Merelcel

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (March 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by BenLinus1214 was: 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 User:Merelcel/sandbox 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.

BenLinus1214^talk 21:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Lost Son (novel) (April 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tokyogirl79 was: 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:The Lost Son (novel) 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.

Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello! 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! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Lost Son (novel) (October 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:The Lost Son (novel) may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• 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 Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Drafts

I'm not going to leave the Lost Son draft untouched forever; if you don't trim it down, or fix it, or otherwise notify me that you've saved the information soon, I'll delete it again.

Today is the 18th. I'll give you until the 24th. DS (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for giving me a little time. Much appreciated. The thing is, in order to edit my last draft, I'm trying to get FocusAndLearn to reveal his/her reason for dismissing the totality of my submission on account of what I believe are unsubstantiated allegations of copyright violations / infrigements. I will get back to you/fix the draft as soon as I receive evidence of the alleged crime, at which time I hopefully will have a clear idea of what the problem is.Merelcel (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello again. Just checked and I can no longer find the Lost Son page! I hope it hasn't been deleted. Could you please let me know the link again?Merelcel (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:The_Lost_Son_%28novel%29&action=history DS (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I just saw this post now, by chance. Now I understand why the draft wasn't deleted, DragonflySixtyseven. For the fourth time, Merelcel: the draft copied material from the specified website inside the decline template on the top of the page. If you reinstate the content, you need to exclude said material. My having blanked the page does in no way stop you from resubmitting a proper draft. Why do you keep insisting on the reason behind the blanking when it is all too obvious? On another note, if you decide to resubmit, I'm inclined to think the draft will be once again declined due to notability reasons. In order to establish a book's notability Wikipedia has a set of criteria to be fulfilled. Have a look at WP:NBOOK, and if you cannot defend any of those points then the book might not be suitable for the encyclopaedia at this time. A priori I believe it does not pass said criteria. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

To FocusAndLearn. Fourth Time? As far as I'm aware, I have yet to receive evidence of what part of the draft submission amounted to copyright violation, or, aside from accredited reviews extracts, what section of the same was "copied material" from the mentioned website. Please feel free, as I now requested a few times, to make it obvious.

Thank you for your note about notability. If you read the original draft submission, I'm not quite sure why you appear to think, a priori, that a future submission to Wikipedia should be declined due to notabilty reasons, or that the book would "not pass said criteria"; the work was positively reviewed in several mainstream newspapers in the United Kingdom and one or two in the US as well as adapted into an internationally released motion picture starring Daniel Auteuil and Nasstasja Kinski directed by the oscar winning director Chris Menges. It also was the subject of a renowned UK magazine article.Merelcel (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Merelcel (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

To DragonFly: I still can't find my draft in my sandbox. The link no longer works. Still need time and you gave me until the 24th! Wherever I look for the page, including the link you put above, I get no joy but: "This submission has been blanked because its content violates Wikipedia's policies. This page has been blanked for privacy, security, or copyright reasons. Please do not restore the content that was removed." Hope this can be sorted out.Merelcel (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven:DragonflySixtySeven: It is now the 24th and I still can't find the link to The Lost Son Draft. It would have been nice to receive a reply with the link or an explanation as to why it's gone. As I have been unable to locate the material in my sandbox, I am left to presume that in spite of your message from the 18th November, the material was deleted or made inaccessible on the 18th. So, for reasons that remain nebulous, I've lost my material, and had I wished to edit it, or received some cogent and/or lucid explanation of what was wrong with the draft from FocusandLearn in order to allow me to do so, I couldn't have done so anyway. This, together with FocusAndLearn rudeness, unhelpfulness and unfounded allegations of copyright violation, has made for a somewhat surreal and unpleasant experience. Go and figure.Merelcel (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Tls-cover-originalwithshadow.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Tls-cover-originalwithshadow.jpg, which you've attributed to non-free book cover. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you. Will do. RegardsMerelcel (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be engaged in a dispute

Disputes tend never to have useful endings. One of the best things a party in a dispute can do is to work out, either with the person they are arguing with, or with the help of others who are not involved, what is going wrong.

