Help desk
< May 6	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 8 >

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 7

Review of User:Grand'mere Eugene/Jacob Nist

1. This is a substantially revised version based on a previously deleted article. But the original Wikipedia article has been replicated on other websites—how to avoid plagiarism charge? 2. Some factual material was in original article, without citations. 3. Are citations of census data considered “original research”? 4. There were 4 photos in the original article—I don’t own the copyright, and don’t know who originally posted them. I do have jpg versions of the two portraits and the Holyrood family home. Can they still be used? Nist’s tombstone photo is still on Wikimedia Commons, but I didn’t have time to figure out how to include it: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jacob_Nist%27s_Tombstone.jpg

Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Grand'mere Eugene[reply]

Hi Grand'mere Eugene. The replication on other websites will normally say that Wikipedia was the source. I found one which does: http://www.mauspfeil.net/Jacob_Nist.html. That should take care of plagiarism charges. On the whole census data are considered primary sources and need to be used with caution, but may be OK for referencing basic facts, especially if the person is no longer living. Wikipedia:WPNOTRS has more on this. As for the images, if you didn't take them, they can't be uploaded to Commons. However, provided you supply the original source, his portrait could be uploaded to Wikipedia under Fair use (historic image of a long-deceased person). Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria has more on this. In my view, the speedy deletion in 2008 was inappropriate, as the article had survived AfD [1]. If nothing else, a new AfD should have been started. In any case, I have moved your draft into article space at Jacob Nist, where you can continue to work on it. The new version is much more encyclopedic with adequate (if not perfect) referencing. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gary "The Wagman" Wagner

I'm an experienced editor who answered a new editor's question at the Help Desk. I also left a welcome message on their talk page. About a month later, they asked a question on their talk page about their AFC submission. Since it was on my watchlist, I saw the question and responded that I'd check out the article and possibly review it. I've since added my name to the reviewers list and reviewed the article (declined it to be specific). But when the script ran, the decline notice was left on my own talk page and not that of the creator of the AFC submission. Since I'm new to this, could someone explain to me what triggered the script to tell me that the article was declined and not the original editor?

Also, I left a lengthy comment on how to improve the article but it only shows up in the edit window. What did I do wrong when reviewing it that made the comment not visible on the article itself?

Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 08:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dismas. I fixed your comment so it shows now. I think the problem was the "|" in your custom signature. In future, sign your comment after the last }} of the template. As for the other problem, hopefully someone else can explain that. I never use the script myself. I find it fiddly, buggy, and inflexible, which means I can't decline draft submissions. But if I accept one, I simply move it manually to article space and write a personalised note to the creator. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I figured it had something to do with my sig but didn't know what and since this was my first, I wasn't sure how the syntax needed to change for it to be right. Dismas|^(talk) 09:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFCH error in each user page

I don't know but I'm getting an error on each user page about AFCH. Here is the image link for the screen shot. Please tell me how to disable it. It asks to add my name in the participants list and I don't have 500 article edits. What can be done.--Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) ^talk 11:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go to your Preferences, choose the Gadgets tab and uncheck the box marked "Yet another AFC Helper Script". That should fix it. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Yunshui--Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) ^talk 10:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:The National Animal Rights Day

Greetings,

I would like to ask for help with creating a Wikipedia article for our organization. The National Animal Rights Day is on May, 31, and it would be great to let people see the information about the NARD on Wikipedia.

Andrew Romanov, Founder @ The Animal Care Society International, Member @ Our Planet. Theirs Too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poxorufis (talk • contribs) 13:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Terradise

I am trying to document the Terradise Nature Center, Caledonia, Ohio origins but so far have been rejected for submission. I don't understand why and would like help in getting an article into Wikipedia.

Thanks

David Haldeman haldemandavid@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djhaldeman (talk • contribs) 13:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David. I had a look at the version you submitted. It didn't make clear what the article was about and appeared to be about the word "terradise" itself. I have re-written it with improved references, which will give it a better chance of being accepted. It may be that it still wouldn't pass the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. I'll be taking some advice on that, but if it isn't likely to pass, the material can certainly be included in the article Caledonia, Ohio. Two words of caution, though.

Your text was a verbatim paste from http://terradise.org/history/ which was clearly marked: Copyright © 2013 Terradise. Don't be tempted to paste any further material from there or any other website. It is a copyright infringement, and will be removed immediately. In addition, such text is often unencyclopedic and/or promotional in tone and therefore unusable here—even if it weren't an infringement.
If you have any affiliation whatsoever to terradise.org, you need to read our conflict of interest guidelines and follow them scrupulously. And, the article should not be used to promote or even mention companies such as Terradise Design or Terradise Computer Systems which are owned by the descendants of Trella Hemmerly Haldeman Romine, who donated the land for the nature preserve.

Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr._Jürg_Witmer

Hi there,

we are stuck, are article got denied twice now. We are using Wikipedia links as references already (it's a suggestion). Can you please provide a very clear feedback why our article got denied. Which links should be replaced / are not trustworthy?

We are working on this article for 5 months now without any success or concrete feedback what we are doing wrong.

The first feedback was: "This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner."

We than corrected according to the mentioned points. But now it got denied because of:

"This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject."

-> We did Wikipedia referencing. Also we added sources that are entirely independet. Please tell us which links are not ok and what to change. We checked a lot of other CEO Wikipages to get where we are today, yet still it's refused...

