Help desk
< June 11	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 13 >

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.

June 12

Page Blocked

[13:38] <ryanfolster> Hi my page has been blocked from publication

[13:38] <ryanfolster> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Business_Analysis_Summit_South_Africa_%28BASSA%29

[13:38] <ryanfolster> The website it refers to was written by myself and it says that it is copywrighted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.160.176.58 (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is published under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License, and in order to use long copyrighted texts that are not covered by fair use, the texts must be released under the same license, preferably also under the GNU Free Documentation License. Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission explains the steps that need to be taken to secure the release of the text under a free license. When you have released the text under a free license and sent a confirming mail to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org", the text can be used on Wikipedia. Otherwise we cannot accept copyrighted texts, even if you have written them yourself.

Please also have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest: If you are affiliated with that summit, it may be better not to write the article yourself but to wait until an uninvolved editor does so. Huon (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/FRAGMENT RELIEVI I NIMFES NGA KOLEKSIONI ARKEOLOGJIK I ANTIKITETIT NË MUZEUN E KOSOVËS

In this paper it is about this copy cult, which is stored in one of the windows of the permanent exhibition at the Museum of Kosovo. The circumstances of his finding are not known. It is a very fragmented slab dimensions: 13x15x4, 5cm., Worked in white crystalline marble with yellow runner (according to Copy probably from Greece). Is broken by all sides, from which there remained only a small portion of the upper frame. Until three sides are raw, on the front in high relief is sculpted figure of the young woman - Nympha (Nymph), which is maintained by the upper half of the head and part of the right hand. Head, although eroded, it seems that is handled quite well, where the beautiful oval shaped face, look regular contours of the eyes. Hair also have clear shape; by twisting the few remnants of the vertex, without doubt were composed of bundles of dense wavelength, which, being divided in the middle and brushed on both sides at the height of the temporal, probably connected to nodes behind. From the left hand part of llërës raised up together with detailed palm with fingers, which held amforën on the head, with the nature of this goddess closely associated with water. The paper in general is very qualitative, but palmar which is predimensionale. Nympha figure in Kosovo and throughout Dardania is quite rare. So far it is known that the only case we present in a fragmented altar Runjeva vote by the Kacanik, which was given to nymphs, which is engraved a nymph with amphora in his left shoulder. But it is hard to say that this plaque was sculpted just a cocoon, as usually presented three of them on plates. Especially, based on the plate by Lyncestis Heraclea (Bitola), the second half of the century, with the introduction of three nymphs standing with amphoras, of which the middle keeps one shoulder, and the two laterals are also in keeping his head with one hand, with which our specimen ikonografikisht detail is more closely, we can conclude that in our case should have been presented three nymph, no doubt dressed the same, the long double kitone compressed for generations. Our sample also kohërisht respond to this plate, as Goddess holds frizurën which relates to that of Roman empress of the second half of the second century. However, with regard vendpunimit, high quality of waste paper to present to our plate, unlike the working copy of Herakles strong provincial style, shows that the earlier we are dealing with an offense to import from a recognized center apprenticeship.The presence of this plaque along with the altar relivore PLASTIKON-epigraphic and three other epigraphic dedications of these goddess, also from the territory of Ulpiana, show their reverence in the Region, Dardan, as in other areas Illyrian, where especially from within the province of Dalmatia have more examples of relief tiles with three nymph, as well as in other Roman provinces, where a large number of tiles with this triad comes from Thrace, which together with those of Macedonia are treated under the influence of Greece. Otherwise, their cult among many Indo-European peoples, among whom were to Illyrians, is epikorike origin (domestic), and even those are epikorike own, which are identified with the Greek, meaning italic. For this reason the Roman Empire in all present many monuments dedicated to these goddess. In the end we shall say that this realization sculptural poses very valuable specimen in the gender of the relief work in stone during antiquity, not only in Kosovo but in all Dardania. Simultaneously with mermermerin quality of foreign origin, whose Provience ago should be Greek, as well as the quality of the paper, as well as other specimens in this kind of marble work, talks about Kosovo's trade links with centers of today's popular sculpture in Greece. Therefore, along with other specimens of this artistic level constitute a very precious treasure of ancient archaeological collection at the Museum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetadobruna (talk • contribs) 11:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that's the English translation of your draft. The draft itself should be in English; you'll have to substitute the current foreign language text with the translated version. But the translation leaves much to be desired; many sentences are almost incomprehensible, and some non-English words remain. Was this a machine translation?

Furthermore, you would need reliable secondary sources; the foreign-language draft seems to give some, but it's not clear which part of the draft is supported by which reference. To clarify that, footnotes will be helpful. Huon (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Market Cross, Bury St Edmunds

Hi

Am trying to add 2 images and it says I need to be an administrator. Having read about administrators, I don't feel I need to be added. Can anyone advise how I get an image from my computer onto the Wikipedia page I'm writing? Many thanks.

K Hamilton-Jones (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:articles for creation/k. hamilton-jones[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't allow very new editors to upload images. Once you're 'autoconfirmed' you'll be far more successful! In the meantime, I'd recommend you spend your first ten edits getting your article into shape for acceptance, before adding any bells and whistles. Sionk (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Philippine Society for Cosmetic Surgery

Dear reviewer,

I would like to inquire on how i can improve the article I submitted regarding references. I have included some articles which was published in a national Philippine newspaper and a philippine network which gives it credibility. Let me know it there are some things I have to add. Thanks.

