Loading AI tools
I have completed my userpage:article and am trying to figure out how to move it to the main page with a new title - - I've already messed up a few times and don't want to get deleted again :)
Please advise!
BasicallyGood (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
:Please wait for a few minutes while I move things around a bit. Chzz ► 19:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've moved your article from your user page to a user sub-page.
- Your user page is where you can - if you wish - put a bit of information about yourself.
- It is better to create articles in sub-pages; in this case, I made User:BasicallyGood/braille and moved your article to there.
- This page - your talk page - is used for chatting. It is best to keep conversations in sections, so I have created a section for this, called "Help Request". In a moment, I will create another section called "Welcome", which will contain some useful information to get you started.
- Regarding the article - I will look at it now, and provide you with some feedback very soon - ie I will check if it is an appropriate article to move to the mainspace area.
Hi, BasicallyGood. Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you've just joined, and wanted to give you a few tips to get you started. If you have any questions, please talk to us. The tips below should help you to get started. Best of luck! Chzz ► 19:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Good luck with editing; please drop me a line some time on my own talk page. There's lots of information below. Once again, welcome to the fantastic world of Wikipedia!
|
I have reviewed your article.
Before I start, I would suggest that you follow some of the tips in the 'Welcome' message above, and work on other articles, before you create this one. By doing so you will learn more about the way Wikipedia works, and will have less trouble with your new article.
That said, I will now explain the problems - I hope you won't be put off by this; that's why I suggest working on other things first. I am trying to help you, and am only saying these things to prevent you from creating the article, having it deleted, getting annoyed, and giving up - that happens too often :-) Please stick with it for a while.
1. Notability - your article does not assert the notability of the subject. The only links are to primary sources - this is not enough; to assert notability, you need secondary reliable sources, such as a national newspaper, etc. Please read about verifiability.
2. References - all facts given in the article must be referenced. Think of it this way - the reader must be able to check the facts for themselves. For example, if you cite a newspaper or book, it would be possible for a reader to obtain the paper/book and check the fact for themselves. Unfortunately, if you cannot find reliable secondary sources for information, it cannot be put on Wikipedia. For example - I could say that I was the Queen of Sheba, and create an article about myself - but that would not be permitted. I could also create a myspace page about myself and my Queenhood, and cite that - but that would still not be sufficient. I would have to wait until the BBC News picked up on my Queenhood, and wrote a story about it. Then, I could cite the BBC article and create my page.
3. Some of the wording is not appropriate, for example, "along with the dedication of more than 4,000 volunteers" - the use of the word dedication is an opinion, not a fact. We call these peacock terms.
4. I have concerns over a conflict of interest. Are you involved in the organisation? If not, please disregard this paragraph; if so, you should not create the article yourself, and should not edit the article directly in mainspace. Instead, you should work on it in your user area, and, when you are ready, add it to the requests for article creation. This is explained in two other documents that you should read carefully; WP:BESTCOI and WP:BFAQ.
As explained at the top of this message - I really do hope that this will not put you off editing, and I hope you understand why all of these policies and guidelines are necessary.
If you did create that article as it is, it would be deleted very quickly - I am trying to help you to avoid that.
I have recently assisted two other new Wikipedians, who are creating similar articles to yours. It might be beneficial for you to make contact with these two people, as I feel you might be able to help each other.
One of the articles is Free Legal Advice Centres, and you can leave a message for the creator on User talk:Fintanmon - create a new section, and leave your message, remember to 'sign' your message with ~~~~.
The other article is Centres Against Sexual Assault, and the creators talk page is User talk:Peto Australis.
You could also contact other users - just look at articles, check the history, and see who has worked on them a lot.
Wikipedia is all about a bunch of people helping each other to create articles; I hope that this will be helpful.
{{helpme}} - moved from User talk:BasicallyGood/braille
How do I get my article reviewed and what is the process for publishing once it passes inspection? Thanks in advance!
--BasicallyGood (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, I've moved your help request to your talk page - it's easier to deal with it here.
- Regarding your article, I'll take a look at it now, and report back here soon (probably within an hour) - helpme is a good way to ask for a review. If it's OK, you can just copy it across to mainspace - i.e. edit, select all, copy...create the mainspace article, paste, save. Done. But wait 'till I've had a look and given feedback.
