Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 December 28

= December 28 =

Articles for creation/Infastech
Hi, I was wondering why copywrite would be an issue if a copywritten source in the public domain is referenced and or quoted in an atricle, can any experienced reviewers / wiki content writers explain this? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Infastech Danpils (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure I understand this question. Sources in the public domain are not subject to copyright and may be used freely on Wikipedia, though Wikipedia's purposes may differ from the source's and thus the source may not be reliable (especially if it's copywritten). Texts that are subject to copyright may be referenced, and short quotes may fall under fair use. Use of long excerpts of copyrighted texts - say, entire paragraphs - become copyright violations and thus are not acceptabe for Wikipedia, no matter whether the copyrighted text has been published before or not. Does that answer the question? If not, please be a little more explicit. For example, can you provide a link to the Huon (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Toonami (Asia)
Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/HKJamesM

I've submitted this article - Toonami (Asia) - for creation review and was told by the moderator that it should be combined with the existing Toonami page on Wikipedia. I strongly disagree, as there is really very little in common between the two entities other than the name and the controlling parent company. Toonami in Asia is a dedicated channel. In the US and other countries, Toonami is a programming block. The scheduling is different, the programming is different and of course the market is different.

I'd like to be able to help Toonami (Asia) develop as a page in its own right (there are already 30,000 fans on its [Facebook page] since the channel launch on December 1) and I would be happy to contribute anything to it in order to meet the acceptance criteria.

Any help would be gratefully received. Many thanks in advance,

HKJamesM (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree that the Asian channel is sufficiently different from the programming block that it shouldn't be merged into our existing article. On the other hand the current draft has severe neutrality problems, relies heavily on primary sources such as press releases or regurgiated comments by Cartoon Network spokespersons, and reads like an advertisement. It would hacve to be rewritten extensively to become acceptable as an encyclopedia article, and I'm not sure there's enough reliable secondary coverage (yet) to clearly establish its notability. Huon (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/EXNESS
Hello, I'm asking for help in my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/EXNESS. I got declining, but I simply don't understand where are my mistakes. I have read a lot about a neutral point of view and I wrote a list of independent sources in my article. Can you please say to me, where are the facts which I must prove or sentences which look like not neutral. Thank you very much for the response in advance! Happy New Year to all the users of Wikipedia! Julia.tretyakova (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Julia


 * Hello Julia, many of that draft's sources are problematic. Three point to EXNESS' own website, clearly not an independent source. Another looks like a blog to me; blogs are usually not reliable for anything except the blogger's opinion and should be avoided. Yet others, including this one, are press releases by EXNESS and thus not independent (that source at one point refers to EXNESS as "our company"). The remainder are mostly directory or list entries that don't even devote a single sentence to EXNESS. To be considered notable, a company must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news articles about the company.
 * Regarding the "advertisement" issue: One example would be the "1:2000 leverage" claim, supported only by the company website. The "company activities" section doesn't cite any sources at all. The awards would also be more impressive if we had independent reliable sources, not just a blog and the orgaization giving the award. Huon (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, Huon, thank you very much for your response. It helped me understand some mistakes, but I want to specify some details.
 * 1. You noticed, that I made some links to the EXNESS' own website. So should I remove them, or should I just add more independent sources? (and the articles about the company in these resources)
 * 2. About the leverage I didn't clearly understand the problem. Should I add some other sources, which say they have this leverage or should I remove this kind of sentences at all?
 * 3. About awards: should I add other sources which describe these contests and organization as the winner of them?
 * Again thank you very much for your help! Julia.tretyakova (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Julia

Which Linux Distro has the Best Printer Driver Support? [12-2012]
Without GOOD Printer Driver Support; ANY [ALL] Linux Distro's are ONLY about 50% useable...for the 99% of us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.77.55.133 (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol move vote.svg|20px]] This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try  for an article related to the topic you want to know more about.  I hope this helps. Huon (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)