User talk:Paul Deshusses

Welcome!

Hello, Paul Deshusses!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup ! Paul Deshusses (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks for message and declaring that you don't have a conflict of interest. You said you had not done editing, but you had submitted it for review, which implies you thought it was ready.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia somewhat, this isn't Goodreads, and what people think of a book is largely irrelevant as such

When you write about a book, you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that they meet the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the book or an associated organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the author claims or interviewing them.

I can see nothing to suggest how the book meets the notability criteria linked above

Your refs are suspect to say the least. The first three are a sales page, the publisher and a worldcat blurb (Worldcat is never an acceptable ref). I also can't see that they support all the facts that you have linked to them. For example, you use ref 1 to support which argues that the Islamic State constituted an original and hybrid form of political violence that merged post-colonialism, post-modernity, and post-globalisation thus impacting domestic, regional, and global politics and security. It is the first scholarly attempt at conceptualizing and historicizing the Islamic State armed group. — my French isn't brilliant, but I can't see where the source says any of that. Even if it did, it would be an unacceptable source anyway. You can't just write stuff and stick random refs after them, they have to verify what you have claimed

Although a plot summary of a fiction book doesn't need referencing, I think your summary of the book's contents does, otherwise it looks like your own original research, which is not permitted

You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.

Unsourced claims like It is the first scholarly attempt at conceptualizing... look promotional

As I have said before, the notability of the book doesn't depend on what the critics think, and the article shouldn't be mainly reviews.

You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

You have attributed your quotations, but there is a limit to how much of an article should consist of copyright text, even when attributed. Well over half your text is quotations.
Your source for the Saloni Kapur quotation doesn't support what you claim

Not matters for deletion, but headings should be in sentence case, and you shouldn't repeat refs, use <ref name= > instead

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated your image of the book cover for deletion at commons, it's obvious that you don't own the copyright on that despite claiming it's your own work Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jimfbleak,

The page is under a Creative Commons license from Jstor, so no copyright infringement but indeed I do not own a copyright. Paul Deshusses (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jimflbleak,

Thank you for detailing the reason why you deleted the article. As I said it was my first attempt, I had many articles in the pipes and was kind of depressed to see my first try immediately deleted. I am a big wikipedia users and I wanted to 'give back' as an editor. I will work on my references. For this article, I chose carefully the references but when I click 'automatic' references it has change them slightly, hence your confusion. I will had some references. I am reassured to see that your deletion was motivated, and I thank you for having taken the time to explain it. Paul Deshusses (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]