Obviously you wish to create an article. Good. That is why we are here. You seem to find it difficult when given the link to an area where the text has been copied into Wikipedia to work with that information. How can I help you with that? What information can I try to find for you that will show that this has, or has not, happened? Use the form {{Ping|Timtrent}} when you reply, remembering to sign your message with ~~~~ and I will be told that you have a message here for me.

I want your experience here to be good. At present you are finding things frustrating, I think. So help me by working with me a little and we will try to solve the impasse you seem to be at. Fiddle Faddle 20:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent:Hi there. Thank you for your message and apparent concern. Impasse? It's a little bit late in the story for good intentions or getting out of this one, I'm afraid. It appears Wikipedia, wrongly and thanks to FocusAndLearn, deleted my material which I have now lost. I've also had enough of this affair by now and shall see if, aside from collaborating on a piece about the experience, I can lodge a complaint with someone in the "Wikipedia organisation", not to seek redress but in the hope that it may help prevent someone else having to go through the same absurdity I just have. Rather than bore you with the story's details, I'll just paste here the message I just (tried to?) send DragonFlySixtyseven: 'It is now the 24th and I still can't find the link to The Lost Son Draft. It would have been nice to receive a reply with the link or an explanation as to why it's gone. As I have been unable to locate the material in my sandbox, I am left to presume that in spite of your message from the 18th November, the material was deleted or made inaccessible on the 18th. So, for reasons that remain nebulous, I've lost my material, and had I wished to edit it, or at any time received some cogent and/or lucid explanation of what was wrong with the draft from FocusandLearn in order to allow me to do so, I couldn't have done so anyway. This, together with FocusAndLearn rudeness, disparaging comments and unfounded allegations of copyright violation, has made for a somewhat surreal and unpleasant experience. Go and figure.' All the best Merelcel (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell your draft is at Draft:The Lost Son (novel), however there have been some changes made. Please click this link and you will see the history. Some items have been struck through by Diannaa, who will be happy to explain to you in detail why. It is likely, but not certain, that this was because material was copied from http://www.alibi-books.com/tlsauthorfilm.htm which is marked both "Copyright © Eric Leclere" and "Copyright © 1999-2015 Alibi Books (uk), All Rights reserved" And, if this is the case I can see that there is a problem.

Let me explain to you what happened. It is wise to get your facts into order before issuing accusations.

FoCuSandLeArN will have run a copyright check on the material, and will have declined it as a copyright violation, see this permalink. This process also blanks the suspected text. This is done to protect the copyright of the copyright owner. DragonflySixtyseven then declined the deletion process and Diannaa cleaned the copyright violation. Each of the latter two is likely to comment on their part in the process, and all of us are usually happy to explain our actions. FoCuSandLeArN has explained their actions, but you and they are at an impasse. I can see that they acted in good faith.

Now, if you feel there is a grievance to be pursued, first, please, ask at User talk:Diannaa for an explanation. You should then base any further actions on the reply you receive. Fiddle Faddle 21:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I wonder, Are you the Eric Leclere whose copyright statement is at the Alibi Books site? If so I have a closer understanding of the problem. If I am correct you will consider this not to be a copyright violation because you are the author. I can understand that. Unfortunately Wikipedia cannot simply accept material on the say so of an editor. Instead we have a process at WP:Donating copyright material to allow you to both prove that you are the copyright owner, and to licence it for further use.

Even if you do donate the material successfully you need to be aware that it is very unusual for text to be immediately suitable for Wikipedia. We have very particular needs for our articles. These include very clear referencing, a topic I can elaborate on for you if you wish. Fiddle Faddle 22:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Of course you are not Eric. How unobservant I am. You are, probably, the person referred to at the head of the Alibi Books article. My comment on being the author thus feeling it is not a copyright violation do still apply. I am sure you feel this is all rather arcane and very frustrating. Imagine, though, how you would feel if someone else were playing fast and loose with your copyright. We work very hard to protect copyright owners. Fiddle Faddle 22:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent:Although I believe I'd made clear I wished to draw a line under this matter and had given up all ambition to get the piece under discussion past Wikipedia's custodians of our world's knowledge, I guess, as a matter of courtesy, I ought to thank you for giving your time to this matter.

