Help desk
< February 24	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 26 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

February 25[edit]

Account creation[edit]

could you please create an account for me for on line country music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.9.137 (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to this page to create an account. wctaiwan (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or request an account at WP:ACC. mabdul 11:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/lyrics of chikani chameli[edit]

aayi chikani chameli chupke akeli pahua chadhake aayi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.90.192.52 (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but can you repeat that in English? (Google translate detects Swahili, but won't actually translate..) Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 14:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Viken Berberian[edit]

made a number of changes and added several sources. among the 26 independent sources are the new york times magazine, the washington times, centre national du livre, kirkus reviews, philadelphia inquirer, the new york times (editorial), virginia quarterly review, the boston globe, the san francisco chronicle, summaries of 12 reviews from french national media from publisher's home page, poets & writers magazine (largest literary non-profit organization in the united states), the international herald tribune, le monde diplomatique, the financial times, publisher's weekly, among others. separated sections for awards and critical recognition. when will the article be reviewed?Fountainheads (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 400 articles waiting to be reviewed, so you may have to wait a few days. In the meantime, you have an opportunatity to take another look at Wikipedia's guidelines for what is, and is not, suitable to be the subject of an article. I particularly mean the general notability guidelines, WP:GNG, and the alternative criteria for authors, at WP:CREATIVE. Generally, the subject (Berberian) needs to have been covered in-depth in reliable, independent news sources. Alternatively, authors could be notable if they have published something that has been the subject of multiple periodical reviews, or articles.

Having had a quick look at your draft article, I would advise you that periodical articles by Berberian (like in the Financial Times) won't count towards notability. Neither will the brief mentions in the New York Times. Book reviews (basically sales pitches) by book publishers or book sales sites are not generally independent and reliable either. Other Wikipedia articles aren't acceptable references. Personally I'd have difficulty accepting your article at the moment. Sionk (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Berberian's debut novel was very widely reviewed, which means he easily meets the WP:CREATIVE notability criteria. Well done and good luck with future contributions to Wikipedia! Sionk (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Syd Barrett genealogy[edit]

Having read over the submission and considered the points made by four separate reviewers against the arguments put fourth by PCMorphy72 (talk · contribs), there seems to be a clear consensus—grounded in policy—that the subject of the article does not meet any Wikipedia threshold for notability. Accordingly, and contrary to the assertions made by the author, it would appear that the submission is unsuitable, rather than the reviewers. Finally, pursuant to our policy on no personal attacks, I feel it is time to close this discussion Pol430 talk to me 19:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi. I had a problem with a submission. I suspect the reviewers was unsuitable. If you are interested on Syd Barrett and/or on genealogy and/or on biography, please read all this, possibly carefully:
User_talk:PCMorphy72/Syd_Barrett_genealogy —Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC).

I'll look this over, but if four different editors decline, I suggest you take into account the possibility that your submission just isn't right for Wikipedia. I'll reply here when I'm done. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 15:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK thank you. BTW they were three different editors (one declined twice).PCMorphy72 (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I'm the fourth.

This article absolutely cannot be accepted because the images from ancestry.com are complete copyright violations. The terms and conditions are very explicit, and copying images from that site easily violates the 'Republication or resale' clause there. Yes, I read your explanation but that simply is not valid. You have not just copied the information, you have copied the format and style as well, which most certainly comes under the "creative aspects of collection" of Feist v. Rural and...err...Wikitravel's (really?) "expression of that information". Even apart from that, you show some misunderstandings of the way we work. I note one place you say "the statement ... should be easily inferred..." No. Sorry, but we do not infer. That's what we call synthesis, a form of original research. Also, in your second reply to Chiswick Chap you split up his comment, responding to the important about Syd and genealogies separately. That's exactly the opposite of what you'd need to do to prove notability. We know that Syd is notable. We know that genealogies are notable. What we don't know is why the genealogy of Syd is notable, and that question is not answered satisfactorily anywhere. I'm sorry, but even apart from all that Wikipedia is not for indiscriminate collections of information, which is what the appears to be. I thank you for your work, but this topic simply does not appear to be right for Wikipedia. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 15:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The news are two:

1. Before your problems with copyright was about the information I wrote, but now the problems are with the small images and the format of the rectangles which Ancestry.com uses. The infer issue you are talking about simply doesn't exist: if you are not able to infer how indiscreet was a biographer to know the name of Syd's relatives, simply use the entire biographer's book as reference, as I've seen a lot of times an entire book as a reference in Wikipedia. You know that Syd is notable but you don't know that genealogies are notable, since the lack of biographical genealogy on Wikipedia and internet, for Syd and for the many other important persons: perhaps your grandsons will know it.

2. Now we are four (who talk about information and not about that images).

Not sure I quite understand your second point, and the copyright comment...also, the issue about the infer issue is not whether or not you are right, it's that you seem to be looking at Wikipedia wrong. I didn't even look at what you are attempting to infer. It's just the usage of that word that scares me. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 17:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wrongly wrote we instead of you: I meant "Now you are four". When I've realized it, I've edited it, but after I re-edited in we with that comment between brackets to let you understand that your comments on the other reviewers's non-agreed comments are absoultely unuseful for me if you don't understand my points in a worse way than the other reviewers, and then, in a joking way, I had excluted you from the count to add me as fourth.

You have simply seen what something seems: it is obvius that the word "infer" can mean many things, so I've ask to read carefully, but you simply report generic unuseful things, which are trivial, or at least I known them very well. Don't worry if you believe I don't understand Wikipedia: I think you are able only to censor users on Wikipedia, not to understand how Wikipedia should work.PCMorphy72 (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jamillah Knowles[edit]

Greetings helpers .... It may be obvious that I am a newbie in need of help and support. Any pointers or directions would be most gratefully received. I have submitted the above item twice and it seems that I have not satisfied the need to 'adequately support the copy with reliable independent sources' My inline citations refer to several already published Wikipedia articles and to verified sources within the British Broadcasting Corporation BBC. I would very much appreciate your guidance as to what I am doing wrong. Thank you for your time and expertise - Dai (Daybydaiboy (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

You are citing BBC blogs and podcasts by Knowles. These won't count towards establishing her importance or notability. You need to look for reliable in-depth coverage about Knowles. It's not much use citing Wikipedia articles either, because they are created and edited by many different editors so not ..erm ...reliable sources. Sionk (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lester Howe[edit]

How can I get help from references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shenstudent000035798 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at WP:Referencing for beginners. I fixed the formatting of the refs on the article, they now need to be placed after the sentence/fact that they support. France3470 (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]