Help desk
< May 20	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 22 >

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 21

00:44:50, 21 May 2015 review of submission by Hannaguido

Hannaguido (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Rotland Press (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I submitted an article May, 4th. Can I do anything to speed up the process of review.

Hannaguido (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hannaguido: There is a bit of a backlog right now, so expect the average wait time to be at least two weeks. As for Draft:Rotland Press, there is a copyright issue and so I have left you a comment and review accordingly. /wia /talk 01:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also tell me how to create that box I see on Wikipedia pages so often that appears to the right, and has quick, basic facts pertaining to the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannaguido (talk • contribs) 16:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hannaguido: That box is called an infobox, and is created using the {{Infobox company}} template. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

02:31:44, 21 May 2015 review of submission by Donovan delaney

Donovan delaney (talk · contribs)

My page Donovan delaney/sandbox/the Corpse Bride Video Game keeps geting deleted. The page was deleted four times. It's hurting my feelings. Can someone get it back and make sure the deleting stops?? Donovan delaney (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC) Donovan delaney (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Donovan delaney (talk · contribs)

How do I block someone?? So they don't delete my page. Donovan delaney (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC) Donovan delaney (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Donovan delaney, I'm afraid the only person at risk of being blocked is you. You have repeatedly been told that your article is not permitted on Wikipedia, yet you continue to attempt to create it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12:03:11, 21 May 2015 review of submission by Petro Rucci

Petro Rucci (talk · contribs)

Hey there, Petro here. Wanted to know about the content that has been declined. Please let me know what issues took place in it and what should be done. If about the advertising, it's not what we intend to do. We're new in this and we want to just post an article relating to Hexder. Just plain and simple. So kindly let me know the issue.

Thankyou

Petro Petro Rucci (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Petro Rucci: The messages on your talk page gave the reasons for decline and deletion. I cannot comment further as I can't see the deleted page. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:30:18, 21 May 2015 review of submission by Miccpao

Miccpao (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!

The article was not accepted for reasons of copyright material. I'm a public affairs officer for the Department of the Army for the general and we're the owners and release authority for his biography. Government biographies are not copyright. The reference it cites on Military City USA appears there because the general appeared on the radio program, and my office provided the radio station a copy of his bio for the appearance. I believe this article should be accepted as is.

Miccpao (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would do two things for us:

Stop attempting the "Do you know who I AM?!?" approach. We know not neither do we care
Link to the draft of which you speak.

Combative approaches seldom succeed here because you are dealing wit volunteers whose approach is usually to volunteer not to handle the issue being dealt with on a combative manner. Deal unemotionally with facts alone, please. Help us to help you. Fiddle Faddle 13:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, also, the words "Copyright © 2015 Military City USA Radio. All Rights Reserved" on the page it appears that you copied and pasted here. That is more than somewhat explicit, isn't it?. Fiddle Faddle 13:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no idea as what you mean with regard to approach; nothing in the original question was combative. I'm merely attempting to create a page with bio data located at the reference I cited at the end, [1]. We provided it to the media as the release authority for the organization. We're still the owners of the document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miccpao (talk • contribs) 13:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Miccpao: Wikipedia has absolutely no idea who you are, nor the history of the item that has a copyright claim written large upon it. Please read WIkipedia:Donating copyright material and deal with it in that manner.

Recognise that, if someone perceives you as combative, that is how you have come across. The fault is not that of the person who has perceived you as combative. Fiddle Faddle 14:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The draft to which I'm referring is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Brig._Gen._Jeffrey_A._Gabbert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miccpao (talk • contribs) 16:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Miccpao: The deletion log says "06:16, 21 May 2015 Tokyogirl79 (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Gabbert (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.militarycityusaradio.org/2014/06/21/brigadier-general-jeffrey-gabbert-airing-june-21/)" That page says "Copyright © 2015 Military City USA Radio. All Rights Reserved." which seems to everyone here to be cut and dried. If you licenced that for onward use it certainly does not show on that page. If it is out of/exempt from copyright then one would expect that page not to assert copyright ownership over it. You need to go through the process at WP:Donating copyright material.

Even when you have been through that process, please be aware that we require references. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Just copying and pasting that tranche of text is entirely insufficient. In addition it probably does not make a good Wikipedia article.

