Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 August 21

= August 21 =

New submission - misplaced
Hey,

I have submitted a new article - but at the top, it says the the "This article has recently been created via the Articles for creation process. The reviewer is in the process of closing the request, and this tag should be removed soon." How can I change it to put it in "Review waiting" status. What do I have to do? Please help.

Regards HSeyedi (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It was up for review, and I declined it. The big thing I noticed is that the article could use better references.  The third reference is a blog (so it isn't considered reliable).  The second is a good-looking source, but there is only a quick mention of the subject of the article you have written (reliable source, but doesn't help with establishing notability).  The first source is a primary source (which doesn't help with notability).  The good news is, that first source (the primary source) is basically a list of sources to look at and use.  It should be possible to make this acceptable, but it would fail as it is right now.  --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Wiki article
Actually this article is not about myself. I am making for Hector Bado, whom I know. Wiki is really complicated! Not at all user friendly. I've designed many websites but this is difficult. I'll try to figure it out.

is there a step-by-step tutorial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hectorbado (talk • contribs) 03:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your username should probably be changed, then, as it would imply that you are editing on behald of another person. Your article submission was completely unsourced, which is in violation of the policy concerning articles about living people.  It was also written like a resume, which is against another policy.  --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Editing question
I received the following comment from Dianna for simply adding citations and updating the Sean Combs page. I am here as a volunteer to increase the state of information. I found her reaction as well as the unusual vigilance afforded this page quite puzzling. Here is her statement:

"Hello, Scholarlyarticles. I am Dianna and I am an administrator on this wiki. My attention was drawn to your edits by your addition to the article on Sean Combs, and I am now checking out your other contributions. One of your addtions to the article on Eli Broad has been removed because the content was lifted verbatim from the source, in violation of copyright law. Another addition was removed because the is not backed up by the quoted source. Other material was removed because it appeared to be speculation on your part, which should never appear in Wikipedia articles. I will be checking all of your article edits for violations. Please be sure to read the material at these links before making any more changes to our articles: WP:BLP; WP:COPYVIO; WP:OR. -- Dianna (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)"

Here is my response:

I believe the material she's referring to on Broad was sourced and is appropriately consolidated into the article under the "fair use" law and is therefore not a violation of copyright law. She also stated that my source did not back up my content on Broad. I believe here she is referring to the Bruck article on Broad, of Dec 6 2010. Please note that one cannot receive the article in its entirety on the Internet but must buy it from the New Yorker. She could not, within the 15 minutes she spent between the time I updated Combs and she began critiquing all of my work, have possibly done this. Perhaps it is difficult therefore to judge without ordering this original article. I'm glad to do so and send anyone at Wikipedia a copy so that they can resolve this issue.

Finally, I must say that I find it extraordinary that updating a page (Combs) by adding a few new articles that emerged in July and August would bring such a swift and harsh reaction. Clearly, one would not have the time to read these articles before immediately removing them. (They were removed within 1 minute). It's as if there is an extra vigilance provided to this page. As it has been referenced t in the Talk section of the Combs page before, the Sean Combs page reads as an advertisement. Very little of his indictments, violent acts, or lawsuits against him are there. I have no particular interest in this person.

However, I am a huge Wikipedia fan and I wouldn't like to think that a contributor would be punished in all their writings for simply daring to update Combs' page. I thought that it was the intention of Wikipedia have the public update new and accurate information. When properly sourced information is removed within a minute and the writer is castigated by removing all of his or her edits with 10 minutes following his or her  contribution (clearly before the contributions could be accurately evaluated) it is a cause for concern to the Wikipedia community. No one should feel intimidated by an individual referenced on this site. Different information should be resolved by qualified editors who have read the material in question. If I offended any Combs fans it was certainly not my intention. My intention is to add to the state of information in these areas I write about. I hope this clarifies my motives. I would however, respectfully request that a review of the treatment of the Combs page might be illuminating and should be conducted by those with the most experience at Wikipedia.

