Edenarielle117

Your submission at Articles for creation: Thomas C. Daffern (June 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Thomas C. Daffern may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

» Shadowowl | talk 09:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Edenarielle117! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! » Shadowowl | talk 09:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyright, and advice on editing

Here are a few points regarding copyright, and a couple of other matters, in the hope they may be of some help to you.

1. Someone who has come along and created a Wikipedia account saying "It's OK for me to copy this, because the copyright owner has said so" is not enough, because anyone can come along and say that. Unfortunately we very frequently get people who lie about having copyright permission. (I am not suggesting that you are lying, just explaining why we have to insist on a more formal level of proof of copyright permission.)
2. Even when someone really does have permission to reuse content, very often the copyright owner has not fully understood what that entails, and in fact did not intend to give such a wide license as posting content to Wikipedia entails. When you post anything to Wikipedia you release it for anyone in the world to reuse it, either unchanged or modified in any way whatever, subject to attribution to Wikipedia. In many cases the copyright owner does not intend to license content for such very free reuse, and in those occasions when they do so, we require proof of the fact. We don't assume that content is freely licensed on the unsubstantiated say so of just anyone who comes along and creates a Wikipedia account.
3. The fact that the content you copied is no longer on display on the web site where it was does not mean that there is no longer a copyright question. Once something has been published, its copyright remains in force, whether it is removed from display or not.
4. Since you say you have received permission from Thomas Daffern to use his web site text, you evidently have some personal connection to him. That being so, you should look at Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest before continuing to edit about him.
5. Even if there were no copyright problem, the draft you have posted would not be suitable as a Wikipedia article for several reasons, the most important being that the content is not supported by suitable sources. On the face of it, you have provided a very large number of references, but checking a fairly substantial sample of them I found that most of them do not actually support any of the statements about Daffern in the draft, many of them are not independent sources, one of those I looked at was a dead link, and so on. Also, the degree of detailed account of fairly minor aspects of his career is not really appropriate, and some of the text has a distinctly promotional character, or expresses personal opinions or judgements. None of those characteristics is suitable for a Wikipedia article.

I am sorry that this must read as rather discouraging, but experience over the years has taught me that it is actually more helpful to a new editor to let him or her be aware from the start what problems there are, rather than letting him or her put a lot of work into something which is predestined to be deleted as it does not comply with Wikipedia standards. My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear James Watson

I want to reply to your points made above. I am new to editing on wikipedia so please be kind to me.

You say: "Someone who has come along and created a Wikipedia account saying "It's OK for me to copy this, because the copyright owner has said so" is not enough, because anyone can come along and say that. Unfortunately we very frequently get people who lie about having copyright permission. (I am not suggesting that you are lying, just explaining why we have to insist on a more formal level of proof of copyright permission.)" Even when someone really does have permission to reuse content, very often the copyright owner has not fully understood what that entails, and in fact did not intend to give such a wide license as posting content to Wikipedia entails. When you post anything to Wikipedia you release it for anyone in the world to reuse it, either unchanged or modified in any way whatever, subject to attribution to Wikipedia. In many cases the copyright owner does not intend to license content for such very free reuse, and in those occasions when they do so, we require proof of the fact. We don't assume that content is freely licensed on the unsubstantiated say so of just anyone who comes along and creates a Wikipedia account.The fact that the content you copied is no longer on display on the web site where it was does not mean that there is no longer a copyright question. Once something has been published, its copyright remains in force, whether it is removed from display or not.Since you say you have received permission from Thomas Daffern to use his web site text, you evidently have some personal connection to him. That being so, you should look at Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest before continuing to edit about him." So what kind of formal copyright permission do you need ? Will a signed dated letter posted from Thomas Daffern to me, then forwarded to you, count ?

Your statement re "connections" etc. is ambiguous. I met Thomas Daffern in France this Summer and spent two weeks there studying under his guidance. I am a student at Barnard College in Manhattans studying English literature. I couldn't believe this man had previous problems with other students writing up a wikipedia page for him so I volunteered. I think he is one of the most significant philosophers of peace in our time, and I cannot believe that Wikiedpia is making it so difficult to get up an appropriate page about him. His career has been extraordinary. Wikipedia has so many boring and pointless pages about trivia. Sorry but its true, do you want a list ? This guy is seriously for real, and you seem to blocking the page. What on earth is going on here ?

Next you say:

Even if there were no copyright problem, the draft you have posted would not be suitable as a Wikipedia article for several reasons, the most important being that the content is not supported by suitable sources.

so this is mind-boggling - there are countless resources. Most of Daffern's career was going long before the internet took off.

On the face of it, you have provided a very large number of references, but checking a fairly substantial sample of them I found that most of them do not actually support any of the statements about Daffern in the draft, many of them are not independent sources, one of those I looked at was a dead link, and so on.

ok lets be specific here - which was the dead link ?

what do you mean by "support the statements"

define "independent sources" (is totally opaque)

Also, the degree of detailed account of fairly minor aspects of his career is not really appropriate, 

well its hard to guage - it seems fairly standard in other similar biographical entries..

"and some of the text has a distinctly promotional character," what exactly do you mean by that ? what is and what is not "promotional" ? define it and explain your reasoning please.. and I can take out anything of that nature.. Is telling true facts about someones life an achievements "promotional" by definition ? wel then about 99% of all wikipedia articles about intellectuals must surely be "promotional" let me put it another way - when is an article in your opinion not self-promotional ? can you define that please and provide strict criteria of judgement that I can work with, not simply subjective statements

or expresses personal opinions or judgements - again please be specific - where is that in the text ? and since when do you epect philosophers not to have person opinions or judgements isnt that what they are there for ?

None of those characteristics is suitable for a Wikipedia article

well all of the above statements need explaining carefully so I hope you can do that.. as it is it sounds like you make up subjective reasons why not to include this article and then delete it without a proper debate.

I am more than happy to rewrite the article with your help so it fits all the criteria.

But what I am not happy with is being forced to jump through hoops for a game in which you guys hold all the cards, and play by rules you seem to make up arbitrarily.

in academia, at barnard college if I write an english essay I have to reference all my sources etc. but every single word or every single idea.

I did that as best I could with Daffern's article.

I would have thought you would welcome newarticles abotu interesting people of significant intellectual achievements Mr Watson and therefore would like to work with you on immproving this arile so it meets all suitable objective criteria and is right to publish.

Thank you

Eden