User talk:ClopperAlmon

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text to the top of the article.)
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the [ reviewer's talk page]. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  01:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alfred H. Bartles concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alfred H. Bartles, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. 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) 13:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alfred H. Bartles


A tag has been placed on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alfred H. Bartles requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://discoverarchive.vanderbilt.edu/jspui/bitstream/1803/5172/1/AHBwiki_JSch_3-30-2012.pdf. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello, ClopperAlmon, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style

The draft of your article submitted to Wikipedia has been deleted
Unfortunately with over 4,300,000 articles, Wikipedia is not able to respond in person to every submission and much of the communication is done by bots and templates. The red links in the names of the templates above show that the article you had submitted has been deleted.

When gathering content for Wikipedia articles, it is better to think of yourself as a "compiler" than a "writer".

There is a reason for Wikipedia's rules. Without the requirement that the content be verifiable as having been previously published by a reliable source and forbidding original research and interpretation by the Wikipedia editors, I could write an article about Bartles and say that he was from Timbuktu, he had 47 children and wrote music for the nose flute and his music was beloved by Hitler - and who are you to say otherwise because I am the dean of Music at Oxford and so you have to believe me.

It is an odd way of writing for those who do normal scholarly writing, but that's pretty much the way it has to be for Wikipedia to work. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Your article which was deleted for copyright reasons
Dear ClopperAlmon: As the one who nominated your article for deletion on copyright grounds, I would like to explain what happened:  Some time ago, you submitted the article by typing it and clicking on the "save" button, next to which is this message: By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. The terms of that license indicate that you are licensing the text, right then, to be used and republished by anyone, provided that Wikipedia is indicated as the source.

The article was reviewed and a note was left at the top stating that it didn't have enough references to independent sources. As you can see from the blue notice further up this page, you were invited to continue working on it. On the article's page (no longer there) was a button to click to submit the improved page. Many people continue working on their submissions and they become Wikipedia articles, but others do not. Of those who do not, some delete or request deletion of their pages, but some just go away without indicating their intentions, and after a while there is a big backlog of older submissions. Periodically we check to see how these are doing, and delete any that are unlikely to become articles. We always leave a message on the submitter's talk page, but because there are so many (about 50,000 right now, and four or five people checking) it's usually an automated message.

As one of the checkers, I try to keep any material that with a little work could become a good article. (Remember, it's licensed to Wikipedia at this point.) However, for legal reasons Wikipedia tries very hard not to include copyright material, so I check each one as I go along. Before marking a submission as a copyright problem, I check to make sure that the "licensed from Wikipedia" notice is not on any other published copy that I find, and I try (but can't always find) a date on the other site to see which text was added first. In case of doubt, for legal reasons I have to assume that the other site had it first and delete. That's what happened here.

If you ever do find some independent sources for your topic, you could still use the original text as the basis for the article provided that you ask the owners of the other site to include an attribution to Wikipedia so that it was clear that the text was freely licensed. I am sorry that you felt that we were being self-righteous; the real reason for taking the copyright problem so seriously is to prevent lawsuits.

Yours truly, &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have created an article on Alfred Bartles. I read through your paper and some other book and journal sources and concluded his full time tenure at Tennessee Technological University alone suggested he met the notability criteria for an article. The article is currently a stub, but if you would like to expand it, you would be more than welcome. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   11:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

My view of the sequence of events
I can easily understand your irritation.

My goal is to persuade you that the sequence of events, while seemingly absurd on their face, aren't quite as capricious as they might seem to you. I won't try to persuade you that the Wikipedia response was ideal—it wasn't.

First, one of the pillars of Wikipedia is that it is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. This simple little statement leads to two consequences, both of which make sense, but neither of which might be immediately obvious.

If we want to allow anyone to edit, we want to have as low a hurdle to become an editor as possible. This means no complicated registration process that requires you to prove who you are, or identify your areas of expertise. You can even edit without registration, but if you choose to register, as you did, we don;t make any attempt to connect ClopperAlmon with any real person in real life.

The second consequence comes from the fact that we are an encyclopedia, which is a tertiary reference, a compilation of material already published elsewhere. If Wikipedia existed when Einstein first came up with his theories, and he submitted them to Wikipedia first, they would be rejected. Not because we are so self-righteous that we know better than him whether his theories are solid; in fact just the opposite. We do not have the process, the mechanisms, or the personnel to evaluate original research. This doesn't mean original research is bad (although you might get that impression by some of our reactions to it). Original research is very valuable, but it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. The fact that Wikipedia rejected material that Vanderbilt felt was publishable is not a misplaced view that Wikipedia is better than Vanderbilt—just the opposite. Vanderbilt has the peer review processes, and the expertise to evaluate the material. Congratulations on having it accepted by them.

The next step seems rude, but I hope you will come to view it with a wry smile rather than irritation.

Once Vanderbilt published your material, two important facts are relevant, neither of which are immediately obvious.
 * 1) The is no simple connection between the real person who published the material with Vanderbilt and the user name ClopperAlmon. Remember our simple registration process. We will let anyone on the face of the earth establish the user name ClopperAlmon. While it is obvious to you that the person who published with material at the Vanderbilt site is the same person behind the user name, it is not obvious to us. (There is a process, which I will get to )
 * 2) I do not know the exact nature of the agreement between you and Vanderbilt regarding the material submitted to them. However, someone owns the copyright, and it is not ClopperAlmon (It may be the real person behind that user name, but that's different.) While it seems exceedingly rude to tell you that your material is reject as a copyright violation, we are doing this for the benefit of the copyright holder. Once the material is in Wikipedia, it is licensed under a CC 3.0 license. That license allows anyone, anywhere to use it, modify it, rewrite it, do just about anything to it as long as attribution is provided. That might be acceptable to the copyright holder, but it might not be. We want to err on the side of caution. When we see material in Wikipedia which matches material elsewhere, we want to ensure that it is properly licensed elsewhere for use in Wikipedia. If we cannot verify that, we want to remove it, otherwise we might be violating a copyright, one which you may well own.

If the copyright holder (whether you or Vanderbilt) is comfortable providing a license for use, we have a process which involves sending an email from an identifiable address into our OTRS system. (See Donating copyrighted materials for more information)

Again, while I wish we could find a less rude way of sharing this information with you, our goal is the protection of the copyright holder. I hope you will be able to retell this story as an amusing anecdote, rather than a source of irritation.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  19:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)