Help desk
< May 13	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 15 >

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.

May 14

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Rainbow Stories

Hello,

I've submitted Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/The Rainbow Stories for review and I'm wondering how long it usually takes to get feedback on that. Thanks!D. Winter (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently quite a backlog (although this is often the case). 637 submissions are awaiting review, mostly dated from May 7th until today. It could potentially take a number of days. France3470 (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SafetyPay

Hi Team. I have a question concerning the reason of the decline of this article: It says " clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia"

I wrote this article, as I detected this payment method more and more often (e.g. on facebook, etc.) and I wanted to find out more on Wikipedia. I found articles about all the other payment methods - and some of them seem much more local and small. In fact I was e.g. surprised, that Safetypay can be used on many continents (South America, Europe, the US) and that they even have a patent, etc. This is why I wanted to share with others, who might also check Wikipedia.

My question now: Why is this "not notable", while all the others seem to be (I can give examples)? Maybe it´s because it is my first contribution on Wikipedia ... I try to find out before, what if it makes sense at all to make contributions.

Thanks a lot, Dkp006 (talk) 05:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about for-profit corporations can be awkward as one needs many reliable sources to establish that this is as neutral and balanced encyclopaedia article about a notable entity instead of merely a company advertisement. As such, it's best to avoid creating the sort of copy that looks like it could be right at home on the "About Us" page of the company's website - which may be an issue as many of the sources you've cited are merely news media reprinting SafetyPay press releases verbatim, without obtaining facts from neutral or external sources. The company does appear to exist (as listed by Bloomberg) and is getting a bit of press coverage (some of it Spanish language, anywhere from Spain to Peru) so the topic itself is likely valid if it can be sourced from something other than self-promotional press release material and written in a neutral, objective manner instead of as an advertisement for the firm. Odds are, this article can be fixed by relying on neutral and objective sources and removing anything that looks like self-promotion. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation/KARAT Coalition - copy right issue

Hi,

I have submitted an article about KARAT Coalition (Article for Creation/KARAT Coalition). I will add that I am doing it on behalf of KARAT Coalition, as I am employed by KARAT. I was informed that it cannot be published because it is in breach of copy rights of Wikipedia as it appears to be taken from web pages including http://www.sccd-sk.org/en/sckr/partneri/zoskupenia-organizacii/koalicia-karat and others. This page (and possibly other pages) is the websites of an organisation which is a member organisation of KARAT Coalition (KARAT has 60 member organisations). Therefore on this web page KARAT member organisation published basic information about KARAT Coalition, which KARAT Coalition makes available to its members for this purpose (it is not copyrighted). In fact I wrote various versions of the original information with two other colleagues from KARAT Coalition. The same content can be also fund on KARAT Coalition websites www.karat.org, although it is more hidden. This is the original source of the information although it is also not copyrighted. So the content which I wanted to include in Wikipedia article about KARAT Coalition already exist on various web pages. Does it mean that because this content already exists in the internet, for the purpose of the Wikipedia article we have to re-invent basic information about KARAT Coalition (which we ourselves originally writen)? Citing those pages does not make sense as they are not primary sources of the information. I can quote KARAT’s official webiste, but still parts of the content (eg. KARAT’s history, its mission, etc) will appear on number of other websites.

Please let me know how this issue can be addressed as at the moment it does not make sense.

KARAT Coaltion — Preceding unsigned comment added by KARAT2012 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To write an article about yourself is a clear conflict of interest and best avoided. An organisation's description of itself is not a neutral and reliable source, so should not be relied upon as a key source for your article. As for copyright, legally the default is that a newly-created work is copyrighted unless its creator explicitly releases it to the public domain or under some sort of free license. One cannot copyright information, only the wording, illustration and presentation of that information so finding a source which is independent of your article's subject, paraphrasing what they have to say on the topic and citing that source is not plagiarism while a cut-and-paste of text from some website most definitely is. In any case, I'd ask that you don't write an article about your employer. If the topic is notable and independent, reliable sources exist for the info, then someone who doesn't have a direct stake in the matter may be better placed to draft something which is an encyclopaedia article and not a blatant advertisement. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected entry and wrong photo

Hello,

I have been trying to create the page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Surrey Canal which has been rejected several times for not adequately evidencing the subject's notability.

We have quotes 5 independent sources for the page and it has been reported in the national media so it seems odd that it isn't noteworthy enough.

I also tried to upload photos when creating the page but i was told i was not allowed as i was a new user. The file names were displayed though and someone else has now added a completely irrelevant picture to the page.

How can i delete this photo and upload my own?