Be that as it may:

In the circumstances, I'm unsure of the helpfulness of such a line as "It is wise to get your facts into order before issuing accusations." For the avoidance of doubt, I issued no accusations, but rather displeasure and bewilderment that a behemoth organization relying on public donation should see fit and proper to rely on automated software to censure submissions on the grounds of copyright violation while at the same time declining to provide tangible verifiable evidence of the said violation. Prudence? As far as I'm aware, the only accusation made during this saga came from FocusAndLearn (although it now appears that he may have been joined in this by Diannaa) who, as operator/interpreter of Wikipedia automated violation/approval software, selected to charge me with copyright infringement, an as yet unsupported allegation which I repeatedly contested, although, if the truth be told, so much in vain. If you are referring to my labelling FocusandLearn 'rude and disparaging', a look at his responses to my queries surely should suffice to show this to be fact rather than mere loose accusations. As to whether the same FocusAndLearn 'acted in good faith', I think it better to refrain from expressing an opinion given that I happen not to know the individual concerned.

No, I'm not Eric Leclere (although I do know him); nor am I the person you describe as being 'referred to at the head of the Alibi Books article', whoever they are. And no, I do not feel all this copyright argument to be 'all rather arcane and very frustrating.' On the contrary. Although no expert, I do know a thing or two about copyright, and happen to think that vigilance about protecting intellectual property rights is paramount, especially in these fast moving ever expending media times; all the more reason to treat matters of copyright violation with due diligence, one would think, rather than move from behind automated software and opting for blind safety over common sense or correctness. Where exactly lies the merit in making gratuitous, unsubstantiated accusation of copyright infringement? Who exactly profits from such irresponble practices/policies? The mind boggles. Again, using accredited copyrighted material between quote marks - such as reviews, newspapers extracts, etc. - unless the said material is explicitly proscribed from being used, does not amount to copyright violation.

I see that Diannaa has now added their viewpoint - their message after yours - to the numbers endorsing FocusAndLearn's actions and "comportment". Like I wrote in my last message, I've had enough of this, and I will now ad that there's just too many of you ambiguated Wikipedians for one simple soul (and the majority is always right and safety in numbers and and and...). Maybe one day I'll try get a job as a librarian, or as a receptionist in a funeral parlour, or become a potter, or, like FocusAndLearn suggested I may already be, render myself blind; anyway, do something, anything, that may afford me time to stay here quarrelling with ghosts from information space about matters no Wikipedia information consumer possibly gives much care about. But not now. My draft of The Lost Son (novel) can just die, and, unless someone one day writes the book's story (which I happen to think is quite intriguing), nobody needs to, nor will ever, know about it.

Still, given that Wikipedia interpretation of the world and beyond now comes first on almost any topic in most search engines, this story makes for a worrying portend (this isn't an accusation, merely an opinion). All the best and thank you for your time.Merelcel (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Merelcel. The draft was declined and the page was blanked by FoCuSandLeArN on October 21 as a copyright violation of http://www.alibi-books.com/tlsauthorfilm.htm. It was deleted the next day by an administrator (NawlinWiki). The draft was restored by DragonflySixtyseven on November 17, but the copyright material was still visible in the page history and the draft was still marked as being a copyright violation. That's where I came in: the copyright material was hidden from view (what we call revision-deleted). Looking at the state of the page prior to the removal, the article consists of a series of lengthy quotations from reviews and a lengthy quotation from The Sunday Times that appeared at the source website http://www.alibi-books.com/tlsauthorfilm.htm. If you wish to continue with this draft I can email you a copy, but it needs a total re-write, as there's essentially no purpose-written prose there; it's just a series of quotations from copyright material. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Diannaa:Hi Diannaa. As you may know, I disagree that the submitted material contained copyright material that constituted a copyright violation, whether it came from the site you quote or anywhere else. I also beg to differ with your concluding comment about the submission that read 'there's essentially no purpose-written prose there; it's just a series of quotations from copyright material." Clearly, though, this is your opinion, so, rather than enter in yet another futile argument, it may as well be left at that. Feel free to destroy your copy of the material.Merelcel (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Merelcel/Jeremy Brooks

I saw you had created this draft on your user page. You are probably unaware that user pages may not be used for this purpose. Why would you be aware of that?

