Dear editors: I came across another copyright problem. This article User:ACGCA/sandbox appears to be copied from the following URL:

http://www.acgca.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=73:what-is-the-ac-group&catid=1:latest-news

—Anne Delong (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, blanked, and tagged for speedy deletion, all of which you could have boldly done yourself. Huon (talk) 04:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'd been warned not to interfere with the Afc process, so I was trying to help indirectly —Anne Delong (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must apologize for having been that blunt, but whoever warned you was flat-out wrong: There is no reason whatsoever for you not to tag copyright violations yourself. As I said back in Feruary, even if you did make a mistake (and I haven't seen one on your part), there's still an admin checking your rationale. Huon (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors: I am a fairly new editor (December), but I have made about 3500 edits, and I would like to help with the Afc backlog, starting by handling some of the more obvious cases, such as Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Victoria HarbourCats, an article which already exists, and obvious copyright violations, empty documents, etc. What process do I have to go through to become an Afc reviewer? —Anne Delong (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome to help! I don't think there are formal requirements to become a reviewer beyond having "autoconfirmed" status (ie the account is four days old and has made at least 10 edits), though of course you should be familiar with our basic policies and guidelines such as WP:N, WP:V and WP:SPAM. There are dedicated reviewing instructions, and you may want to install the Helper script which automatizes parts of the review process - the checkbox is at Preferences → Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script: easily review Articles for creation submissions and redirect requests. We also have a list of participants to which you can add yourself; doing so is in no way required for reviewing, but it will let you receive updates from the AfC WikiProject such as notices about the latest backlog drive. Again, welcome to reviewing! Huon (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll start reading up on those policies. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.tamilculture.ca/londons-rb-sensation-arjun/
• http://www.sundaytimes.lk/120506/Magazine/sundaytimesmirror_04.html
• http://www.mtv.co.uk/music/urban/7354-round-up-asian-music-awards-2012
• http://www.mtv.co.uk/music/urban/6817-wrap-up-and-watch-out-arjun
• http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/bollywood/news/a407587/arjuns-run-away-is-mashup-of-rihannas-rude-boy-and-tamil-track.html
• http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/bollywood/news/a374726/saif-ali-khan-film-track-zara-zara-reworked-by-arjun.html
• http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-11-03/news-interviews/30350720_1_eyes-jay-sean-song
• http://www.b4utv.com/showtime/thevibe_uk/arjun.shtml
• http://www.sundaytimes.lk/120506/Magazine/sundaytimesmirror_04.html
• http://lucire.com/2012/0709ll0.shtml
• http://youtube.com/arjuncoom

I believe that's the list of references for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Arjun Coomaraswamy. YouTube is not a reliable source. Also, you should use footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the draft's statements. Huon (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd updated it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.178.129 (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When citing a book on my ereader (Kindle), up to now I have used chapter reference for citation but there is a "location" number provided on the Kindle linked to text and I wonder is this number created as part of the ebook so that any ereader would be able to pick up the same reference number? Sort of equivalent to a page number? However, if each ereader creates it's own location codes obviously this will be no good at all. If the code is created with the ebook can I use this location number and the chapter as well to make it more specific? I see on the help page it says the chapter number will do but wonder if there is any further thoughts on how best to address this one? Don't worry too much as I can continue with the chapter method.

Sidpickle (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Style manuals discourage using ebook location numbers in citations because those numbers may not be consistent for all formats or devices. From MLA Style:

"Most electronic readers include a numbering system that tells users their location in the work. Do not cite this numbering, because it may not appear consistently to other users. If the work is divided into stable numbered sections like chapters, the numbers of those sections may be cited, with a label identifying the nature of the number."

Some ebook editions show page numbers from the printed edition & you could use those. Another recommendation is to use paragraph numbers, but this seems to be optional.

http://www.mla.org/style/handbook_faq/cite_an_ebook

http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2009/09/how-do-i-cite-a-kindle.html

JTLofton (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Sidpickle (talk) 08:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made some fixes to the article citations per suggestion from user:Puffin, & resubmitted a few weeks ago. I notice now that the editor added a section "Alexandru Darida--Submitted article for creation" at the bottom instead of the top. I'm not sure if that is correct or will affect review status. I don't want to alter if this is the correct procedure. Thanks. JTLofton (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is correctly submitted for review and is waiting to be reviewed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi my new page wasn't accepted due to "submission is unsourced or contains only unreliable sources."

What would be appropriate sources for a basic page about a book series that just say what the books in the series are and when they were published? I used mainly the Amazon and Goodreads page for the books. I'd have thought the former in particular could be considered reliable for these sorts of simple facts.

My understanding was that the less controversial the statements, the more relaxed it was possible to be about sources. Surely saying that a book exists, that it was published on x date and is about y can be proven by its Amazon page.

Also, isn't the ISBN number generally accepted as a reasonable source for the existence of a book and some other simple points about it?

I've looked at other pages for books (for example this one which I came across as it has the same name as one of the books in the series I was trying to write the page on - http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Oxford_Blood) and they seem to often only have one or two very simple and not very prestigious sources.

There are reviews of the books on some blogs, but I got the impression that blogs were generally not considered acceptable. There is also some information on this page http://www.paranormalromanceguild.com/ which I think is generally accepted as a good source on books in this genre, if that's any use.

I'd be grateful for any advice. Thanks. Seraphina22 (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seraphina, and welcome to the Articles for creation Help desk (section)!

My first piece of advice is, when looking at an existing article as a guide to how to write, don't just look at any article - instead, look at a Featured article or Good article. You can find lots of Good Articles about books at Wikipedia:Good articles/Language and literature (see under "Works"). So for example Soon I Will Be Invincible has dozens of references from independent reliable sources all over the world, mostly newspapers or newspapers' online websites. You wouldn't need quite that many independent reliable sources for your article to be accepted, but it shows you the sort of thing that's appropriate.

Amazon is a bookseller and is trying to sell the book; it is obviously not independent. While I don't know a huge amount about Goodreads, my understanding is that it doesn't employ a supervised editorial staff that independently reviews books to a high standard; instead, it simply allows readers (you and me!) to add books that they own and then write their own opinions of them. That means it's not reliable by our definition.

The reason that your article was rejected is that you have to prove not just that the book or books exist and can be purchased (all sorts of rubbish exists on Amazon, including "books" that are just Wikipedia pages downloaded and printed out, if you should really want to buy such a thing!), but that it has been discussed in detail by multiple independent reliable sources. That's how Wikipedia defines notability - that's the standard you need to meet. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]