All the best, SA


 * There are several tools used to check for copyright violations, as this is both a common problem and a significant liability. Some tools will look at all recent changes, meaning that responses this quick are not uncommon.  The editor (or the editor's tools) may well have had access to the paid content.  Note that if you were to copy the original and send it anywhere, that would also be a copyright violation in the USA (which matters here because Wikipedia's servers are located there).  I am looking through the other editor's changes removing what you added to ensure everything looks as it should.  If you take issue with individual, sourced information you feel should be included that was removed, please feel free to post on the article's talk page.  Note that this article is subject to more stringent requirements because it is about a living person.  Everything must be verifiable and sourced.  --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In-depth look shows that the edits all seem justified. I checked both the edit summaries and the edits themselves and everything seemed proper.  --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay. thanks. Some of my previous efforts were criticized for not relying on outside references so I tried to use as many outside references as I could. I think some of them may have a few words that were in the same sequence as the article I referenced, but I clearly gave the articles credit and my articles in their entirety were not substantially similar to the articles on which they were based. All seemed to to meet the "fair use" criterion. Their was a parallelism in the information and there are only a limited number of ways to to say the same thing. I correctly designated the origin of the information. I think some of the misunderstanding was due to the fact that I had not had situation arise before, as it had on last night on one particular page - that is, each time I tried to update a reference (with an excellent and verifiable source), my comments were immediately deleted (within 30 seconds.)  I had never run into the situation of the repeated challenge because, frankly, I check my references. However, it appears that the Combs page has an extraordinary and baffling level of protection. So when this happened 3 times in a row, in a frame during which there was clearly not enough time for the editor to check the reference, I proceeded by trying to correct it. I was not at that point familiar with the talk page to resolve this sort of repeated challenge as I had never encountered such a barrage in my many months here. Perhaps one editor felt that I was flouting convention intentionally. I did not realize her comments advising me to  move to the talk page until the next morning as this all happened within a few minutes last night. Either way. within a half a day, all of my recent contributions to Wikipedia were wiped out for one reason or another. I have not had this experience before here. One editor stated that she would be looking for errors in my articles since the "edit war." hmm. The recent articles I've written here were about renown people in the community, in the news of late, people who should have a Wikipedia page and don't. Anyone following news in the art world would be looking for such pages. These articles seemed to have general importance. To wipe them out because of increased surveillance of me as Wiki user, and because of dispute on a Sean Combs page (which as other reviewers have noted reads like a Puffy advertisement and in which the article I added could clearly not have been checked within the time frame during which it was erased) seems unfortunate for the reader of Wikpedia and frankly for Wikipedia. The fact that these happened so swiftly (within 15 hours) after this "edit war," (in which I did not know that I was engaged) made it seem related to my attempt to correct and update erroneous information. It is still curious to me that many questions exist on Comb'sTalk page and yet the gist of the material remains very much the same as it has always been. As one reviewer commented, it reads as if it were an advertisement. This is unfortunate because Wikipedia is a reference source where people still feel they can still get reliable information, amidst the wild swirling rumors and inaccuracies of the Internet. Somehow I feel that the process should be (and generally is) protective of all users. As a corollary, the vigorous protection of one page, to the detriment of users contributing in good faith seems unfortunate. And that the automatic assault on any user who tries to update, correct or balance the information on that page, seems likewise an assault on the integrity of Wikipedia. Within minutes of trying to add a reference to one page, I was barraged with assaults on my integrity. If there were any words in my articles similar to articles I'd used in research to those used in ones I had created it was because I was trying to document carefully. I understand your point that reasonable minds can disagree, but when an editor does so within 1 minute, and there is clearly not enough time to to base the disagreement on new facts that have been read and assimilated or even considered, the reasonable minds are not functioning as they should in a disagreement. As (I think it was) Tip O'Neil once said, you're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. I hope this clarifies my position. It's not as if I don't think I'm capable of an error, it is that the protection of the Combs page in contrast to Wiki users acting in good faith and the barrage of assaults that follow on users who challenge it seems to be an issue that is worth examining.``` I hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarlyarticles (talk • contribs) 03:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm going to post a reply on your talk page so that this doesn't get archived before you get a chance to see it. --Nouniquenames (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Chandrika Balan
Dear Sir / Madam,

Thank you very much for accepting my entry of Chandrika Balan for the esteemed Wikipedia. I am sending herewith two links that mention her as translator as you needed citation for that. I am also sending a few scanned documents which contain scholarly studies on her stories and also a profile-interview of her done by The Hindu. I have noticed only now that you accept writings in Malayalam too. Kindly advise how I can cut and paste the scanned copies. I could not do it.

Is it possible to include her pen-name Chandramati in Malayalam script as you have done for many other writers from Malayalam? Regards

1.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=QA1V7sICaIwC&pg=PA220&lpg=PA220&dq=Katha+award+for+translation+B.Chandrika&source=bl&ots=i_p897TLCc&sig=xPDZjiJBRFavrM6pgbVzV386iG0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7m0yUKGoEIn3rQeWi4HICQ&sqi=2&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Katha%20award%20for%20translation%20B.Chandrika&f=false

Who is Who of Indian Writers, Sahitya Akademi 1999. Page 220. Contains evidence for the Katha translation award.

