• Fitwrite (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Anonymous Personal Sex Blogging (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In thinking about how I could improve the article more. I think, drastically, to make it more “encyclopedic “ should I make it extremely simple and just chop off the entire article before the heading Psychological Considerations, loosing about 75% of the content. The sections then would be basic outlining of facts, definitions, history and blog content, which is more encyclopedic. But then why do this, as I said in other encyclopedia articles the discussion of academic theory is welcome. Encyclopedia Britannica as I already quoted does this and further in the Encyclopedia Britannica entry entitled “Blogs", hence a similar entry to mine, it treats the subject in a similar way to how I treat it, first outlining definition, then history, then content, then sociological and cultural considerations and it even mentions Pohl as I do. Again Theory of Literature which I emulated my article on, although it is a book review and so a different subject, dives into the article with similar depth and similar academic tone and writing. This article which is listed in your “how to write a good article section” could be argued also to not be in an “encyclopedic tone", it is academic in tone, deals in the language of academic theories and is far more than a simple encyclopedic entry outlining basic facts.

Again, as I keep saying my article is backed up by many references. I know that when I originally submitted the article I had not learned how do wiki mark-up in my references and so my 70 references and over 100 citations were there but they were not coded in; I have now coded them in, in a sophisticated way, using notes that refer to anchors in the reference list. But this is very disturbing when one reads all your signs about ones article such as “has no references” when this is not true. I know the signs on wiki are often computer generated but still they are off-putting. The fact is my article had always had about 70 references from “independent, published secondary sources", which are more than “passingly mentioned". The whole point is that I have mentioned each reference “in significant detail", contrary to the reviewer arguing I have not; which is why the article reads “like an essay", as much as “like an encyclopedic entry". If I “summarized” everything to make it more "encyclopedic" then would I not be in danger of making the article mention each reference only as “a passing entry", as a summary, by definition does. Then the two criticisms by the reviewer walk the same line of being in danger of over-balancing, so to speak.

The reviewer also adds in my review all the standard tags about reading up on how to write good wiki articles and how to research them. I have already followed all these links, before I wrote the article. I read carefully through all those links, thus is why I came to “ Theory of Literature” article as an example of a good wiki article. Incidentally it was only by finally studying the wiki mark-up in this Theory of Literature article that I was able to see how to do sophisticated notes and references (where the references are linked to the notes as anchors and the notes in turn link back to the in-text superscripted reference labels). I researched my article in google, Google scholar , CORE, BASE, newspapers online many listed in the wiki research sections, Google books, and cross-references of theories and sources with-in the academic journals (i.e. “published independent secondary sources", that are further the key of all written research material, e.g. Attwood, F. (2009). Intimate adventures: Sex blogs, sexblooks' and women's sexual narration. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 12(1), 5-20, 1 of my 70 references .) It should be noted that wiki did not allow me entry to other paywalled research databases because at the time I had been a member for less than a month (why is this? it should). However when researching in the depth I researched, you tend to get in to a lot of the same research publically that is similar, if not the same as, in the closed paywalls databases. Again not looking for book publisher perfection, I would have thought that is something another user can go in and do, once my article is published, adding in a few research items from paywalled databases like Cambridge and Oxford. Maybe a university professor specialising in computer studies who likes to edit wiki in their spare time could edit my article in this way, easily and in a couple hours

