Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 March 14

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< March 13 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 15 >
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.


March 14

edit

05:55:54, 14 March 2016 review of submission by Katie.e.carr

edit


Hi. I have a couple items I need help with on this page. I would like to add an info box below the photo about C. K. Gunsalus, but cannot figure out how to do that. I would also like to add categories, but haven't been able to figure that out yet. Additionally, I got permission from the photographer via email to use the photo on the page, but am not sure how to submit it correctly. Right now it says that I took the photo, but that is not correct. Can you please help me with these items? Thanks! Katie Katie.e.carr (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Katie.e.carr, This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Since C. K. Gunsalus has already been accepted into article space, it's outside our scope. I've added a basic infobox and a couple categories to the article to get you started. You can find more information in:
If you have further questions about this, please consider asking at the Wikipedia:Help desk - where editors will try to answer any question regarding how to use Wikipedia. Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

05:55:59, 14 March 2016 review of submission by Janep67

edit


Please could you help me with 2 things. Firstly, i created 'Leonard Jacobson (Author and Teacher)' as a new submission and I accidently saved this, meaning it is out there as a wikipedia page in the namespace. i deleted the content because it is not correctly referenced. Then I created a draft in the articles for creation space, which is what i meant to do in the first place (sorry!) I have submitted this for review. Now there are 2 pages with the same name. Can the 1st one be deleted? Secondly, I read your citations guidelines but i am still stuck. My references section has ended up being listed in numerical order 1-20 instead of 9 references and where repeated, listed as a, b, c etc Could you please help me? How do i keep repeated references together under one footnote?? Thank you so much for your assistance, Kind regards Jane

Janep67 (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12:17:34, 14 March 2016 review of submission by 79.78.155.119

edit

This draft of this article has been denied. Can you tell me the reason for this?

79.78.155.119 (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 79.78.155.119, I've elaborated in a comment on the draft about what is keeping it from being accepted. Worldbruce (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:19:28, 14 March 2016 review of submission by Solers1501

edit


Hi there! I've just created a new page on Wikipedia, and I had problems with the images I uploaded. I wanted to modify the position of some of them and when I pressed the "Save" button, they dissappeared - not the legend but the file. I've sent the article for review without those references, I hope you accept it and then I could add the ones left.

One more thing.. I want to help Wikipedia and become a reliable user by editing some articles, but my mother tongue is Spanish . So.. Could you tell me how can I get to edition-needed articles in Spanish?

Thank you!

Stefania Solers1501 (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined For the reasons explained on Draft:Cosmopolita Scotland.
Here are some of the ways fluent Spanish speakers can contribute to Wikipedia:
--Worldbruce (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:27:57, 14 March 2016 review of submission by SoRU2

edit

Hi I got a message from a friend of mine: she had written her first article ever, trying to get everything right on the topic she wanted to write about (the European Union's first macro regional strategy: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:The_European_Union_Strategy_for_the_Baltic_Sea_Region_(EUSBSR)&action=edit&redlink=1 ). She can not (because of reasons) do anything about this at the moment and asked me figure out how the information can be retrieved so that she can rephrase it if necessary. - I'm also a newbie, as you might have realized by now :-)

She wrote a draft, got a flag for clear copyright infringement: "This article or image appears to be a direct copy from wiki.polskibreivik.pl/page_Draft:The_European_Union_Strategy_for_the_Baltic_Sea_Region_(EUSBSR).html "

- my problem with this is that the article that the link leads to doesn't contain anything except for some links leading to pornographic material (or so it claims, I didn't really follow the links all the way after the "are you younger than 18?"-warning...)

Since my friends article is deleted, I can't really see what she wrote, but from what she has told me, I don't think it was a copyright infringement - the only thing I can think of is if she used a picture that wasn't CC-tagged.

She has written to one of the two users who either flagged or deleted her article (don't know which one) but has not yet received any reply some ten days later, so I ask you instead: is there a way for me to get the original text back to make the necessary changes?

Revision as of 18:44, 10 February 2016 by Robert_McClenonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robert_McClenon (Notification: Your Articles for Creation submission has been declined (AFCH 0.9))

Latest revision as of 04:16, 3 March 2016 by Boomer Vial [[1]] (Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Draft:The European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR). (TW))


SoRU2 (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't get an original version of an article undeleted or userfied if it contained copyright violation. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Hi SoRU2, Robert McClenon is correct that a copyright violation cannot be undeleted, but on closer inspection this turns out not to be a copyright violation. Instead of the draft copying another website, it was the other way around. So Draft:The European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) has been restored. You and/or AnastasiiaKlonova are welcome to continue improving it. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Robert McClenon and Worldbruce!