-> Evidence of being Chairman of some of the biggest organizations in Switzerland and in the invitation list to the Global leaders organization. What else does one have to be to be notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infocentric (talk • contribs) 14:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please help..

Kind regards infocentric Infocentric (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kyrone Davis

Hello, I am trying to cite my information with references that I have already listed, but its not working for me. Is there a special trick?

Thank you.

BoxingfanaticBoxsportsfacts (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have listed your references but it's not clear what you have tried because I don't see where you actually saved the article with any of your attempts. At the very least, try this: Edit your article again and after each sentence or paragraph, put the URL of the source in between two ref tags like this <ref>URL goes here with no other text</ref> Don't worry if they don't look "pretty" or anything. As long as the URLs are there, making the reference pretty and standardized is a minor thing. Dismas|^(talk) 20:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jeff Schneider

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jeff Schneider After a recent rejection for an article for creation. One comment made by the reviewer that the sources were "potentially changeable" is confusing, yet the references seem to be in ok. Earlier problems stemmed from formatting which doesn't seemed to be an issue now. Is there a way to get around the "dead links" or "pay for access" primarily in reference to newspaper reviews? I will click on "Referencing for beginners and Citing sources" but all available links seem to be in order. Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated. Thank You.(Jeff Schneider (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

My recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for your time in responding to my submission I have recently submitted an article to the wikipedia and received a message saying that I have used a copyrighted information. Can I still use this copyrighted information if I have a permission from the owner (author) to use these information? I am a final year university student and all this is a part of my studies.

Thank you.

Here's a link to the article I previously submitted:

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Senay575

OR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Senay575

I look forward to hearing from you

Senay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senay575 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are talking about User:Senay575/sandbox. The message at User talk:Senay575 gives you a link to information about copyright violations, and that explains what the process is for the owner of the copyright to donate coprighted material. You need to bear in mind, however, that material already published elsewhere might not be written in the neutral point of view which Wikipedia requires, so you are usually better off writing the material in your own words, and giving the original source as a reference. Good luck with your studies. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that your user page User:Senay575 is a straight copy of material from http://www.liverpoolymca.org.uk/about-us/ and subsidiary pages. Wikipedia treats its legal requirement regarding copyright very seriously, so I have had to tag the page for speedy deletion. Before you start to prepare a draft of a first article, please read the links about copyright carefully, and also some other useful links which I've put on your user talk page, including WP:Your first article. If you try to recreate a user page (as distinct from a sandbox draft of an article), it should be for the purposes described at WP:user pages. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Turnado3000/sandbox

Please check my new topics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Turnado3000/sandbox and tell your comments Turnado3000 (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:The Nuclear Beauty Parlor

Review of Draft:The Nuclear Beauty Parlor Hello. I edited this several times after it was initially declined. Checking to make certain it is properly coded for review - article for creation. Thx Voice of Vicki (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Voice of Vicki:

Properly submitted.

Thank you for your contributions.Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 21:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Boat livery

I was asked by the reviewer to" Run a copyedit for style and linking". What does that mean? Chimp1cards (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the submission was accepted (by another user) and is now located at Boat livery. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Martone Cycling Company

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Martone Cycling Company I was wondering why my article was declined/deleted, and if there is anything I can do to the article to get it accepted. Thanks! NickMartone (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nick. As the notice at the top of the article says, it was declined because it seems like an advertisement. The specific characteristics (color, chain, basket, etc.) should be taken out unless they have been talked about by independent, reliable sources of information (newspapers, magazines, or other publications). You talk about "notable" characteristics; notability on Wikipedia means just that: discussion in independent reliable sources, so if they really are notable, cite some sources that mention them specifically. You should also check if the company itself is notable (as an organization). Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 21:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here

WHY CAN'T I WRITE THE BIO OF MY BOSS WITH PLENTY OF BIBLIOGRAPHIES IN SPANISH, I HAVE DONE THIS FOR ALMOST A YEAR AND YOU KEEP DELETING IT, THE NAME IS CAUPOLICAN OVALLES SEQUERA, HIS FATHER IS ON WIKIPEDIA AS CAUPOLICAN OVALLES — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verherlop (talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Verherlop. Do you also have an account at Caveprol? That is where I found a draft by that name. If you want to use a new account, that is fine, but make sure not to use both unless you have a legitimate purpose.

Based on messages for that other account, one of the articles was deleted because it did not cite reliable sources of information. Wikipedia cannot accept personal knowledge, because other people cannot verify it (check that it is accurate). This is especially important when the article includes information about living people. The other one was deleted because it was not changed in six months.

If you want both of these back so you can work on them, you can make a request for undeletion. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 21:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/JackSepticEye

Hi, I am curious as to why my page for JackSepticEye, a relatively famous YouTuber was taken down. I understand it some information that constantly changes in the pages, but I was going to edit that. I feel if someone was just curios as to who he was, because he's getting talked about quite a bit now, they should be able to read a brief wiki page. All my sources were cited, even though I only had one source, and that was the man himself, but I did link his YouTube page because that's the only place I heard the information. AlmostNeity (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To editor AlmostNeity: If you got it from "the man himself," that's a problem. Sources must be published, that is, made public in some way. This makes sure that content can be verified, that is, checked for accuracy. If he really is "getting talked about quite a bit now," there should be something published about him. It could be a newspaper or magazine article, or a segment on a reputable television/radio/online media show. If there are, cite them. This takes care of verifiability as well as notability, both of which are required on Wikipedia. If not, then it may just be too soon for him to have an article. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]