  I noticed in the references that I had all done with precision, carefully in APA style, when I coded them in using wiki-mark-up, some came up as needing more fields, but it at least shows them all there, something which again, future wiki users could improve when my article is published . Then all those signs that show in the information about my review are useless to me, as I had already followed all those links in teaching myself how to  write a good article. I noticed @commanderwaterford had suggested that the reviewer had come to a decision about the essay quality  of my article in a few minutes. It occurred to me that if one just looked at the first few paragraphs of the article and did not fully  examine and read thoroughly  the full article, then they may only read the lead, where in the first few paragraphs I summarise the entire article and so I do not include many citations. The lead then is based on all 70 of the references and it would be redundant to tag the lead with numbers 1 to 70 superscript reference labels. However if you just did a fast review, only reading the first few paragraphs you may think that there are not references.  However most other articles on wiki have a lead, to  start, which is a summary introduction and is not labelled with all the references . Also note that in the signs that are shown with the reviewer comments, one of the links goes to suggestions about starting research for writing wiki articles, and one of those suggestions is to see how the subject is treated in other encyclopedias, which I did, as I illustrated in my discussion about the entry "blogs", in Encyclopedia Britannica. One would have thought the Encyclopedia Britannica is a “published independent" source and further a well-respected and accepted model for encyclopedia writing, being from the same academic circles as Oxford University. Incidentally I do not use the Encyclopedia Britannica much as a reference source and most of my sources are “secondary", e.g. academic journals and newspapers.

Again I am always mystified by the circularity in logic and lack of clarity I come up against when trying to enter my article on to wiki. This is more similar to what one would expect from a privately owned corporation with it’s own agenda than the non-profit, user defined free use system that wikipedia is; it is this very free user-defined model of the original wikipedia that upholds a democratic use of the internet. The minute you start adding in monarchic or oligarchic controls over wiki is the minute it turns into a not free publishing empire. I am “just saying" and not trying to criticize individuals. Incidentally in my article I do cover this very topic of how the internet is actually a highly controlled place, less free than real space as outlined in, another “independent published secondary source" that I use, Lessig, L. (2009) Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace. (large print). ReadHowYouWant.com, you can also refer to [Lessig] on wikipedia. There is a further significance here in that Internet legislation should encourage more freedom, and thus could I would think be extended to wiki. I do not want to “rock the boat" of wikipedia, I just want my article published. As I say it is legible, has references so what is the problem! Why should not I be able to publish it as an autoconfirmed user? Then once it is published any one of the 10s of thousands of professors out there with a specialization overlapping the article or anyone one else with reasonable intelligence can, in a couple hours make a few good quick edits to make the article a shining picture of masterpiece perfection. This user defined way of publishing articles is supposed to be what wikipedia is about, it is not supposed to be a book publisher with a need to produce perfect product before publishing.

Fitwrite (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (Non-reviewer comment) - I think you might be approaching this in the wrong manner, and won't get anywhere by grandstanding about the nature of wikipedia. I don't think the problem here is Wiki bureaucracy; the article is simply not in a good place for admission to mainspace. The article reads more as its own contained treatise on the subject, rather than an entry about a specific topic in the wider encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a place for one's "own articles" to be "published" as if this were an academic journal; wikipedia is a place for one to contribute to the overall project, which means writing for the application of a page being a wikipedia article, rather than using wikipedia as a venue for posting standalone written work that was not written with the encyclopedia fully in mind. The Encyclopaedia Britannica is also irrelevant to Wikipedia style, as a curated physical encyclopaedia has very different concerns to a project like Wikipedia, which is not bound by a text medium lacking hyperlinks/interlinking/community participation. Presently, the article eschews wiki style in several ways; it is overly verbose employing contextless jargon, includes an excessive amount of subject background that would properly be omitted as it is covered elsewhere on Wikipedia (for instance, a comprehensive summary of the history of blogging is not needed, because we already have an article at Blog!), and the writing style is essay-like in that it seems to seek to persuade the reader, with quoted examples and self-referential flow, of the synthesized research outcomes of the author, rather than to simply restate what is noted in the relevant cited secondary sources. The detailed description of individual studies, where the studies in themselves have not achieved notability beyond their outcome being relevant to the subject, is also highly unusual for a wikipedia article. The matter of avoiding "passing mentions" refers to coverage of the topic within the sources themselves, not in terms of how the sources are mentioned in the wikipedia article (often, they specifically should not be!).

