User talk:Mysliar

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Mysliar! Your additions to User:Mysliar/sandbox have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Donating copyrighted materials.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. LittlePuppers (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry, could you, please, be more specific about which content was problematic? In the draft I submitted, I only used material from available from Wikipedia or photos I took myself. All quotes were in double quotation marks and properly referenced.  Mysliar (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Mysliar, the second paragraph of the introduction (now removed) appears to have been copied from https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781498599627/Central-Europe-Thirty-Years-after-the-Fall-of-Communism-A-Return-to-the-Margin (which might also be the blurb on the back of the book, but I don't have a copy so I can't say). LittlePuppers (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the clarification. That is possible: since I am also the author of this book and of the blurb on the back, it is possible that I used the same text. I did not know that Wikipedia did not allow this. Should I rewrite the second part of the introduction? Mysliar (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You being the author makes things both simpler and more complicated. It is possible for you to give Wikipedia (and the public) the permission to use the text on the back of your book; follow that link for more details.  However, it might be easier to just rewrite it.
 * The other complication is that as the author of the book, you have a conflict of interest about its article. Writing about a topic where you have a conflict of interest isn't prohibited, but it is discouraged (because, for many people, it has a tendency to lead to promotional or non-notable articles).  In this case, writing a draft article and submitting it for review (as you have done) is the best way to take this, but keep in mind that in light of conflicts of interest some reviewers tend to take a more skeptical look.
 * I realize that's kind of a lot of things at once, but let me know if you have any other questions. LittlePuppers (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks, well, the reviewers can suggest whatever changes they like to avoid a possible conflict of interest. Let them have the final word here. I think there is enough information about the contents of the book in the main body of the text, so we can simply remove the second part of the intro for now. I don't think the quality of the article will suffer too much. Mysliar (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi again,
 * sorry did you also remove the description of the individual chapters?? Why? I spent some time writing those up. Mysliar (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mysliar I've accepted this in it's current state, as I think it gives a good overview of balancing the content of the book without straying too far into WP:PLOT.  Qcne  (talk)  21:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Mysliar, it looks like that section was removed by . Generally speaking, Wikipedia tries to avoid having overly long summaries of books. LittlePuppers (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mysliar articles are based on what independent reliable sources say about a subject, not what a subject wants to say about itself. Please use WP:Edit requests should you wish to make future changes as you're discouraged from editing articles you're directly connected with. Star   Mississippi  02:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the rest of the text was also written by me, and everything was properly referenced, so really I fail to see the difference. I thought that having a brief summary of the contents would be useful to the readers and I don't see how I am an unreliable source in that context. I wasn't praising my book or providing incorrect information about what it discusses, simply summarizing it. Well, anyway, thank you for accepting it in some form.  Mysliar (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I left what was referenced to external sources. The chapters were not sourced and not encyclopedic either. Other than when speaking about your own life, individuals are rarely reliable sources. It's not personal. Star   Mississippi  14:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm afraid that, in the end, you might have a poor understanding of what a "reliable source" is. No, an individual is not necessarily a reilable source when speaking about their own life. Obviously, they can be very biased too. But this is not the point. In academia we have certain standards and procedures of peer review. If the reviewers believe that some aspects of the submission are problematic (unclear, lacking empirical evidence, in need of elaboration), they are sent back to the author with questions and suggestions for improvement. As a reviewer, I cannot imagine that I would simply delete large chunks of the text without consulting the journal editors and the authors. This is unthinkable in the scientific world. Here, obviously, it is different. Oh, well, your platform, your rules. But I'm not sure if I will ever invest any of my free time in a Wikipedia article with this review culture around. Best of luck. Mysliar (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Mysliar, sorry you've had a bad experience but please do note Wikipedia is different to the academic world and we have our own standards, policies, and guidelines that have been developed over two decades.
 * One of the fundamental pieces of this is that this is a collaborative project and no editor "owns" any piece of work. I could spend hours writing additions to an article but this could be deleted or drastically changed by other editors. I'd recommend having a read of WP:OWN which explains this in more detail.
 * For the record, @Star Mississippi was right to remove the chapter summaries in my opinion, as we have a guideline that articles should generally not dedicate significant amount of text to summaries of work.  Qcne  (talk)  10:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Mysliar, just two quick comments from skimming the discussion here: first of all, we are grateful for your work here. The draft you started has turned into, quite honestly, a pretty solid article (more so than the vast majority of drafts I come across).  Second: I think a part of the disconnect here is the difference between a journal article and an encyclopedia entry.  While an article in a journal can go into extensive depth on a very specific subject, encyclopedia articles are often written in a (somewhat) more concise way (as a tertiary source), and are written for a broader audience.  I do hope that you stick around, even though I realize you've stumbled into a bit of a difficult situation right off the bat here. LittlePuppers (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Central Europe Thirty Years after the Fall of Communism. A Return to the Margin? has been accepted
 Central Europe Thirty Years after the Fall of Communism. A Return to the Margin?, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Central_Europe_Thirty_Years_after_the_Fall_of_Communism._A_Return_to_the_Margin%3F help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing!  Qcne  (talk)  21:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Please add some WP:CATEGORIES, @Mysliar  Qcne  (talk)  21:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)