Review
- "mission is to eliminate barriers to a fulfilling life caused by blindness and severe sight loss" - As this might be a 'contentious' statement (ie it sounds a bit like an advert), it needs a reference. Is the mission statement declared somewhere, on the website? If so, cite it here. That goes for any facts that you think people could question, and especially anything that sounds non-neutral, see WP:NPOV. So, "provides an environment of hope and encouragement for people" should probably go too, unless some independent source, such as a newspaper, states it - in which case, cite it. See WP:PEACOCK. I know you have the reference to the speech, but I suspect that it is a primary source (ie someone involved with the org). It would need a reliable secondary source.
- "the dedication of more than 4,000 volunteers" - also peacock; just state the facts, let the reader make up their mind if the people are dedicated or not. ie just put "There are over 4000 volunteers (ref)"
- ...but try to avoid 'more than' if possible; it's vague, what we call a weasel phrase. If at all possible, state the facts - like, "In 2001, there were 4097 volunteers.(ref)"
- "programs and services completely free of charge" - again, the source is primary, so not enough to assert this fact. See WP:PRIMARY
- "one man’s visionary goal" - this is opinion, it's not WP:NPOV. Remove it.
- "greater opportunities to live richer, more independent lives" - same. opinion, not neutral - can't go in.
- "dropped out of high school" and "try his hand" - try to use a more encyclopaedic style; these phrases are a bit colloquial. For example, "After attending St Charlies School in Missisipi for 2 years, Dr X left before completing his degree.(ref)"
- "rode the range" - same; doesn't sound like an encyclopaedia, it sounds more like a review or a magazine article. Use factual, plain, neutral language.
At this point, I won't continue through the whole article with these type of comments; I hope the above will give you the idea, so I'll leave you to work on it. Some more important points, though;
- Remove that email address - they're frowned upon.
- Remove that list of links to subsidiaries (Community Partners); they're not appropriate external links, and again will make the article appear like an ad. See WP:EXTERNAL
- Most of the History and Purpose is not NPOV, and I doubt it can be backed by reliable secondary sources; I suspect most of that will have to be removed.
- Same is true of the 'services' - I must admit, I haven't checked the refs, but I doubt there are enough sufficiently notable sources to back every fact.
Of course, if you have more, specific questions, please add another helpme or just click here and talk to us live.
If you'd like someone else to take a look, I suggest asking in WP:FEED.
{{helpme}} I think I addressed all of the issues previously brought up - and added many more references. What else do I need to do before transfering the article to the main page? Thanks in advance! BasicallyGood (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've changed your heading, to make this into a section. This makes it easier to navigate your talk page; I did it by changing '''Another Review Needed''' to == Another Review Needed ==.
- Wow, I can see that you've worked very hard on this; without studying every little thing, I'd say it was good to go. Lets make it live, and let the dogs loose on it! ie, others will probably edit it and make changes, etc, but that's all good.
- You can keep the copy in your user space, as it is, forever if you like - that way, if others do change things around, you can refer back to your 'original version' and get bits you might want to suggest go back in.
- Because of the conflict of interest issues that we talked about, it would be better if you didn't make that move yourself. With your permission, I will happily copy the article to the mainspace. Just confirm below. OK? Chzz ► 00:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- (moving reply from my talk bake here - easier to keep the conversation in one place Chzz ► 16:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC))
- Thanks for all your advice & help getting the braille article going. There really isn't any conflict of interest but I'd greatly appreciate you moving the article to the main space. Is there something I need to add to specify the exact title name? It needs to be Braille Institute of America - - and I guess I'll need to add a redirect for just Braille Institute? Still not sure exactly how all this works! Thanks again for all your help :)
BasicallyGood (talk) 13:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Done Braille Institute of America
Redirects are very simple; I just created a 1-line page called Braille Institute with;
- #REDIRECT [[Braille Institute of America]].
Note that if you click on Braille Institute it takes you to the article, but right at the top under the article name, it says, "Redirected from "Braille Institute" - and if you click *that*, you get to the redirect, and can see the 1-line 'article' I made.
If there's no COI then, of course, go ahead and edit it/improve it And please be BOLD - jump in to other articles and edit them! There's always plenty to do :-)
It was a pleasure to work with you on this one; you've done a great job. Many thanks for your patience and understanding with all the policies.
Hi there,
So - now the article is live, I have made a number of edits. I hope that you won't be upset by them; if it wasn't me, it would be someone else. Hopefully, I've already demonstrated that I will go to great lengths to help a user improve Wikipedia.