The best way to proceed, in my opinion, would be to avoid writing about this topic in the way one might for an academic paper (with excessive background, synthesis of points rather than description of sourced information (see WP:SYNTH, and an aim to persuade rather than summarize). Rather, the article should directly summarize conclusions and information already reached/explained in secondary sources, with minimal asides, non-directly-relevant examples, or background research, other than what is absolutely essential in the text in order for it to be understood. Background topics can be reached by the viewer through application of interwiki links, and if the reader wishes to explore the methodology of studies rather than their outcomes (excluding where the undertaking of the study is itself a notable part of the topic), they can navigate directly to the cited source. Sections should also be broken up with subheadings, to avoid long walls of text. In terms of formatting, it is probably best to forgo academic inline citations and instead use wiki citations only - also, as it stands the article images are far too large, and should be included as thumbs with scaled graphical height to avoid the image being unnecessarily displayed at full size.

(I apologize for my intrusion as I am not an AfC reviewer, but I wanted to comment somewhere as I see you have been making multiple requests). BlackholeWA (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Fitwrite, You have put a great deal of time and effort into this piece of historical research. It will have a place as a great blog piece, but Wikipedia cannot accept original research. I know this will be very disappointing to hear.

Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles.

As it stands this piece cannot be accepted. With a generous rewrite I think it could be. However, that generous rewrite also involves a significant précis in order to remove the "essay like quality" that always comes with research.

If you can distill from the piece the bare bones of it then it stands a chance. Be aware, though, that the brining together of multiple sources to create a conclusion is alwasy original research here. We only report other people's research. This can feel maddening when you say "But I am doing this!", but it is the manner of the presentation of what others say that matters.

You've chosen a large and interesting topic. Good. Can you make it encyclopaedic rather than thesis material? I hope so Fiddle Faddle 08:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Jdimiango (talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!

Jdimiango (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• HeyRui (talk · contribs)
  • User talk:Flyingvoice (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia. I'm asking for create the page "Flyingvoice", but my submission had been rejected. Would you please give me more specific suggestions about what can I do to fix it? I'd like to know what information should I delete or modify to meet the purpose of Wikipedia. HeyRui (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HeyRui The draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that it will not be considered further and no amount of editing can change that. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something, but a place to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.

If you work for this company, the Wikipedia Terms of Use require you to comply with the paid editing policy and make a formal declaration. You should also review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Khan khoja (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Khan khoja (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Khan khoja (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khan khoja, what is your question? CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sonic Punch Revival (talk · contribs)
  • Papyrus (Undertale) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Papyrus (Undertale) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey can you give good sources to cite the Undertale Story

Sonic Punch Revival (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Punch Revival, a look at WP:FIND might help you to find sources. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Volunteer 0 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Volunteer 0 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have some issues regarding copyrights.. I'm the owner of a copyrighted article and I want to publish it on Wikipedia I understand that the article I intend to publish here should vary structurally And linguistically from what I have on my website .. So can you tell me more about the copyrighted articles? Volunteer 0 (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer 0: You can review WP:DCM about copyrights, however, I have a slight feeling you are wasting your time there, because of Wikipedia's verifyability and neutral point of view requirements. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Antonio Balsaq (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Bhupinder Singh Mahal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am 88 years of age and not very tech savvy. Can someone help re-write bio of Bhupinder Singh Mahal in compliance with Wikipedia.

Antonio Balsaq (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Antonio Balsaq: I looked at your draft and did some minor editing, but couldn't find any sources using a simple Google search. Without sources, it will be hard to show that the subject is notable enough for an article. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redbettie7 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Rogue Initiative (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need help with next steps in editing my article. It recently got declined due to the references used and I am wondering what type of reference articles it needs to get approved. Would one article be enough for approval? Is there anything else other than references in order for me to move forward with this article.

Redbettie7 (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are all volunteers here, you however are being paid, perhaps you should do your client the courtesy of learning the basics of editing here before accepting any payment and maybe spend a few weeks/months editing. Theroadislong (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Naufalle Al Wahab (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Aïwa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello when will my article be reviewed again?

Naufalle Al Wahab (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naufalle Al Wahab, There are more than 4,000 articles waiting for a review and it can take up to several months so please be patient. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]