User talk:Sacredcocreation

Sacredcocreation, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

Draft:Paul Stanford
As I think you have noticed, Iahve done some cleanup and format edits to Draft:Paul Stanford. I think it should be approved shortly -- I don't have time to do a full review tonight (US Eastern time) Some points I dealt with, for your future reference:
 * Don't bold the names of organizations, people, or entites other than the subject of the article, who is bolded on first mention in the lead sentence.
 * Book and periodical titles ahousl be in italics.
 * Wkipedia articles may be linked to, but should not be cited as sources in a ref tag.
 * Extraordinary claims reauire extraordinary evidence.
 * Don't use weasel words such as "many have said" "is considered" "scientists belive" or the like. Atrtibute to a specific source by name, or leave it out.
 * Don't make value judgemetns, or hand out praise or blame, or express opnions in Wikipedia's voice. All such staements should be explicitly attributed to a person or organization, and cited. Often direct quotes are best.
 * Independant sources are to be prefered to sources that come from or are involvd with the subject.
 * Be sure that the source supports the precise staemen it is cied to support.
 * Times should not be relative to the moment of writing or reading. "Big Mag is still being published today" "Little Store has been in buisness for 25 years" Will these be clear and accurate if a reader sees them in 2020 -- or even 2030? Instead wite "as of 2015" and "since 1990" or the like.

And some still in the article:
 * sources cited should be reliable sources. With a few limited exceptions, this means that blogs, personal webites, press releases and the like should not be cited. The main exception is that they can be cited for evidence of their own contents. "The cat-lovers announcesd that they planned a march on Washington" can be sourced to the cat-lovers blog or site, but not to a fan site, nor someone else's blog.
 * You have at least one cite to a blog in the draft, I haven't yet checked it to see if any of the exceptions apply, but if you have an alternate source for that facrt, you might wantr to condsider it.
 * You have a number of what look like good source citations, but they aren't yet used to support any facts in the article. It would be good to use them, perhaps extracticng facts and adding them to the article and citing them, or using the sources to support currently uncited facts (if they support such facts).

I hope all this is helpful. Good luck. DES (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello DESiegel,

I can correct all of these things as I probably have a few days work putting together this Wiki entry, but it has been deleted. How do I go about correcting these things on a deleted article? Do I start over from scratch? Plus the person who deleted the page did not give me specific examples of what he felt was a copyright infringement. How am I supposed to know exactly what I did wrong if nothing specific was said. I was told that I violated copyright infringement policies, but I can't figure out where. Alot of the information on the entry was taken from the entry's subject's websites. I thought this was OK, as I have permission from him to use whatever material off his websites as I deemed necessary.

Please help as I'm a first time editor and this is frustrating for me. I don't understand how things can be simply deleted without giving me specific examples of what I did wrong. I want to make this right, but don't understand the path forward. Some clarity would be appreciated.

Thank you,

Christopher

Talkback
There are copyright issues which need urgent attention. DES (talk) 05:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

I hope this is the way I'm supposed to respond to what happened to the entry I was creating. Apparently it's been deleted because of copyright infringement. That was never my intention. I'm a first time Wiki editor and I'd like the chance to make this right and get the article approved. How do I start working on the article to make it improved if the article was deleted? Do I have to start over from scratch? Can you be more specific about what you felt were the copyright infringements? I don't remember quoting anything directly from news sources. Alot of the stuff on the page was used by permission from the pages subject, Paul Stanford. I am still pretty unclear about what I did wrong, and how to correct it so any help would be appreciated.

Thank you,

Christopher

Sacredcocreation (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello. If you used anything from the subject's page, you need actual proof that the text was released under the appropriate license. Ie, have the owner of the material read the license and e-mail one of the people listed at wp:OTRS. If you do that, and everything is in order, the page should get un-deleted by an admin. You can find a form e-mail here. Otherwise, you can also just recreate your page minus the stuff from the subject's page. If you ask nicely, an admin will probably give you back the reference list so you can reuse it. This might be the simplest option given that most people's websites do not present them in the formal, encyclopedic tone Wikipedia requires. Anyway, don't take it too hard that the draft got deleted. It happens to everyone. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask! Happy Squirrel (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Happysquirrel,

I gave Paul Stanford (the subject of the Wiki page) the links for the license and he said he will fill it out and email it back. I'm having trouble figuring out who and how to email one of the OTRS people. There seems to be a list of people;

Cbrown1023 · Daniel · Keegan · Mailer Diablo · Rjd0060 · Tiptoety

Those are the only people listed on the OTRS page. Is one of them the best to deal with these issues? Also having trouble finding direct email addresses for some of them. A couple say that I can email them for private matters. Is this considered a private matter? Any help you can give regarding the best person to contact and the way to do that is appreciated.

Thank you,

Christopher


 * Hello, sorry about linking the wrong page. info-en@wikimedia.org is probably the best, since the issue is not about an image. Happy editing! Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Paul Stanford


A tag has been placed on Draft:Paul Stanford 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://paul-stanford.com/index.php/about-paul-stanford/. 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. Gparyani (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paul Stanford (July 31)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Flat Out 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:Paul Stanford and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Paul_Stanford Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flat_Out&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Paul_Stanford reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Flat Out (talk) 03:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paul Stanford has been accepted
 Paul Stanford, 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. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Sulfurboy (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 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&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Paul_Stanford help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

November 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Paul Stanford. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for attempted outing of another editor and edit-warring. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. ~ Rob 13 Talk 16:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)