User talk:John B123/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:John B123. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Your submission at Articles for creation: Prostitution and the Internet (November 22)

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by The Herald was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Prostitution and the Internet and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

The Herald 13:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello! John B123, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! The Herald 13:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Internet prostitution has been accepted

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Internet prostitution, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Prostitution in the UK and the Internet has a new comment

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Prostitution in the UK and the Internet. Thanks! The Herald : here I am 14:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Prostitution in Egypt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to STI

Prostitution in Scotland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Paul Harris

Prostitution in Tunisia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to STI

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Telford child sex abuse ring

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Telford child sex abuse ring, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-shropshire-22379414, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Telford child sex abuse ring and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Telford child sex abuse ring, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Telford child sex abuse ring. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Telford child sex abuse ring with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Telford child sex abuse ring saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I'm not sure why you think this has been copied from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-shropshire-22379414 and therefore a breach of copyright. I used information from http://www.sasorg.co.uk/operation-chalice-child-sex-abuse-case-concludes-in-telford/.

This is a list of charges and sentances for 7 men. The list is ordered by severity of charges and sentence. This is the same order as used in most publications as this is the normal practice. You cannot therefore consider the order to be copyright of the BBC.

The charges are defined in English Law so are again can't be copyright of the BBC.

The sentences are a matter of fact.

Normal procedure is to give the name, charges and then sentence

For each item, the only possible issue of copyright could be the words connecting name, charges & sentence. As they are different between my edit and the BBC's article then there is no breach of copyright.

John B123 (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is a complicated case which is why I listed it at WP:CP rather than directly revision delete the material myself. It does involve simple statements of fact involving English law, you are correct, but there are also sections where the wording and sentence structure appear to me to be too close to the source that was detected [1]. I listed it at CP to get a second opinion on the matter. I've also removed additional content now after running it through the link above, because it appeared to constitute a close paraphrase. Again, this will be reviewed by another administrator or copyright clerk. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I think 'Earwig's Copyvio Detector' needs to be read with common sense. Take out the defendent's name that was flagged, direct quotes from the judge, the charges etc there is little left. Having used the report from http://www.sasorg.co.uk/operation-chalice-child-sex-abuse-case-concludes-in-telford/ and writen in such a way that it's not a copy of that, I find it quite offensive to be accused of copying it from an article that I hadn't previously seen.

Having written a number of new articles, translated some and tried to improve other recently in a diligent matter, I wonder whether it's worth my efforts if this is what happens. John B123 (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're offended. I know how difficult it can be to improve articles. As I mentioned above, I know that this case isn't straight-forward. The normal procedure for clearcut copyright violations is removal and immediate revision deletion by an administrator. I have not done that in this case. I'm asking that it be reviewed by other users who have experience dealing with these type of situations. That is all. I think the section on Operation Chalice that was added was more clearly a close paraphrase, and it is one of the reasons that I do think that having someone else take a look at it is beneficial still. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Of course I'm offended, I'm accused of copying an article that I wasn't aware existed at the time of edit. I have run the article I cited (http://www.sasorg.co.uk/operation-chalice-child-sex-abuse-case-concludes-in-telford/) through Earwig's Copyvio Detector Result. The matches are remarkable similar to the test you ran on the the BBC page. Now you could conclude, purely from the results, that the BBC copied the article from SAS or vice versa. Alternatively, by looking into it further, you could decide the content matter dictates the two would be similar.

I have no wish to get into an argument about this, but as a matter of principle I won't jus sit back and be unjustly accused of wrongdoing.

It is as they say 'your party', but as with any other party, I'm free to leave if I don't like what happens there. Feel free to delete all edits I've made and articles I've created and also my account. I'll chalk up the time I've spent trying to improve WP to experience.

On a side note, and I don't know if this due to the differences between US & UK style of writing, but you might want to have a look at the template you used for your original post on this page. It comes across as if you're talking to an errant child. John B123 (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

This is the standard template anytime an article is listed at WP:CP; I did not write it. I hope you don't leave, but that is your choice. Another user will review the article, I have noted your response here for them to see. It is entirely possible you are correct, but I think a review would be warranted. These typically take a week or less. As I've said, this is not a clearcut case of copyright infringement, but one where the possibility exists and needs to be examined. I don't know if there is any more for me to say, other than to thank you for the good work that you have done on Wikipedia, which is appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi John, I've come to know you through the Angelou article. While I have not fully read the above re copyright vio, I want you as a new editor to know that I've been here for over 10 years and it still stings when one is falsely accused of...anything... when it is not justified, as has happened to me as well a few times. In the most recent experience my addition was deleted along with the previous additions which were (as it turned out) to be copy vios. I hope that you continue to hold onto your convictions and grow a very thick skin when it comes to dealing with opposition. Gandydancer (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: Hi, thanks. It's frustrating to be accused of something when you've acted in good faith. As I said on the Angelou discussion, it seems the rules are implemented to the letter when it suits, and then totally ignored when it doesn't suit. Cheers John B123 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