Kind regards,

Surreycanal (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Files for upload is an option if you, as a new user, do not have the ability to WP:UPLOAD for whatever reason. In general, substantial coverage in reliable sources should be enough to establish notability but an article must also be neutral and objective. Don't write something that looks like an advertisement and don't attempt to cover topics in which you hold a vested interest and you should be fine (given that Auntie Beeb seems to think this topic actually does exist). 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New article on Libertarian Paternalism 3

Hi,

I posted a question a month ago or so and got some reactions but feel it was not answered. I described the issue on May 4th but get on response. Here we go again! Please advice!

Here is the question:

"Hi, I recently created a new article/entry on Libertarian Paternalism. I have written a PhD thesis on related stuff and currently lead a research project on libertarian paternalism in particular financed by the EU commission. In brief, I am an expert on this. The review of my article said I should withdraw it and instead improve on the article on Soft Paternalism. However, though "soft paternalism" is sometimes used to refer to Libertarian Paternalism, this is very much a minority practice. Soft paternalism has two main uses, one of which has some overlap with Libertarian Paternalism. I have edited the entry on Paternalism to reflect this fact. Ideally, what should happen is for the article on Soft paternalism to be removed, as this concept is now treated in the entry on Paternalism. Also, the existing entry on Soft Paternalism as I said reflect a minority view. The definition cited at the beginning of the article refers to an article in The Economist, hardly a very authoritative source in this context."

I also added this piece of information for context:

"I explained all this to my reviewer (User:Tom Morris) on his talk page but it seems he choose to simply delete my questions and suggestions. In any case they are no longer on his talk page and there is nothing on my talk page to explain what may have happened.

Please advice. I am rather new to editing Wikipedia but believe I could do some good if I just get over these stumbling blocks. Thank you. Filofil (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)"

Below is the answer I got. It notes that part of the new entry on Libertarian Paternalism is more or less copied from the text in the Soft Paternalism entry. I don't see why this is a problem, and it is anyway not related to my question. I know there is an entry on Soft Paternalism that partly deals with Libertarian Paternalism. For example the copied section, that is why I copied it. However, the name of this entry is misleading, the entry is neither about Soft Paternalism as this phrase is most typically understood, nor on Libertarian Paternalism. I hope you can see the problem here? I'm just trying to provide a solution but feel a bit frustrated that it is being opposed for reasons I fail to see. (Psychologically speaking this tends to make me feel like an outsider having stumbled into a world of people rather protective of "their" bits of text and of "the way we usually do things around here". But I try to tell myself this is just my subjective impression caused by anxiety in the face of this system and community that I don't yet understand.)

The only thing DCS says in relation to my question is that since the two entries have one section of text in common they cannot be different enough to deal with two different things. This is obviously just a logical mistake (the sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and the sequence 1, 2, 3, 5 contain many of the same elements but one is the start of the sequence of natural numbers, the other the start of the sequence of prime numbers (and these two things should have two separate entries, as they do)).

It would also be interesting to learn more about norms regarding the attribution of text sections to wiki authors when text is moved, in relation to DCS:s comment, but this is not my main concern.

Here is the answer from User:Dcshank

"Filofil,

There are no secrets on the Wiki and there is a record of everything. I have reviewed the comments from User:Tom Morris and I have to agree with the him. But I find even more of a problem, your example is almost a word for word duplicate of the example from Soft paternalism.

Consider the default contribution rates on defined contribution tax-deferred retirement savings plans in the United States. Until recently, the default contribution rate for most plans was zero, and despite the enormous tax advantages, many people took years to start contributing if they ever did. Behavioral economists attribute this to the "status quo bias", the common human resistance to changing one's behavior, combined with another common problem: the tendency to procrastinate. Research by behavioral economists demonstrated, moreover, that firms which raised the default rate instantly and dramatically raised the contribution rates of their employees.
— Your article

As an example, take the default contribution rates on defined contribution tax-deferred retirement savings plans in the United States. Until recently, the default contribution rate for most plans was zero, and despite the enormous tax advantages, many people took years to start contributing if they ever did. Behavioral economists attribute this to the "status quo bias", the common human resistance to changing one's behavior, combined with another common problem: the tendency to procrastinate. Research by behavioral economists demonstrated, moreover, that firms which raised the default rate instantly and dramatically raised the contribution rates of their employees.
— Soft paternalism

I'm not suggesting that you copied from that article, each article cites a different reference. But, if both articles cite exactly the same example, I can't see that there could be enough difference between the two that there needs to be a separate article. I suggest talking with the people here, Portal:Libertarianism, before you resubmit your article. :- ) DCS 05:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)"[reply]

Filofil (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Henne Jewelers articles for submission