Raynald Torres — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pscs.1972 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which part of the article is based on which reference. That's not clear when you present all references at the very end. Actually I believe much of the "History" section is not supported by either of your secondary sources; if you cannot find a reference which supports that section, it should be significantly shorted, with unverifiable content removed. Huon (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mdt-fit multidisciplinary tool feedback for improving team working

Hello,

I wanted experienced editors to look at my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mdt-fit multidisciplinary tool feedback for improving team working and advice before it goes live, this is to avoid it being deleted if I do put it live.

It says there are currently 661 articles to be reviewed before mine gets reviewed. Is it possible you can give me an estimated timeline of how long you reckon it might take before somone looks at my article?

Wouls you advice me to put it up live or is it worth the wait?

Thank you

Green Cross Medical (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expect to wait several days before your article gets reviewed but, you never know, it might be sooner than that. Looking at the article at the moment, I would say it does not show enough evidence of being a notable topic. You need to show some evidence that the topic has been widely talked about, in reliable sources that are also independent of the subject. See Wikipedia's golden rule. Sionk (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The oldest articles currently in the queue were submitted on May 31. As you noticed, the backlog is massive; please be patient.

Your draft currently does not have reliable sources. Its lone reference does not even mention MDT-FIT, and neither did the websites behind the external links I checked. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; when MDT-FIT is not expected before 2013, reliable secondary sources are unlikely to exist already.

You may also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest; your username suggests that you are affiliated with Green Cross Medical, the organization commissioned to develop MDT-FIT. Huon (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your feedback. I am infact from Green Cross Medical, however we talk of MDT-FIT from a complete neutral point of view. I will be adding more external references where MDT-FIT is mentioned. This was a first stab and I wanted to mainly get the text on there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Green Cross Medical (talk • contribs) 16:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I am in the process of editing it, will add in more external sources that mention MDT-FIT. What does one do if the issue they are writing about is 'invented' by them and there isn't other sources to refer to? I am from Green Cross Medical however I potray and unbiased, completely neutral view of MDT-FIT - would you advise me to have someone external write about it?

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mdt-fit multidisciplinary tool feedback for improving team working Green Cross Medical (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If no other sources refer to the article subject but its creators, the topic is not (yet) notable enough for an article, and we should wait until secondary sources on which an article can be based have been written.

As the conflict of interest guideline explains, editing an article on your own organization's product is strongly discouraged, but not strictly forbidden. My advice would be to a) make sure that the draft closely follows secondary sources to avoid possible bias, and b) use the Articles for creation process instead of putting the draft into articlespace yourself so that an uninvolved editor can check it for neutrality. Huon (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting reviewers know that the mainspace version of this article has just been Speedied as an Advert (G11). Roger (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ballyhannon Castle (aka Castlefergus)

Hi Wikipedia,

I'm not sure if the message that appears in my page is old or new, but it states 'Please cite your sources so the information can be verified - you can find what information you need to include at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#What_information_to_include'.

I was asked for this a few weeks ago, and the author of the history of this castle very kindly expanded on the sources so that the information can be independently verified, which I then added (and formatted correctly as references).

Would you mind checking this and let me know if the sources are now adequate, and if not, I can again revert to the historian to provide whatever more you need.

Best regards, CorneliusWilliam (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That message is still the old one; it can safely be ignored since those issues have been addressed. The references look good to me, though a few paragraphs (especially those about the castle's current status) are still unreferenced. But there's more than enough coverage to establish the castle's notability. Huon (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Huon, good to hear from you again! I think they're overworking you there in Wikiland! Thanks for clarifying this for me. As far as I can tell I've done everything needed to enable the article to go live, but it hasn't thus far. Do you know if there's anything else outstanding that is preventing/delaying that? CorneliusWilliam (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a backlog of more than 600 articles awaiting review; it will take some time. Please be patient.

I expect the draft will be accepted, but editing it for tone could not hurt. For example, "Robert Twigge’s description of the castle in the early 1900’s is of interest" is more editorializing than encyclopedic, and there are several other similarly minor points that would profit from copyediting. Huon (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Geoff Sewell

This article used to be on Wikipedia, as it is, for a few years but someone removed it in 2008 and Geoff Sewell never knew why? I'm told it was originally written by a fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenorsanddivas (talk • contribs) 22:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article was proposed for deletion because it didn't show Sewell's notability. By Wikipedia's standards, a topic is notable enough for an article if significant coverage in reliable secondary sources exists. You can request undeletion of the deleted article, but unless sources are added to establish Sewell's notability, it will likely just be deleted again following a community discussion. I don't think the draft's sources are sufficient to establish Sewell's notability, either; Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source, YouTube and Sewell's homepage are primary sources, and Allmusic on its own will probably not be considered significant enough. The draft should also have inline citations and footnotes so our readers can easily verify which part of the article is supported by which reference.

My advice would be to look for newspaper coverage. If his albums routinely do well in the NZ charts, there should be some reviews or articles discussing his 2009 tour.

The reviewer is also correct in noting that the draft sounds like an advertisement; statements such as "Geoff's debut album ‘Believe’ showcases Geoff’s remarkable vocal abilities" require attribution to a reliable secondary source, and "The good looking and charismatic Kiwi said, ..." is unacceptable adulation. Those examples are just from the last few lines. Huon (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]