That's right -- that's how this place works. However, when push comes to shove we generally come to the right conclusions...eventually. I can tell you re the Angelou article and the user:Montanabw talk page where this is being discussed as well, these editors that are responding are among the best of the best. Gandydancer (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: The discussion on Montanabw's page is just that, a discussion that you can follow. Trying to follow the discussion on the Angelou is like trying to knit fog, and its very negative. Whilst I've come into contact with some nice helpful people such as yourself on here, the majority come across as self-important and think their opinion is gospel. I'd rather spend my time writing new articles or improving existing ones than get into lengthy discussions over relatively minor items. That said I enjoy having discussions with people like you and learn from them, but I'm not sure I'll bother getting into general discussions again. Cheers John B123 (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Window prostitution moved to draftspace

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

An article you recently created, Window prostitution, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the confirms on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: - Hi, I think your actions in moving to draftspace was premature. The article was translated from the Dutch WP article nl:Raamprostitutie (which only has two refs). My understanding of the correct procedure in translating an article from another WP project is that the article is initially translated 'as is' with "Content in this edit is translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at [[:fr:Exact name of French article]]; see its history for attribution" in the edit summary, to allow attribution to the original editors. You can then further edit the article as required (referencing in this case). You have moved the article to draft prematurely during this process. Creating the article in sandbox and then moving to the page when the article is ready (as I do with other articles I create) does not give the history or attribution.

You may argue that the article should have been created in draft and then submitted, but quite frankly, the draft/submission process is an Achilles heel of WP. I'm advised by other experienced editors that the process is designed for people who don't have a full understanding of the WP quality and other requirements. They further advise bypassing the draft procedure once you are confident in creating articles. You could even argue that the whole draft & submission process is contrary to the aims of WP:WER. The whole system seems unbalanced. Someone will jump on an article within hours if there's something wrong with it, yet an article with nothing wrong with it isn't looked at for at least a month during submission. --John B123 (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@John B123: There is no consensus that says a translated article can stay in the main space if it doesn't have acceptable sourcing (if it doesn't meet the requirements for notability). Creating the article in a sandbox space does keep the history and all attributions when it is WP:MOVED to mainspace. Your understanding on that matter seems to be incorrect. "Achilles heel of WP" really does not seem to be accurate, nor is it clear what you mean by this. The process is designed for newbies and for everyone else so articles can be developed before being returned to the mainspace. I have found no evidence saying "the whole draft & submission process is contrary to the aims of WP:WER" or that the whole is unbalanced. I suggest discussing these issues with editors who work in that area - here is a list of active AFC editors: AFC participants. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: - I'm not suggesting there should be unreferenced articles (translated or not) on WP, what I'm objecting to is the process to resolve them. There are numerous articles on WP that are unreferenced or poorly referenced. As they are still there you could argue that the precedent is not to move them to draft. Once an article is in draft it's there for over a month even when any issues have been resolved. Moving a new article to draft seems a heavy handed and time consuming way to resolve issues. I would have thought a better approach would be to add a refimprove (or other appropriate) template and then if the issues hadn't been resolved in a reasonable time (say a week), then move it to draft.

As a relatively new editor my perception of WP's working is very negative. If you start an article or make an edit someone will jump on it straight away. (When I translated Lanterne Verte, somebody put an orphan template on it 1 minute later). Rather than encouraging people to improve of expand WP, the emphasis is on telling them what they have done wrong. Again only my perception, it seems there are more people on WP 'policing' what other people do than than there are actually contributing. If WP were a country then it would make the former East Germany (where 1 in 6 people worked directly or indirectly for the police or Stasi) look liberal.

If people tell you what you have done wrong within minutes/hours yet if you do it right (through the draft process) it takes over a month to tell you. I don't understand how you can see this as anything but unbalanced.

If a new editor takes a lot of time and effort to produce his first article and then it takes a month+ for it to be published via draft submissions, it doesn't encourage them to write another one. (My first article, which was UK specific including the title, took ages to be published and when it was the title had been changed to non-UK specific title and a globalize template added. This put me off contributing for a long time). I don't see how putting new editors off contributing by the draft process is any but contary to WP:WER.

Thanks for the info on WP:MOVE, I wasn't aware that it was possible to move your sandbox to an article. --John B123 (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@John B123: OK. I understand your position. Thanks for making it clear. I will move it out of the draft space. Just give me a day or so. Just go ahead and put an "under construction" tag on it. I also recommend moving it to your sandbox space until you feel it is ready for main space. If you have trouble doing this, I can do it for you. But it is up to you if you want to do this. If other editors give you any problems then let me know. Thanks ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: - Thanks. I've nearly finished adding refs so if you could move it in a day or two that would be appreciated. Obviously if you feel there are any issues with it at that point then add the appropriate template so I can resolve the issue. Thanks also for the info on the "under construction" tag, which may be useful in the future. --John B123 (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@John B123: I moved the page back to the main space (Window prostitution). It's all yours now :>) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

But, like I said, if other editors give you problems let me know so I can do what I can to help out. Regards. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: Thanks, I really appreciate that --John B123 (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)