Dear Reviewer, I have been attempting to get my article on Henne Jewelers approved for submision for months now but it keeps getting rejected. I first had a few paragraphs in the article but now have narrowed it down to 3 sentences which still won't be approved? I also have 8 or so sources...The store has been a big part of pittsburgh since 1887 and is a big part of the community. That's a lot longer than a lot of other private companies on wikipedia. Thanks for all your help! Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Henne Jewelers GarrettRS1 (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewers did not ask you to delete the article, they asked you to write it in a neutral manner, citing it to reliable, independent sources. You need to prove the subject is notable enough for an encyclopedia. We can't just take your word for it. The company's own webpages, or Facebook page, don't count towards proving 'notability'. Wikipedia has guidelines tailored towards companies and organizations, at WP:NCORP. The best way of demonstrating the company is sufficiently notable is to point us towards newspaper or magazine articles, or books about the company AND incorporate some of the information from these sources into the article Sionk (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richard David Hames

Hello. The page in question that I am submitting to Wikipedia is not copyright and I am the author. As Richard Hames's PA at the Asian Foresight Institute it is my responsibility to provide copy for his agents and all other publicity material. The Dhurakij Pundit University biography which your reviewer claimed was copyright was written by me and was authorised personally by Professor Hames. Also if your reviewer had checked he/she would have seen that Richard resigned from DPU over 18 months ago and is no longer on the staff. Therefore the DPU page is irrelevant anyway. I would appreciate your advice on what I do now. Thanks Suna Butsuwan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suna Butsuwan (talk • contribs) 15:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you had 'checked' Wikipedia's copyright policies, you would know that we take copyright violations seriously. If we suspect a submission is a copyright violation, it cannot be accepted. If you truly own the copyright for the text in question then you may officially release it to Wikipedia by following the instructions at WIkipedia:Donating copyrighted material. Pol430 talk to me 19:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

loading photos into wikipedia article

Can I move a photo from my My Pictures file into a Wikipedia article? And how do I do this? The photo comes from the National Archives of Canada and is in the public domain. Is there an 'insert' button somewhere on Wikipedia that I'm missing? When I try to copy the photo, I can't do it. Thank you.Nicola Mitchell (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Click on WP:UPLOAD and follow the form. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 21:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don Gutterideg: Poet

1. I let a typo get through in the original headline. It should be Don Gutteridge: Poet. I can't find a way to correct it.

2. The original submission was refused. I have now added references, but I can't navigate back to the pink and yellow boxes that say "when ready to submit, click here and press save page." That page disappeared when I pressed edit. If I used the previous page arrow, the edits disappear.Floorwik (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the typo it will be sorted if/when the submission is accepted. You can find your submission at: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Don Gutterideg: Poet. I have tidies it up and added some basic formatting. Pol430 talk to me 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New article

How do I post this article for review?

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/White Nelson Diehl Evans LLP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgraves65 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add {{SUBST:submit}} to the top. I've now gone ahead and done that for you. Someone will be along to review it shortly. Thanks, France3470 (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chemical Biological Mass Spectrometer

The subject article start has inline citations on almost every phrase, but it is still being rejected. I am confused. Thanks,

Brian

192.249.47.174 (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should not have been declined for that reason. The actual issue with this submission is that the notability of the system is not sufficiently evidenced. Please see The Golden Rule. Pol430 talk to me 19:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the topic is more appropriate as a subsection of another article. Seems reasonable.

Brian 192.249.47.174 (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe under the Mass Spectrometer article? Just copy and paste under the appropriate heading? :p Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 21:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me! Pol430 talk to me 17:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Don Gutterideg: Poet

Thanks for your answer, and your help. I have added some notes and references, and managed to save them, so it's ready for re-submission. But I still can't see how to re-submit.

Thanks. Floorwik (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC) floorwik[reply]

No one has accepted or declined it, there is no need to resubmit. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 21:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/34 for 40 Trans-Americas Ride

We have repeatedly taken out any language that the help desk people say might trigger the NPOV reason for rejecting the submission. What we can't tell is if the current version has been rejected, or if it's still under consideration. If the former, what more can we do to make the language neutral? If the latter, what's the page's current status?

Thx... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jldeitch (talk • contribs) 22:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"This submission is waiting to be reviewed. This may take several days. The Articles for Creation process is severely backlogged. Please be patient." Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 11:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hastings Tile & Bath

Hello!

I'm just wondering why my article for Hastings Tile and Bath was not approved. I understand that there are strict rules about promotion on wikipedia however, Hastings is a historic company that is referenced in other wikipedia articles. I do not work for Hastings, I was just trying to close a gap in the information available about the town of Hastings-on-Hudson where they were established. Was my article not approved because of a technicality to do with the promotion rules, or is there another issue?

Trying to get my foothold as a Wiki contributor, this is my first article. Suggestions very welcome. Thanks,

Ryan

Ry.holman (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's because it is not notable enough. If you think otherwise, provide more independent sources. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 11:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]