I have taken the liberty of moving it to User:Merelcel/Jeremy Brooks which is in your userspace but is not your user page. The difference may seem arcane to you, but it is the difference between deletion of the work and retention of it. The current location is in what is termed a subpage of your user space, of which you may have many. There is no practical limit.

I am about to put the template {{Userspace draft}} at the head of it, which will allow you to submit it for review when you are ready.

When you want to create more drafts, as I hope you will, you can probably see that you may create user subpages for any of them, to work on at your leisure. Fiddle Faddle 07:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent:I don't quite understand what this is about. All that IT stuff isn't my thing. If you're saying that you took the liberty to delete my Jeremy Brooks page (which until now was considered fine by the powers that be) and I need to resubmit it for review, well...Merelcel (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Please try very hard not to misunderstand and to read into what is said things which are not there. Let me attempt an explanation:

1. There are no "powers that be" save for you, me and other editors who make up the community that is Wikipedia. We, all of us, make the decisions here.
2. I have deleted nothing whatsoever.
3. The draft is now at User:Merelcel/Jeremy Brooks. I have moved it to the correct place for you to work on it
4. It has not been submitted, so resubmitting it is not required. When it is ready I you should submit it. I have given you the tool to submit it
5. There is no "IT Stuff" here. This is a matter of the correct use of a filing cabinet. IT was in the wrong drawer, and would have ben deleted for that reason. I have filed it in the right drawer

While the draft is in your user space you may consider it to be "yours" to the extent that editors are allowed a certain largesse to work unhindered in their own user space. That changes the moment you submit it for review, when it becomes very much the property of the community. At that point it is subject to much more careful scrutiny. Fiddle Faddle 20:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent:First FocusAndLearn, and now this. What is it with Wikipedians, or, apologies, the community that is Wikipedia. Your "Please try very hard not to misunderstand and to read into what is said things which are not there. Let me attempt an explanation:" is, to use two words, ungenerous and misguided. Why would I try to misunderstand? And why should you presume that I should try to misunderstand? I don't do computer things. I have no idea what is the difference between a "user page" and a "user space", and, come to think of it, I doubt many outside the Wikipedia community do. As I wrote: 'I don't quite understand what this is about'. I was being candid. I genuinely didn't understand your message, and given my late experience at the hands of the Wikipedia community, can't really be blamed for anticipating bad things such as having my efforts censored and deleted. Were I differently minded, I could throw your words back at you: 'Why did you decide to misunderstand and...' Between FocusAndLearn's rudeness and this, I guess the best thing is to keep calm and put the peas on, which I'm now off to do. All the best.Merelcel (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hackles down please. You said "If you're saying that you took the liberty to delete my Jeremy Brooks page (which until now was considered fine by the powers that be) and I need to resubmit it for review, well.." which is not anything you could have got from what I said to you. So far you seem to have misunderstood everything anyone has said. It is hardly surprising that, sometimes, one's mild exasperation shows. I apologise for offending you.

So, please to to WP:Teahouse/Questions and ask for the help you need there. Someone uninvolved will offer you the guidance that you wish to have. Fiddle Faddle 21:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:The Lost Son (novel) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:The Lost Son (novel), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:The Lost Son (novel)

Hello, Merelcel. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "The Lost Son".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2019

Hello, I'm GretLomborg. I wanted to let you know that I've blanked one of your drafts (User:Merelcel/Jeremy Brooks) due to your inactivity. If you decide to come back and start editing again, don't fret as the previous contents of the article are still available in the page history. Just click the "Undo" button next to my edit and everything will be back to like it was. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thank you.