2.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=3-tjAAAAMAAJ&q=Chandrika+Balan&dq=Chandrika+Balan&source=bl&ots=f3Tnk34zUZ&sig=ycj8G5vLMJh1W2t02LQuX2etDJo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o28yUO6BE8rHrQe-hIBw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA

Mentions Chandrika as translator. Her translation has come in the Penguin anthology of poems In Their Own Voice edited by Arlene Zide of the University of Chicago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panank (talk • contribs) 12:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Those sources should be added to the article, not to this help desk. I'm not quite sure what you mean by seding scanned copies of sources. If the source is available only on paper, we should refer to that paper source. A scanned image hosted somewhere o the web might be convenient for our readers, but it's not a reliable source on its own without reference to where that scan came from. If the scan is an image, I don't think you can "cut and paste" from it, or maybe I misunderstand what you want to do.
 * Of course it's possible to include her pen name in Malayalam; however, I cannot type that script (and I cannot read or write it either, so even if I could technically type it, I wouldn't know what to type). You'll have to do so yourself. Huon (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Submission of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Delta Psi Chi Fraternity, Inc.
Hello,

I have made corrections for Wikipedia talk:Articles_for_creation/Delta_Psi_Chi_Fraternity,_Inc. but I don't see the option to have it submitted again like I did in the past.

How can I move this process along?

DPC1985 (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You can re-submit a draft by adding   to the very top. However, I don't think you have addressed any of the issues that led to the previous declines: The article's tone is still anything but neutral, it still does not have inline citations or footnotes, the sources are still mostly primary sources and don't establish the topic's notability (they also don't actually support the article's content).
 * Worst of all, it's a thinly veiled copyright violation of the fraternity's own website. That should be fixed immediately or the draft will have to be deleted. For now I have declined the re-submission, blanked the draft and nominated it for speedy deletion. Huon (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Review of User:Hardy1956/sandbox
Is there something wrong with my submission at User talk:Hardy1956/sandbox? I sent it in six weeks again and hindrds have been reviewed since ten. Is it in the wrong place? I go tired qand then submitted the companion article. Anything I can do to move it along?

hardy1956


 * Apparently the draft wasn't submitted for review. I have done so for you. However, there's a backlog of several hundred drafts awaiting review, and it may take a few days until yours gets reviewed. Please be patient. Huon (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have moved the submission into its preferred place in the AfC Namespace. John F. Lewis (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John G. (Steve) Broady
Still not quite clear how to add citations to the text. If the reference is listed below, what do I do exactly to cite? Thank you. Draft article "John G. (Steve) Broady"Lhugle (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Linda Hugle


 * You can enclose the text you want in a footnote in tags. When you add the reflist template to a references section at the end of the article, that template will automatically display the footnotes. For further explanations, see Help:Footnotes. I've provided examples right here; you can edit this section to see how footnotes work. As an aside, some of your content seems to be at odds with your references. The draft says Broady pleaded not guilty to the wiretapping charges, yet one of the NYT articles has the headline: "BROADY PLEADS GUILTY; Wiretapper Faces Additional Jail Terms for Conspiracy". And at the end the draft seems to engage in some unverifiable speculation about Broady's death. Huon (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Schimmel
I'd like to just use this article for Paul Schimmel would I simply add this to his talk page and wipe out the article I did?

Copyright problems with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Schimmel
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Schimmel, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://cn-tmp.artinfo.com/news/story/811291/paul-schimmels-22-year-tenure-at-la-moca-from-california-conceptualism-to-murakami-maximalism. As a copyright violation, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Schimmel appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Schimmel has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Schimmel and send an email with the message to . See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Schimmel with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Schimmel.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want to have the draft deleted, you can add the db-user template to the very top, and it will speedily be deleted. But when the draft has copyright problems (and it currently has, closely following the article pointed out in that message), it's unsuitable for any place in Wikipedia, including your own user talk page or any other talk page. We take copyright seriously. Huon (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/IF---! (Thrilling Wonder Stories)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/IF---! (Thrilling Wonder Stories)

When I uploaded my article, the reference disappeared from one of my pictures, but when I try to "edit" the copy doesn't include any image tags - but the images show up in the article for review.

How to I get to the picture editing?

Dore&#39; Ripley (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Dore' Ripley


 * The images are created by this code:
 * If-June-1937.jpg
 * I've turned the image into a thumbnail; apparently the non-thumbnail version didn't correctly display the caption. I don't know what went wrong and haven't tried to fix that; maybe the picture tutorial would be of help if the thumbnail workaround is insufficient.
 * The draft currently has but a single secondary source, and that does not seem to mention the article's subject. Unless significant coverage in secondary sources, such as independent reviews, exists, the IF---! series does not appear to be independently notable. Maybe it's better to merge what we can support by secondary sources into the main Wonder Stories article? Huon (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)