Help desk
< July 5	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 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.

July 6

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lords of War

Hi - I was working on the page earlier, uploaded some images and can now no longer see them (when viewing on iPad - may be fine on PC). Just enquiring as to why this might be as the material uploaded has no copyright restrictions related to it (as owner of the intellectual property, I can say with sime authority that we be have no legal protections - scary as that might seem - and have made these materials freely available elsewhere (for reviews to third parties, on the Lords of War website, Facebook, etc). Thank you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by BBGLordsofWar (talk • contribs)

If you own the copyright to, or represent someone who owns the copyright to, particular images, and are able to license those images for use on Wikipedia, you can do so following the instructions at WP:CONSENT. Note that most commercial enterprises do not wish to license their images in this way!

If such licensing is not possible, then you may wish to wait until the article is accepted, at which point there may be a case to use, probably, one image at the top of the article under fair use. (And maybe a few more under certain circumstances.) Let's address that when it happens. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those files were deleted from the Wikimedia Commons as copyright violations; see for example Commons:File:Lords of War box contents.jpg. If the copyright holder has indeed released those images under a free license compatible with the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License, or into the public domain, we'd need to see some evidence of that release. The easiest would be to have the copyright holder send a release form; an example form is here, and it should be sent, with a reference to the uploaded files' names at the Commons, to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org - however, I find it very hard to believe that the company would be okay with others re-using their artwork for commercial purposes. Huon (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Froilan Calayag

Please help me identify the problem on my article and the solutions I could do for its approval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KyzeM (talk • contribs) 02:45, 6 July 2013

There are a couple of issues. Firstly, most of your sources are not the reliable, independent sources Wikipedia content should be based on. Daigdig Pinoy probably is, but none of the others seems to be subject to editorial oversight, and a single good source is not enough to establish that the artist is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Are there additional articles about him published in newspapers or reputable arts magazines?

Secondly, you should use footnotes to clarify which of your sources supports which of the draft's statements. For example, "A fusion of reality and fantasy is a perfect interpretation of his works." - says which source? See WP:Referencing for beginners on how to easily create nicely-formatted footnotes. Huon (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aman Hadid

Hello, I am curious as to why my article is not online and was declined. I am Aman Hadid and I have had an editor to prepare my professional profile.

Can you please help me put this up? Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.96.248 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 6 July 2013‎

Your draft does not cite a single reliable source, making its content unverifiable. Furthermore, you may want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest; writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. Huon (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Hadid, if you paid a third party to create an artice about you on Wikipedia then you should immediately demand a full refund, as no third party can guarantee to do any such thing. We cannot offer legal advice here, but if you should wish to seek legal advice regarding such a refund, the Law Society of New South Wales has a page here that will help you to find a legal representative. Demand your refund directly first, though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cool Aid (Canada)

I rather resent the comment that I did not read the articles that I cited. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I am the author of the history of the first 40 years of Cool Aid and dug up all these source on my own. It took me over a year to come up with the facts that the organization then took and put some of them online. As I am the researcher and author, I feel my citations are correct. It is not my fault that the Times Colonist is not online - it is in the process of being digitized as I write but the work will not be done for several years.

Helen Edwards ````

Since you posted this, your article has been moved to mainspace, at Victoria Cool Aid Society. So, no longer a problem for this noticeboard. If you still have a problem, discuss it on the article's talk page. Howicus (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are worse problems here. Your research, according to this PDF, is copyrighted by the Victoria Cool Aid Society. When you quote entire paragraphs verbatim or closely paraphrase them, that's a copyright violation. In order for Wikipedia to use that content, the copyright holder (not you, apparently) would have to explicitly release that content under a free license that allows everybody to re-use it for any purpose, including commercial purposes. See WP:Requesting copyright permission. An example release form is here; it should be sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org by an authorized representative of the Society. For now I'll remove those paragraphs. If permission is obtained they can be re-added; otherwise we'll have to rewrite that content in our own words.

You may also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Heavily citing your own research may not be a good idea, especially if it was research done on behalf of the article's subject.

Regarding MatthewVanitas' comment on your talk page, I don't see what's to resent. MatthewVanitas had no way of knowing that you were the author of that document and stated what it looked like to him. He also spent quite some effort tidying up your draft's layout and even adding new sources. How about thanking him for his effort instead of resenting his advice for further improvement? Huon (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ammar Joukhadar

Hello!

My article for creation was rejected, and I'd like to know what I did wrong. Could you please specifically state where I went wrong and how I could improve? I provided as much information as I could about Ammar Joukhadar, and I thought he deserved a place on Wikipedia for his milestones and inspiring life's work.

Thanks and best regards!

As it says at the top of the page, your article did not have enough inline citations. You need to use footnotes to cite the information on the page. Hope this helps! Howicus (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Sharpe Rowland

I would really love to be able to post my article on Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/John Sharpe Rowland, but I need more detailed help on what I need to do to fix this article, so that it will be acceptable. I think the person who edited my submission "EagerToddler" indicated that my footnotes were not in order. Can you refer me to a form/format that I need to use? Are there any other issues. I need specifics with examples. I just don't understand what I need to do. Thank you for any help that you can give. Paul DietrichPaul Dietrich (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You actually had footnotes, but no references section to display them. I fixed that and accepted the draft. Huon (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pusat Tingkatam Enam Meragang

I have just submitted a request to review a new page but i now see there is a typo in the title. the name of this school should be have the second word spelt Tingkatan and not Tingkatam. How do i change this? Cikgubrian (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pusat Tingkatan Enam Meragang. Pol430 talk to me 18:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christian Lerch

hey, how are you?I would like to inquire why my article was declined, as it is. Could you help me to edit it so it is accepted?