SoRU2 (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:46:28, 14 March 2016 review of submission by Nmalekal

edit

Hi, I recently wrote a userspace draft for Association House of Chicago. It was deleted due to copyright violations with the history and mission sections. I needed to rewrite those sections, however before I had the opportunity to remove and rewrite that section, the page was deleted. I am asking for the AHC draft to be readded to my userspace so I may continue to work on it and then resubmit it for review. I would like my work not to have been completely deleted as it was limited access to my userspace. Thank you, Nmalekal Nmalekal (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has been resolved; an administrator has restored the non-infringing content at Draft:Association House of Chicago. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 20:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21:10:25, 14 March 2016 review of submission by Jean T. Cullen

edit

Cullen328 and others: I find it amazing that you didn't check or understand my citations (Mike Ashley, SFE, etc) but went right ahead and blocked my article.

The story I have to tell is factual. There is only one piece of opinion in it, which I can delete because people will figure out the truth for themselves from the facts. Let the world decide: Either Clocktower Books was or was not in 1996 the first publisher (and I the first author) in history to publish true e-books online according to the criteria I have very carefully listed after years of consideration and experience in the subject matter:

1) proprietary, not public domain, therefore no comparison with Michael Hart's Gutenberg Project; 2) entire novels, not sample chapters or teasers; 3) totally online in HTML format; no CD-ROMs, floppy disks, or other portable media involved;

I don't know of anyone else who did this before I began publishing my novels online in spring/summer 1996. Let historians decide, unless you want to decide for them. If you want to take it upon yourself and make the call to block this article, I apparently cannot stop you. Whatever, the fact remains that we were doing this in 1996. That information also belongs on the timeline (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-book).

There are two components (required Wikipedia pages) to this story: (1) Clocktower Books: the publishing effort my friend Brian Callahan and I launched in April 1996 quickly became a publishing house, growing out of two small, primitive websites. We really were innovators on many fronts before e-commerce. This is not opinion but fact, and I have the citations to prove it. It is not original research (I've gone back to read Wikipedia on synth and sources--primary, secondary, and tertiary).

(2) On 15 April 1998, Brian and I launched what became the world's oldest professional Web-only online magazine of speculative and dark fiction. We published 72 issues over a decade, including many talented authors who went on to win all the top awards and/or nominations in the field (Hugo, Nebula, Sturgeon, Prix Aurora in Canada, British Fantasy Award, Bram Stoker, etc). All this is cited by Mike Ashley at SFE, and will appear in print soon from University of Liverpool Press in the UK under Mike Ashley's name. I'll be happy to put you in touch with him if you need to verify it. I have not yet submitted the draft. I don't need to bother if you block the first one.

None of this is opinion. All of it is fact. I don't see you belittling Simon & Schuster or Harper or Hachette or Bertelsmann in New York, so why go after me? It's been an uphill struggle for twenty years effective next month, against all the resistance in the world from the print industry and their acolytes. I can remove the one opinion piece--whether our 1996 was first--but the facts will speak for themselves if you allow them to be on Wikipedia--it's an important piece of history for historians to decide. In 1996 we already had readers around the world.

What I do know for sure is that in 1996 I was publishing my novels on line, in a way that led to important consequences (like being a recognized publisher at International Thriller Writers, and having a unique publisher ISBN, and more) and from there a chain of events unfolded that affected many people and still does today.

Consider, for example, that Clocktower Books is already listed on Wikipedia. Take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_group-0_ISBN_publisher_codes. Look down the list to Clocktower Books.

7432 Simon & Schuster, Scribner 7433 Clocktower Books [1] (formerly Clocktower Fiction) Since 1996; refs include ITW-recognized [2]; SF-Encyclopedia [3] 7434 Pocket Books

What do we see on that list? We see Clocktower Books (prefix 7433) nestled between Simon & Schuster, Scribner (7432) and Pocket Books (7434).

What it tells a reasonable person (who checks facts and examines references, and does not see how fast he can kill new articles in draft form without understanding them) is that Clocktower Books has an important place in publishing history. I don't need to look up S&S, Scribner, or Pocket Books to ascertain that they have links on Wikipedia. A person researching publishers would well want to know more about Clocktower Books, so this is not "oh just any old thing that happened in the universe" as Cullen328 puts it so blithely. Wikipedia readers and researchers deserve to know what Clocktower Books is all about, I want to tell them, and you want to block the information.

