Help desk
< May 5	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 7 >

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 6

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Off the wall studio

how do i upload a few pics on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessejameskid (talk • contribs) 14:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Files for upload, although there are severe limits on what copyright Wikipedia will accept on an image. If you can find an image on-line with a license that allows its modification and commercial re-use, such as Creative Commons CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, you can ask for it to be uploaded. The requirement is for a very permissive license (for instance, a user who uploaded a photo of a local Boy Scout troop for the Boy Scout article here might then find the same photo re-used on some other site eroticising spanking, with the whole mess surrounded with advertisements for commercical sponsors) so only a small minority of photographers release their material under such terms.

It is possible to use the "advanced search" on Flicker and search for "creative commons, permitting commercial use, images to modify and build upon" although these tend to be a minority of even the Creative Commons images on that site (most have restrictions, such as non-commercial use only, reuse with no modifications or are simply copyrighted so that you can't use them). You might also want to see commons.wikimedia.org to see if we already have anything here which fits. Most often, if you're looking for one specific landmark, it's a question of blind luck to find (or not find) an existing image. Sometimes one is available, sometimes.

I would also strongly advise that you try to find some reliable sources as references supporting your text, such as descriptions of your article's subject in books or news bulletins. The subject's own self-description is not reliable due to potential conflict of interest and sites like Facebook and YouTube tend not to be reliable (with rare exceptions, such as a TV station posting its news crew's footage on such a site after broadcast). 66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John's Modern Cabins

One question about two printed paid-circulation magazines, "Route 66 Magazine" (quarterly) and "Rural Missouri"; I'd cited them and had a piece rejected for this on WP:RS grounds. Is there a specific issue with articles in these two publications as sources? They're not the sole sources for the article, but if they are valid then removing them would likely only weaken the article as one (Emily Priddy, Ron Warnick: Route 66 Magazine, 2002) did play a key role in a "Friends of the Mother Road" campaign by US66 preservationists to convince the current owners to abandon a demolition proposal for the site. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the declining reviewer in this respect. I think both of those publications are very good sources, and the article itself looks great. Please follow the directions to resubmit the article and I will publish it shortly. Thanks, Nathan2055 ^talk 22:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Community Integration

Re: Wikipedia talk: Articles for Creation/Community Integration I've just submitted a final copy of the encyclopedic entry (community integration) together with 98 footnotes. However, the body/text of the article will not show on the screen or print for me. Your assistance would be appreciated. It will only allow printing of the references, contents and principles. Thank you for your assistance. I do need a copy for my own work; it allowed printing two days ago on March 4th, but not any additions since that time (e.g., employment integration). JARacino (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC) JARacino[reply]

I look at community integration and the "print preview" appears to be a full ten-page document. Any chance that your web browser still has an old version in memory? 66.102.83.61 (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine to me as well. Perhaps you could clear your cache and try again? Thanks, Nathan2055 ^talk 23:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...there is a great copy on as wikipedia, community integration (created article)...Yea, I am excited! It was accepted! The version on my contributions list is still not printable (I'll check the browser and copies). thanks for your help. JARacino (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)JARacino[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Plus formerly know as 18 Plus

I have tried to submit an artical about 18 plus/eighteen plus. Can someone explain where i am going wrong? Thanks SouthernArea (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most or all of your cited information comes from the group itself (plusgroups.org.uk, southern-area-plusgroups.org.uk) and not from neutral, reliable outside sources? That's usually problematic as it makes the resulting article look like an advertisement. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most of those sources are either from the group's website or a book published by the group. Find third party sources such as news articles that conform to WP:V and WP:MINREF (the two minimum required citation policies) and then follow the instructions to resubmit your article. Thanks, Nathan2055 ^talk 22:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]