The deleting admin is aware of this conversation and may choose to offer you further advice. Fiddle Faddle 16:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation would be to just write it in your own words from scratch. The problem with using copyrighted text is that in 99.9% of the time the material was written to promote the topic (in this case a person) and as such, will contain words and phrases that come across as promotional (at worst) and/or too casual (at best). It's sometimes harder to pick out with some, but a lot of time it's that the text will be laid out in a promotional style (like a resume/CV). The other issue with copyrights is that even if you give permission and the material is neutral to begin with, the article will always be negatively scrutinized because it contains material from the official source. I remember one instance where I had to help re-write an entire page because people kept tagging it as promotional and as copyvio. The material was pretty neutral and the material was given up as fair use, but people kept tagging it for various issues to point where it just became easier to re-write it entirely. This isn't even including the problem that using copyrighted, official text makes it come across like the person/company/etc was trying to use Wikipedia as their own personal billboard or Linkedin account. In other words, using copyrighted text makes the page look less legit and far less impressive than you'd think. It really is a bad idea in general to use copyrighted material. Plus like the others said, we have no way of verifying that you are who you say you are- this is why stolen valor is such an ongoing issue. I don't doubt that you are who you claim to be or that you were told to go and post things on Wikipedia, but you need to be able to verify this with the site, which can only be done by filing a ticket through WP:ORTS. However I do need to restate that using copyrighted text from an official bio isn't really the best route here. Also, since you do have a conflict of interest you will need to read over the policy at WP:COI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:41:06, 21 May 2015 review of draft by Arthurlmd

Arthurlmd (talk · contribs)
- Draft:LaptopMD+ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Arthur Zilberman (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please Ignore previous Post from IP address, I didn't notice I wasn't logged in*

I wrote a post for LaptopMD+ IT service, and the post was denied apparently because an editor believed the sources didn't meet the notability guidelines. It's somewhat understandable, but at the same time the service has been mentioned in CNN, Wall Street Journal, Inc and Huffington Post. Additionally, it's been on the local news of WPIX and CBS, two major channels in the New York area.

The service has been lauded and respected enough to be used as an authority for major media outlets on nearly a dozen occasions. All of those sources are cited in the article. It's particularly puzzling because other New York IT services have been granted pages when they don't have the same citations as LaptopMD, and they're generally regarded as smaller services in New York.

Respectfully I ask, what better citations are there than the aforementioned notable outlets? How can I recalibrate the draft to make it acceptable?

I have looked at the edit history of Draft:LaptopMD+ and cannot see where anyone has reviewed it, certainly in this incarnation. It is not submitted for review. If it is your wish to submit it then please click the big green button. Fiddle Faddle 17:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: The user also created Draft:LaptopMD, which was declined. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:47:44, 21 May 2015 review of submission by JRCALHOUN

JRCALHOUN (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Jim McWilliams (2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have 20 inline references in my article. I would like them to be sequentially numbered from 1 to 20 and all appear at the bottom of the article. Instead, the citations are showing up within the article, numbered 1- x, after each paragraph. In other words, the first paragraph has 2 references, numbered 1 and 2, which are listed right after the paragraph. Paragraph 2 has three references, numbered 1-3, which are listed after that paragraph, and so on.

JRCALHOUN (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JRCALHOUN: I cleaned it up for you. The problem was that you had {{reflist}} after each reference. You only need this once in your article, in the ==References== section. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:23:14, 21 May 2015 review of submission by Blappie

Blappie (talk · contribs)
- User:Blappie/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! I've been working alot with updating the existing page of Roger Palmgren with the draft in my sandbox.

At first I made changes directly to that page, but got contacted by User:GiantSnowman telling me it did not appear constructive. Then again I got contacted by the same guy, telling me to cite my sources. Ofcourse I was going to, but I did everything step by step as I was new to wikipedia and didn't use the Sandbox which I should've, so I fully understand him.

However, now I've made (hopefully) all necessary citations and valid sourcing to my changes. Content-wise, it's actually correct and updated information now (the old version isn't just incomplete, it's misleading and incorrect). I've been working closely together with his wife (my sister) to get all the facts straight. Also, the photo is taken by her.

So now the article feels 100%, and I would like it to replace the existing Roger Palmgren page, which is outdated and incorrect. Now, I feel nervous about _how_ to do this? I'm sorry, but I'm kind of new to Wikipedia-editing. Can you guide me? Any help would be much appreciated!

Blappie (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Far too much unreferenced information I'm afraid (see WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS - in fact a lot less sources than the current version! Giant Snowman 18:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply. I've consolidated the sources from the current version, to now have more and actually working links. I hope this will be accepted now User:GiantSnowman. Blappie (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]