Telling that true history requires exactly what I am trying to do here on the 20th anniversary of our founding of Clocktower Books and soon after that a history-making online magazine. This is something that should have been posted years ago. For historical reasons, it never happened. I don't care if I post it or someone else does, but it needs to be out there. It's not opinion, or advertising, or conflict of information--and it is not original research--it's purely historical fact, backed by powerful facts and references. I submitted a draft as I was invited to do, and you have nixed it without even looking at the references--your words, Cullen328, tell that story. You have no interest in this topic, and you didn't check the references. How can anyone block an article with wishy-washy language like "may" and "whoever the publisher maybe" and so forth?

You did not even address half of it. For example, why and how Clocktower Books has its own ISBN Prefix (978-0-7433); and a whole lot of other info the world will never learn if you block this key historical information.

Here is Mike Ashley (a world expert in the field, vetted by his publisher, Liverpool University Press in the UK, in addition to being a prolific author and anthologist) at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Ashley_(writer)#Story_of_the_Science_Fiction_Magazines_series Here is the SF Encyclopedia (online edition): http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/ and also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Encyclopedia_of_Science_Fiction Here is the page http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/far_sector on which he talks about both Clocktower Books (originally Clocktower Fiction) and our magazine Far Sector SFFH). Finally, here is his university press publisher, where he informed me he plans to elaborate about these projects I and other authors have been involved in: (see: http://liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/)

So, we can go one of two ways. You can help me get this information out there on Wikipedia in the best way doable--or you can block the information for all the wrong reasons.

There is a timeline (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-book) that Clocktower Books and Far Sector SFFH need to be on. Your call. I wanted to build the case step by step. We won't get there at this rate. So the missing pieces will not be filled in. Someone has to do it. I waited for others to pick up the ball (20 years) but nobody did. If I don't do it, nobody will. I didn't want to get involved in this, which is a major reason why it's taken so long, but here we are.

You may not know or care who Mike Ashley and SFE and Karen Wiesner are, or Locus Online or Georgetown University or SFF Net…. or how Clocktower Books ended up with its own ISBN prefix. Could there be a reason? You may not care about Internet publishing history or facts. Could people on the Internet and Wikipedia deserve to know? Do you really want to elbow this stuff off the table without even taking time to understand it?

I can move the citations from the Clocktower Books Museum pages to the proposed Wikipedia article. The citations are not mine to control (you are wrong about that and other things you said). The citations speak for themselves. I have rescued them from ephemera and loss through timely searches and researches. My articles are part of history and need to be there. I can make changes.

I am willing to work with you if you are willing to work with me. I thought that was the idea of a draft process. Let me know. Or we just move on, leaving an info hole that could have been filled in. Jean-Thomas Cullen Jean T. Cullen (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Jean T. Cullen (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To establish that the subject of the proposed article is notable, you need to provide several references to reliable independent published sources with significant discussion of the subject. Like everyone here, I am a volunteer, and don't want to check all the references you gave; those that I did check were all unacceptable (to the subject's own web site, or with just a mention of the subject). If there are any acceptable sources in there, I suggest you remove the worthless ones, and make the good ones easier for the next reviewer to find. Maproom (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

22:56:12, 14 March 2016 review of submission by Janep67

edit


Hello, yesterday i had a page that I wrote accepted by the reviewers. It has been posted as 'Leonard Jacobson (Author)' Jacobson is predominantly known as a Spiritual Teacher rather than an Author (although he is the author of 5 books) Is it possible to change his name on wikipedia to Leonard Jacobson (Spiritual Teacher) ?? Many thanks Jane Janep67 (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Janep67:, these "disambiguation" descriptions in the parentheses aren't at all a binding summary of someone, they're just a way to try to distinguish people with similar names. They're always kept as short and simple as possible, so we often get people confused and displeased that we change "John Arglebargle (tennis player)" to "John Arglebargle (athlete)" since they feel it's over-simplifying, but the whole point is that if there aren't multiple athletes with that same name, "athlete" works functionally to help separate him from an artist or politician of the same name. In short, I really wouldn't worry about disambiguation terms unless they're totally inaccurate, or unless there are indeed multiple authors of the same name he's easily confused with. But your question is a good one, and never hurts to ask, but I don't think it's really a problem. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2016_March_14&oldid=710954065"