyone here, and are often overloaded.
Another time, a good way to start an article is to click on Help:Userspace draft and fill in the article title: that will create a userspace draft form, with a link to useful advice and a "Submit" button to send it to AfC
I have read your sandbox article and I am sorry to say that I do not think it will be acceptable. The reason is that it is about your own idea or invention, but as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia only reports on things that are already established and have been written about in reliable published sources. Two of our fundamental content policies are:
WP:No original research. You should read the whole of this, but note particularly that it includes:
"If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a discovery."
WP:Verifiability: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source."
It is also preferred, for reasons explained at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest that users do not write about themselves or about anything with which they are closely associated.
There is a list at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets which may suggest places you could publish your paper. We have a sister project Wikiversity which might be a possibility - I do not know much about them, but I know they do permit original research.
I hope you will not be discouraged; Wikipedia is so keen to encourage people to contribute that we do not make it as clear as we should that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and only an encyclopedia, not a general-purpose website. Please leave a note on my talk page, or below here, if you have any questions.
Thanks for pointing out what causes those odd text in a large box.
That also happened in my article, but although I did not know how that happenen, it was just ideal, as it marks the places for the Diagrams, I have also put the caption words there.
I have indented your response above by adding a colon character : at the beginning of each "paragraph" - that is a technique used on talk pages to make clearer where each contribution ends.
No, you did not succeed in uploading that file - I have checked your contributions (which you can see by clicking "My contributions" at the top of the page), and also your deleted contributions (none) and your contributions to Wikimedia Commons (none). I don't know what happened, but under the heading "Some answers" further up this page I have given links to pages which will help you try again.
As I explained there, the way to have your article, when it is ready, checked by an experienced user, who will either make it "live" or give you feedback, is to submit it to WP:Articles for creation by putting at the top of it {{subst:afc submission/submit}} - just as it appears here, you can copy and paste it from this page. The article will be moved into a queue, and you will get messages on your user talk page telling what is happening. It may take a few days - the AfC reviewers are volunteers, like everyone here, and are often overloaded.
I have read your sandbox article and I am sorry to say that I do not think it will be acceptable. The reason is that it is about your own idea or invention,
This article is exactly the SAME as
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott-T_transformer
Only Technically different.
The Scott-T transformer is (2-φ, 90-degree phase rotation)[2] from a three-phase (3-φ, 120-degree phase rotation) source.
This article is (2-φ, 180-degree phase rotation) from a three-phase (3-φ, 120-degree phase rotation) source.
Otherwise they are the same.
The reason is that it is about your own idea or invention, but as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia only reports on things that are already established
As I say, this is Not New, it is a well established configuration with most major Generator manufacturers. Only they have a mechanically rotating field. This Article uses an Electrical rotating field, just as the Scott-T transformer article has.
any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, source.
Both I an other electrician has installed these and they have been working for years. They are well proven.
Most mathematicians can also prove it form themselves, they do not need to look for other sources of information.
It is not a new discovery, all I have done is put 1 & 1 together to make 2. I am hoping by puting this article into Wikipedia, it will provide the widely available source for others to do the same thing. Any electrician can do this, themselves, they just need to know the interconnections.
I have answered above the three questions you posted there - I will also comment on your response here, but I am afraid it will be tomorrow before I have time to do that. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced by your arguments. You say that this is "a well established configuration... Only they have a mechanically rotating field. This Article uses an Electrical rotating field". That, and the fact that you call it the "Leyton 3-2 Transformer configuration", suggest that it is something new, in which case WP:No original research applies, and Wikipedia would not have an article about it until it has been published and discussed in external sources.
If this is not new, you need to be able to cite references for it. The Scott-T transformer article has five references, where presumably what it says can be verified. The "references" in your draft are just footnotes, except the Leroy-Somer one. Arguments that this is is well-proven, has been working for years, and mathematicians could prove it without looking for sources, do not help with the requirement for WP:Verifiability
By all means continue to develop the article, but it will certainly be challenged, and if it is to be made acceptable you need to understand the grounds on which it will be challenged. To sum them up:
WP:No original research: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented... If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a discovery... Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
WP:Verifiability: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source"
Your note says "no one or any concern may use any part of this article for any copyright or patented device." If you publish here, I do not think you can make that restriction. As it says in the second line under the edit box, by clicking "Save page" "...you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL". CC-BY-SA permits copying, modification, and re-use for any purpose including commercial, subject only to the restrictions that the original author must be credited and that any redistribution must be under the same license. Once published, you cannot retract or alter that license. See WP:Copyrights#Contributors' rights and obligations.
You should read the full small print of those licenses to be sure that you are happy to release your contribution under their terms. If not, don't submit it, because you cannot modify the terms by a clause such as your footnote. JohnCD (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
>>>>> Hi, What my Note says, is that it is fee for any and all purposes. But no company or person can use this information to prohibit others from using it. Is that not resonable ?
That simply makes sure it is open and free for all people.
Yes they can use it for commercial purposes, but they can't then put a restriction of their own on it, such as patent.
Looking at the history of the Scott-T transformer article, I see that user Biscuittin (talk) edited it recently; you could leave a note on his talk page asking for comments. To give him a link to your draft, write its name between double square brackets, like this: [[User:Hugh Leyton/sandbox]] which produces a "wikilink" User:Hugh Leyton/sandbox. You could also leave a message on the talk page of WP:WikiProject Engineering, a group of editors interested in engineering subjects. JohnCD (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
>>>>>>> Thanks.... I will try to do both those things, if I can figure out how to do them.
I have tried to put this second article into my Sandbox.
But it appears to have got mixed up with the first article.
And now the References won't work.
They did in the first article, but just won't work for the second article. :-(
Hugh Leyton (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