Please review my edits by looking through the history; I always provide a detailed edit summary explaining what I've done, and why.
Of course, you may not agree with all my edits - that's fine; if that's the case, the right place to discuss them is on the articles discussion page.
Any questions, you know how to get help :-) Chzz ► 20:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I've recently been in contact with some other users, who are in the position you were in a while ago - wanting to work on articles about charities. It might be mutually beneficial if you got in touch with them?
(Moved here from User talk:BasicallyGood/Braille Challenge - we prefer to have helpme's on the user talk page, for various reasons Chzz ► 18:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC))
Re. User:BasicallyGood/Braille Challenge
I have hit my article with a wrecking ball as suggested and would like another evaluation. thanks in advance!
BasicallyGood (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, I see that you have worked hard on it; I will take a look, and see what other people think as well. It is quite a long article, so I can't respond instantly - but I will try to reply within a few hours. Cheers! Chzz ► 18:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's well-written, but I have concerns that a lot of the article covers material that is not specific to the subject. - see WP:TOPIC. I think that everything down to the section on 'Braille Challenge' would be better in the Braille article. However, that article is currently huge, and needs splitting up. Have a read of Wikipedia:Summary style.
- My proposal would be, first to work on Braille a bit and wplit off the 'Writing in Braille' to a separate article, with a summary of it and a 'see main article' template. Then, use most of your document to create a new Braille literacy article. Again, summarise that, and add a section to Braille on Braille literacy, summerising the content of your new article. Then, mvoe the stuff from your new article from 'Braille Challenge' onwards, into a separate article called 'Braille challenge'. Then, summarise that, and put a summary of it, with a 'see main article', into the braille literacy.
- Therefore, we'd end up with this structure;
- Braille
- Braille writing
- Braille literacy
- Braille challenge
- Alternatively, you might like to rearrange braille, and form the 'Braille writing' and 'Braille literacy' yourself.
- I do suggest that you don't create the 'Braille challenge' part yourself though - due to the 'conflict of interest' things - but I could create it for you. the article in your sandbox looks neutral enough, and well-referenced enough, to me.
- Please let me know what you think of these suggestions. It's probably best to reply here, below, but please leave a note on my own talk page to tell me that you have replied, as I don't "watch" pages.
I understand what you're saying to a point, but I decided to make this article about Braille Literacy, rather than about just the Challenge - I tried to move to Braille Literacy - but I messed up and now the page already exists and can't move.
I think the Braille Institute should have its own wiki for historical reasons, I am focusing on older orgs. Braille literacy is different and includes different orgs that promote literacy - so not sure why they should be combined. Literacy is also different from just Braille although I see how they could be combined. Will consider that.
There is no conflict of interest. I do nonprofit technology training - I teach how to research and write, Wikipedia is a great forum to do it - just hard to learn, frustrating even.
Thanks for all your help - any advice on how to straighten this out is appreciated! BasicallyGood (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think we're kind-of coming to the same ideas. We just need to get clear what we should split and summarize. I'll rig up a 'demo' of what I mean, perhaps that will help. I'll let you know when I've made it. Chzz ► 17:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have created a split version, with notes in bright yellow, in user:chzz/Braille and the various subdocuments. Please have a look at that, looking at the yellow parts for explanation. I hope that this will help illustrate the idea, and we can discuss it from there. As before, please leave a quick note on my talk to let me know when you have responded. Cheers, Chzz ► 18:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template. File:Ico specie.png
Chzz ► 02:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template. File:Ico specie.png
Chzz ► 13:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I've replied again, as above. Chzz ► 15:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you've seen all of my replies or not, but please note that any threads over 100 hours old on my talk page are automatically archived; you can always use the search box at the top of my talk page and search for your name. Cheers, Chzz ► 14:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid Chzz has left on an extended wikibreak. Feel free to ask any other editor to help (though few are quite as universally helpful as chzz). - Jarry1250 (t, c, rfa) 18:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Hopefully you'll remember me, from my trying to help you; well, now it's my turn to ask for help.
