Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 March 9

= March 9 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Chronic Blues Circus
Hi, I dont know about getting this article about The Chronic Blues Circus submitted. Regards, zbpete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbpete (talk • contribs) 05:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The draft is submitted for review, but in its current state it will probably be declined because it is unduly promotional. Claims such as "Bangalore's foremost Blues Band" should not only cite a source, but be attributed to the source: "Critic John Doe, writing for the Deccan Herald, called The Chronic Blues Circus 'Bangalore's foremost Blues Band'." You should also use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which source supports which statement, and you should provide some additional bibliographical details such as page numbers, article titles or, if available, links to online versions of the news sources. Huon (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Janwari
It has been over a week and this article is still under review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.97.227.77 (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * We're currently severely backlogged, with more than 2,000 submissions awaiting review. Please be patient. I have just had a look at the submission and had to decline it because it doesn't cite sufficently many independent, reliable sources such as newspapers to clearly establish Janwari's notability, and because its tone was unduly promotional. Huon (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking for Filipino band Jargons from Koza Okinawa
I was stationed at MCAS Futenma Okinawa from 1971 through 1972 and became friends with band members from a rock band called the Jargons whom performed at a nightclub on Gate-2 Street in Koza Okinawa. I would like to get in touch with them if possible. Thanks for any help I can get. Steve Greene173.216.16.125 (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not meant to contact other people; we cannot help you. Huon (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Noam Tibon
Hello,

the article is based completely on Hebrew sources which appear on this existing article - http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%9D_%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%91%D7%95%D7%9F — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmanuelpep (talk • contribs) 15:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Non-English sources are acceptable; see WP:NONENG. But you must cite them in the draft; otherwise our readers will have no way to tell which source supports which of the draft's statements. See WP:Referencing for beginners for referencing help. Huon (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Organization Workshop
Hi there! I am at the moment re-drafting the (declined) ‘Organization Workshop’ article on the basis of the comments made by your reviewer. I am acting on all those comments, except one, which baffles me: re:” This looks very much as if it were copied or slightly adapted or closely paraphrased from an outside source. We do not do that. SeeClose paraphrase for an explanation” 1.	It may be that I copied a particular sentence, but in that case, I do not know what sentence the reviewer is referring to 2.	If the reviewer means that the whole piece is copied, now, that really throws me. If that is the case, where from? I know that there is an ‘Organization Workshop’ article on the seriti.org.za webpage, but that is my very own and will be taken down once this wiki rewrite is done. Is it possible to copy from myself? Many thanks Raff Carmen (Rafaelcarmen 18:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaelcarmen (talk • PS: seriti webpage: if the 'copied' comment indeed does refer to the 'carmen&labra' seriti article, every part of the present redraft is being seen & approved by Labra (Rafaelcarmen 18:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)) contribs)


 * I have to agree with the reviewer: The draft sounds like a close paraphrase of this text, so close that it will have to be considered a copyright violation, which Wikipedia for obvious reasons cannot accept. I thus tagged the draft for speedy deletion. There is no evidence that the source has been released under a free license compatible with Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. If you are indeed the author of the source and want to donate it under a free license, see WP:Donating copyrighted materials on how to do so. However, Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and we should neutrally summarize what those sources say. I'm rather skeptical about that. For example, does Wertsch really say that the Soviet concept of activity inspired OW? Furthermore, the text seems heavily based on an upcoming, not-yet-published book, which is not a reliable sorce by Wikipedia's standards. Huon (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

