Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 February 14

= February 14 =

=
================ JUST GOT OFF A CHAT. IT SEEMED LIKE IT WAS A CHILDISH GAME TO THE PEOPLE RESPONDING I WAS TOLD THE USPTO.GOV WAS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE SOURCE !!! THERE ARE NUMEROUS ULTILITY PATENT -BU THIS IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH ?? WHAT A FRUSTRATING WASTE OF TIME FOR ALL OF US. AS I SAID BEFORE- MOSTLY MYSELF. THE FORMAT FOR WIKI IS NOT USER FRIENDLY AT ALL

I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED WITH MY EXPERIENCE WITH WIKIPEDIA …

=
=================== I.E.

SOUTH MAUI INVENTOR (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

PAGE''' ]]) 23:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There are two reasons that Wikipedia articles need sources: verifiability and notability. The first, verifiability, is to show that the information in the article is true, and in this case a patent would be an appropriate reliable source for information on an invention. However the second reason, notability, needs to show that other people are writing about the topic of the article, and sources that show notability need to be independent of the subject of the article. Since the patent is written by the inventor, it is not independent and cannot be used to show notability.
 * On another note, please don't post messages using all capital letters. It is perceived as shouting and can come across as overly agressive. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK

08:28:06, 14 February 2015 review of submission by Canticle
This African-American composer is poorly represented in spite of some truly significant achievements early on. I would like to see this man represented. He is not good at self promotion but that does not reduce his significance historyically. I will continue to work on this page.

Canticle (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Good question. Item 6 of WP:COMPOSER says: "Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music." What length are Fountain's entries in the 2 books the article cites, and are they standard reference books? (I personally do not understand why the reviewers didn't give this the benefit of the doubt.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I see that Fountain also has an entry at the Grove Dictionary of American Music. Unfortunately, I can't see it, as neither I nor my library subscribes. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

13:39:19, 14 February 2015 review of submission by Laura Dormer
My draft article 'The Drake Foundation' was deleted for including copyright material. Would it be possible to re-instate the file in my article drafts so I can try and re-work it? Also, the copyrighted material was taken from the foundation's website. Is it ok to include short quotes from websites, as long as the original source is stated? Thanks! Laura Dormer (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not advisable to rework copyright material, as it often becomes a 'derivative work': the copyright remains even though the text is changed.
 * I see you have submitted a new version of article for review, but


 * 1) you haven't written anything about its notability - see WP:CORP. There are several mentions in newspapers: you only need to mention one or two of the best, as long as they describe the foundation itself, and not merely one of its projects
 * 2) about half the article is a quote from a copyright source. The law doesn't give us a bright line, but in most circumstances, I suspect half the article from a copyright source is not fair use.
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

19:24:10, 14 February 2015 review of submission by Jockdoubleday
Hello!

The following query concerns the recently submitted page, "ICBP - International Scientific Conferences on the Bosnian Pyramids."

The page was declined, today, without any engagement of my copious notes on the subject of its previous "declined" status, a status created by an editor who had stated that the article needed tightening (which has been done).

Is Wikipedia certain that it wants to formally and finally decline an article that gives a complete and detailed record of the speakers and papers of nine years of archaeological science at the most active archaeological site in the world?

An editor at WikiNews (where this article was first submitted) told me that Wikipedia is the place for this article. The Wikinews editor did not say that the article 1) should be a summary description and 2) should be submitted to be included in a Wikipedia page that denies the scientific fact of pyramids in Bosnia. While he was certain that it wasn't a WikiNews article, he was equally certain that it was a Wikipedia article.

If pyramids do not exist in Bosnia, as Wikipedia's "Bosnian pyramid claims" page claims, then one must ask oneself why hundreds of researchers over the course of ten years have traveled to Visoko to spend days, weeks, and months studying nothing.

In fact, of course, they didn't spend days, weeks, and months studying nothing. Indeed, since 2007, none of the researchers who have studied aspects of the Bosnian Pyramid Complex have engaged the question of whether or not pyramids exist in Bosnia. They have engaged the question of what the pyramid complex is for.

Please note that, of the 450,000 tourists who have visited the Bosnian Pyramid Complex in the ten years since their discovery in April 2005, none have complained that they didn't find pyramids there:

"Archaeology by the Numbers: Ten Years of Tourism at the Bosnian Pyramid Complex in Visoko, Bosnia — 2005-2015" http://piramidasunca.ba/eng/latest-news/item/9780-archaeology-by-the-numbers-ten-years-of-tourism-at-the-bosnian-pyramid-complex-in-visoko-bosnia-%E2%80%94-2005-2015.html

One must believe that Wikipedia's knowledge-hungry audience will want to know all of the titles of all of the papers presented at all of the international scientific conferences held in Sarajevo and Visoko, Bosnia over the last seven years -- not just some of the paper titles or none of the paper titles.

Also, one must believe that Wikipedia readers will want to know paper presenters' names, as well; this way, they can find those papers online (or the video presentations of those papers), and then they can follow up with further research.

Wikipedia readers would certainly not benefit from a summary "description" of the conferences -- which has been suggested by the latest Wikipedia editor on this article.

I look forward to thoughtful and discerning Wikipedia editors' engagement of my notes-in-full on editors' comments/decisions-to-date on this article, an article which is a detailed historical record of independent scientists' analysis of multitudinous facets of the first documented ancient pyramid complex in Europe.

Jockdoubleday (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's concern is merely about the article subject's notability. Whether the pyramids exist or not has no direct effect on the creation of an article about the conference. Meanwhile, Wikipedia is not a contents page for conferences - and I doubt you will persuade a consensus of editors to make it so. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)