I'm trying to help re-launch an idea called "Spotlight". The notion is to select an article and work on it collectively, via live discussion, for one week. If lots of people get involved, it can work really well; in the past, the project died off through lack of participants. Anyone can help out, because that's the whole point - we have many and varied skills, but between us, we can do amazing things. So - please join the channel, and add yourself to the participants in WP:SPOTLIGHT. Thanks for your time! Chzz ► 22:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hiya. Thanks for helping out with spotlight. Your name isn't on the 'spam-list' on that page, so I haven't sent you the newsletter; but I just wanted to let you know a couple of things. Following over 500 edits from the spotlight project, Marco Polo has attained good article status. We've now started on the next article, Marco Polo sheep. Please join the IRC channel some time (quick link), or add your name to the Participants list at WP:SPOT. Cheers, --— DeontalkI'm BACK! 03:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Just a really quick, short note. You're currently listed as a spotlight participant, here, but you are not on the list of people who want to get the newsletter. If you want to receive updates about spotlight, then please add your name on this page. If not, no further action required, and I won't bug you about it again. Thanks, Chzz ► 15:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, BasicallyGood.
Thank you for your interest in donating material from http://www.aph.org/hall_fame/bios/atkinson.html to Wikipedia. Since we do not currently have a method in place to verify the identity of account holders at account creation, we must verify such donations through external processes. The article has been blanked to allow time for that verification to proceed.
The simplest way to verify is to place a release on that external website putting the material into public domain or co-licensing it under CC-BY-SA and GFDL, which permit modification and reuse, even commercially, as long as authorship credit is given. This release is irrevocable and must continue to be displayed, or the material may need to be removed. A statement such as the following would be sufficient: "The contents of this website (or page, if you are specifically releasing one section) are available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 and the GNU Free Documentation License, unversioned with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts." If you decide to take this route, please put a link to that release on Talk:Braille Institute of America so we can restore the contents.
Alternatively, you may choose to send an e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL. There is a boilerplate release form at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries which can be helpful. Please provide a clear link to the website in your e-mail and specify by name the articles on Wikipedia in which the material is being used. Once your e-mail is received and processed by a member of the Communications Committee, the article's contents will be restored if your release is legally sufficient. Please make a note that you've done this on Talk:Braille Institute of America to help guard against premature deletion of the page. You can compose a note or very simply paste the following on the talk page, brackets and all: {{OTRS pending}}
If you decide you don't wish to release the material into public domain or under the terms of CC-BY-SA and GFDL, you are welcome to rewrite the text from scratch at this temporary page. As long as the material is otherwise compliant with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it will be used to replace the previous contents. Please leave a note at Talk:Braille Institute of America saying you have done so.
If you are not familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you may wish to review Wikipedia:Starting an article or Wikipedia:Your first article. If you are closely related to the subject matter, you may also want to read our conflict of interest guidelines to get an idea how best to proceed. It may be necessary once permission is verified to address other concerns in the text, if it is otherwise inconsistent with our policies and guidelines.
We apologize for the additional steps necessary, but as copyright is a matter of legal concern, we must ensure that we not only protect the rights of copyright holders, but also guard the Wikipedia project against inadvertent infringement.
The article will be revisited in about a week to see what additional steps have been taken or may be necessary. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to let me know at my talk page. We also have a help desk which is typically manned around the clock by volunteers.
Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- I just wanted to add that the article also contains a good bit of material that seems to have been copied from various pages of the official sites. See Talk:Braille Institute of America for a few examples. We will need permission verified for that text as well. Again, please let me know if you need assistance with the process. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Update regarding copyright concern
Since we do not yet have verification of permission by the processes set out above and sufficient time has passed since the placement of the notice, the article has been deleted for copyright concerns. This deletion is not necessarily permanent. If you have already sent a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) and GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (if you are not the copyright holder or have co-authored the material, release under CC-BY-SA-compatible license alone is sufficient), the article will be restored when that letter is received and processed by the Wikimedia Communications committee. Likewise, if you have not yet sent a letter, you still may (or resend it, if you believe your original may have been lost), and the article will be restored when that letter is received and processed.
As Wikipedia does not require proof of identity on account creation, it is essential that we receive external proof of authorization in order to ensure that we remain compliant with US Copyright law. It is also essential that we verify that copyright holders understand the extent of the release they are authorizing, in that our licenses permit modification and reuse in any forum, even commercial publication, as long as authorship credit is maintained and future copies are compatibly licensed.
Please note that once permission is verified, the material may be evaluated and altered to meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Although we appreciate donations, we cannot guarantee that material donated will be retained.
Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