re: “The Organization Workshop”:declined AfC Dear Reviewer: It has been known for authors to publish a second, upgraded version of their original work. This is particularly true for textbooks and Encyclopediae. I myself am the author of the incriminated online article which, as I understand it, forms the basis for Wikipedia declining my present AfC. A second edition by the same authors does not usually imply that the authors have ‘paraphrased’ or ‘copied’ (from themselves): the new, upgraded edition simply makes the first edition redundant. I am extremely sorry for carelessly having left my ‘first edition’ of ‘The Organization Workshop” online. As you will notice, it now has been removed. At the moment, I am still editing the AfC: all the other reviewer remarks will be duly taken into consideration in that process. I hereby again sincerely apologize for my carelessness in having left the original version of ‘Organizatiion Workshop’ online. It has now been removed. May I therefore politely ask you to please reinstate my AfC site. Many thanks (PS: 11.03.13, 10:00hrs local time: Technical hitch: www.seriti.org.za where the earlier edition of my article was posted tell me that the content has now definitely been deleted. Unfortunately, the ‘shell’/'ghost' of that article can still be googled and will take some time to disappear, too. Having been deleted, the article definitely cannot be downloaded any more: re, see the “You have no rights to access files in this category” red flag if you go and check the seriti site for the article in question. Shall we compare this to the dustcover of my first edition remaining “on the library shelves"? Sorry again for this) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaelcarmen (talk • contribs) 11:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC) (Rafaelcarmen 12:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC))  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaelcarmen (talk • contribs) OTRS pending (Rafaelcarmen 13:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaelcarmen (talk • contribs) 13:57, 11 March 2013 ‎
 * Hi there, you appear to have put the comment preceding the OTRS notices in two different places on this page. I had responded to you in the other one. Which I'll copy below. I am then going to remove the duplicate comment you added. Please continue to use this section for all further comments and queries. Also, you need to sign your comments with a live signature. WP:SIGHOW explains how to do this. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * (Copied comment) I'm afraid that simply taking an article off-line or putting it behind a log-in wall does not solve the copyright problem. Once a piece of work has been previously published it is in copyright and cannot be used verbatim or closely paraphrased here unless it is released with a compatible license. (The original text is still available in the cached version as is the PDF file.) The fact that you wrote the original does not solve the problem either. You need to follow the procedure at WP:Donating copyright materials, and must follow the procedure to the letter. If parts of the text appear anywhere in print, e.g. in a book like this, or in an off-line journal article, the same applies. I know this seems horribly bureaucratic, but we have do it this way not only to protect Wikipedia's legal position but also that of the people who re-use this material. Voceditenore (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: The previously deleted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Organization Workshop has been re-created as a blank page by Rafaelcarmen and contains only the OTRS template. Meanwhile, there is also a duplicate draft article of the previously deleted one at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Organization Workshop (OW) I've added the OTRS template there as well, but this needs to be sorted out. Voceditenore (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe the necessary mail to OTRS has been sent; I've left a note at the OTRS noticeboard clarifying the relevant Wikipedia content. My suggestion would be to simply wait and give the volunteers at OTRS time to confirm that permission has been sent. Once they do so, the next step should probably be to get rid of one of the two drafts; we certainly don't need both Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Organization Workshop and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Organization Workshop (OW). Rafaelcarmen should keep one of them and kill off the other one by adding db-author to the very top. Since the deleted draft was much better-formatted than the other version, it might be easiest to have it undeleted and to get rid of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Organization Workshop (OW) instead. Huon (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

17.15 hrs I have now,as advised, added the db-author tab on top of the earlier, duplicate, badly formatted 'Organization Workshop(OW)' draft page but, as far as I can see, the page was not deleted? (Rafaelcarmen 17:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaelcarmen (talk • contribs)


 * Deletion will be quick, but it's not instantaneous: An administrator will still have to look at the draft and perform the deletion. Huon (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/hip hop hall of fame awards
Hello:

We just wanted to make sure that we are done with the process for submitting Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/hip hop hall of fame awards for Review. Thank you. A.M. Thompsoninternationalpros (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The draft is correctly submitted for review. You may want to have a look at your references, though: They don't all say what they're cited for. For example, the 2004 Billboard article for obvious reasons does not mention "other joint venture projects that hit and missed from 2006-2011". If you are associated with James JT Thompson, you may also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest: Writing about a topic you're closely associated with is discouraged because it's difficult to maintain a neutral point of view. Huon (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response: I am a journalist and writer who also happens to work on special projects for the Hip Hop Hall of Fame Awards, and this is a topic that was not listed and for historical, archival, educational, and preservation purposes it needs to be established as a permanent page on wiki-pedia. The 2004 article does mention some of the hits of the 2006-2012, but not all entirely, because it is a vast excercise that is for an autobiography for Mr. Thompson, and not for a listing, in my humble opinion. This is History, and should be added without any issues or conflicts. Thank you.. Alexia Martinique — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thompsoninternationalpros (talk • contribs) 20:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You're saying the 2004 article discusses the success of projects that postdate it by two years or more? That would be an impressive feat of prophecy, but unfortunately it's simply wrong. I agree, though, that the draft has too much biographical information on Thompson that is irrelevant to the Hip Hop Hall of Fame. As an aside, archiving and preservation are not what Wikipedia is about, and working for the Hip Hop Hall of Fame Awards is certainly a conflict of interest when writing a Wikipedia article about them. Huon (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Music Centre ==

Hello reviewers,

I received notice that my article on the National Music Centre in Calgary, Alberta was rejected and I needed a little clarification. The rejection notice stated that my tone and sources didn't appear neutral enough for an encyclopedia entry. All of my source were taken from reputable news sources and, I believe, should be adequately objective for the article entry. So it just the tone of my article that seems too much like an advertisement. I'm used to writing research papers, so maybe my writing style is bringing my objectivity into question.

Best regards

Musicmuseum (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)JimJamJummel


 * The tone is indeed prolematic. Just to provide an obvious example, encyclopedia articles usually do not address the reader: "The NMC offers tours in its current facility that take you through the history of musical instruments." The draft is also full of promotional phrases such as "boasts", "celebrate a broader vision", "some of the world’s most creative and innovative architects" and so on. I'm also not all that impressed by the references. The Globe and Mail is available online, and the article doesn't mention the NMC at all. Many others, such as "Portland Journal of Commerce. 2009", are rather vague and could do with a title and a page number. I'd expect other sources from 2008 and afterwards to be available online, but didn't find any except the Globe and Mail - links to online editions would be nice. And then the draft has entire sections that don't cite any sources at all. Huon (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)