Thanks, Ben

The issue is that Christian Lerch does not seem notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Look at the guideline for the notability of people here for more information. Howicus (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have a single reliable third-party source, the Kurier article. All others are either primary sources such as his employers' websites or not reliable (such as Wikipedia itself). That's not enough to establish Lerch's notability. For that, we need multiple reliable third-party sources of at least a paragraph each about him, the more the better, but three to five at the very least. Huon (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Berendo Street and Avenue

Hello. My submission was declined just because nothing changed in the submission. But there was ONE change. I added citations. In previous submissions, there weren't any citations. So I need you to tell me what went wrong? Were citations no good? Did reviewer User:Martijn Hoekstra not notice the change? So I want to know my mistake and what I can do to make the article better. Thanks. 75.62.131.130 (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC) (P.S.: I'm the same person who wrote the article. It's my IP adress # that changed but I'm the same person. Also, I've been trying REALLY HARD on this article. I'm starting to feel like Wikipedia doesn't want my contributions. So I'm thinking about quiting 'cause based on the reasons for being rejected, it's getting more difficult to improve it. What should I do?)[reply]

Can you guys answer my question now? I'm not too patient! So I want my answer right now. i ask you kindly. Thanks.

Ok, the main problem with the article is notability. Your article is about a street (and an avenue). But what make that street special? Why should that street have an article? That's the issue here: there's no real reason given why that specific street should have an article. Howicus (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes there is Howicus. What makes the street special is the fact that antelopes wandered on this road. So miracously someone must have seen those antelopes on this road and that's why they decided to name one of the roads "Berendo". This is also the reason that this street should have an article. You understand Howicus? Don't take this message seriously as I write kindly, not harshly, kindly. Please reply A.S.A.P. 75.62.130.190 (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is there someone out there who could reply to me? I'm the same person but it looks like my I.P. # changed again. 75.62.133.100 (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I expect there are hundreds of roads that were (and are) wandered by antelopes, and there's no reliable source for that claim. In fact the middle school website says that's not the street name's etymology - but that website is not a reliable source anyway. Huon (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All right I GIVE UP! This article isn't going to work out. i Left messages for reviewers like Martjin Hoekstra but he says that he doesn't want to help me anyway. I also wrote to Bonkers the clown but i haven't heard from him yet. All you did was ruin my hopes of having this street moved into article space so if Bonkers doesn't want to help me, I'll come back here and ask you to delete the article 'cause there's not much hope anymore. 75.62.140.244 (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And just to get your attention...

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dimitri Papadimos

...I am very disappointed with the stereotype rejection response I am receiving "not adequately supported by reliable sources" It would be more helpful if you can pinpoint which of the 10 references are not "reliable"...I am trying to create and English version of an article already in an another language already in wikipedia...Yani papadimos (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first three references aren't about Papadimos, but rather about other photographers. Those sources don't show that Papadimos was notable. The fourth and fifth sources just show that his photos have been used on websites and in books, but that's not very noteworthy by itself. The sixth source is about one exposition in a small, non-notable gallery. The seventh source is another book that Papadimos did the photo for. The eight source just mentions Papadimos in passing, not establishing his notability. The ninth and tenth sources are books by Papadimos, which don't establish his notability either. Howicus (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Epiphany Eyewear

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Epiphany Eyewear Dear Help Desk: Please help me with editing this article for submission "Epiphany Eyewear." Seems to been rejected just a few minutes ago. I have listed notable cites from The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Huffington Post, Venture Beat, and many more. I listed many External References which personally, I believe is a long list which can be edited down some. But I believe I need help in understanding why the article was rejected and what I can do to fix it so it is accepted. Thank you for your help. 301man (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet four of the draft's eleven footnotes are to the company's own websites and the others are a mixed bag of more or less reliable sources none of which even come close to the level of the Wall Street Journal. If there are good sources out there, that's what the draft should be based on, not the company's own PR. Huon (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Huon. I will rework it. I have a PDF of the Wall Street Journal Article, too and need to figure out how to upload it because the link to the WSJ doesn't work well unless you have an account to login. I didn't realize that until yesterday. Your help is appreciated. If you have any other suggestions or feel compelled to assist with the editing, I'd certainly appreciate your help. I've been hammering at being an editor for a few months and there's so much to learn. It's an amazing adventure to say the least! Thanks again for your input and help! 301man (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huon: I reworked it and would like your feedback again. You've been very helpful. Appreciate your Talk with me. Thank you, 301man (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anthony_Del_Col

To whom this may concern,
I am trying to submit a page, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anthony_Del_Col, but it has been rejected on the basis that the page is not supported by adequate reliable sources. Is the problem that I am not using enough sources, or is it that the sources I'm using are unreliable? If the latter, would someone indicate which sources are unreliable so I might fix them?
Many thanks,
Srz92 (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your sources, such as the film website or Del Col's publisher, are not reliable because they are not subject to editorial oversight and furthermore have a commercial interest in Del Col's success. The New York Times clearly is reliable, but it doesn't cover Del Col in any appreciable detail. I'd say CBC is the only reliable source that covers Del Col in any detail, but a single good source is not enough to establish that he's notable. Huon (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response Huon. I found, what I hope, are some verifiable sources and added them in. Hope it goes through this time. Cheers! Srz92 (talk) 04:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]