User talk:GC2013

Help me![edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me understand the new page review process, and what happened to the Draft "AV-101 page" I uploaded for review. It appears that the version now available to Wikipedians is dramatically altered from my original page.

GC2013 (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The page has been moved from User:GC2013/AV-101 to Draft:AV-101, the preferred location for a draft awaiting review, but a redirect was left at the original location so that clicking on it still takes you to the page. You can also click the "Contributions" tab at the top of the page to see a record of your contributions.

What has happened is that another user, Medgirl131 (talk), has independently written an article 4-Chlorokynurenine and made a redirect to it from AV-101. What needs to happen now is a discussion with Medgirl131 about how to merge with her article any additional material from yours. The mention of her username in this message should give her a "ping" notification, but if you don't hear from her you can leave a message on her talk page. (To do that, click on "talk" after her name above, then on "New section" at the top of the page, fill in a heading and your message, and "sign" it with a group of four "tilde" characters ~~~~, which the system will turn into a signature of your username and the time and date).

I am sorry that nobody left you a Welcome message when you first edited. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the authoring process and review[edit]

It appears very strange that just after a page I authored (User:GC2013/AV-101) was submitted for review that another page is started (4-Chlorokynurenine) and submitted apparently "preempting" my page from being uploaded. It is also very strange that the majority of references I used in my article are the same ones used in the 4-Chlorokynurenine page. My first question is whether or not draft pages that I am working on are private until approved and made available to the public, or can they be searched and found by other users? Second, I believe that my page is more complete and thorough than the current 4-Chlorokynurenine page. Is it possible to search what other pages users have authored? GC2013 (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My reply below to your message on my talk page will answer some of this, particularly the explanation of WP:Ownership of articles. While draft pages would normally be left to the originator until submitted for review, there is no principle that requires this. Everything in Wikipedia is open and searchable, though draft pages are not indexed by external search engines. I would only add that, while it is a curious coincidence that another article on the same subject appeared simultaneously, another important Wikipedia principle is WP:Assume good faith. In any case, if a merging process results in an improved article, all contributors' contributions will be recorded in the article history. JohnCD (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to your question on my talk page[edit]

You found nothing at User:Medgirl131 because she has chosen not to have anything on her user page, so that it is a "redlink"; but clicking User talk:Medgirl131 (or clicking on the blue "talk" after her name above) takes you to her talk page, and then a list of her contributions is available from a "User contributions" link under "Tools" in the left-hand sidebar, or by typing Special:Contributions/Medgirl131.

It's not a question of publishing "your" article as a separate entity - Wikipedia does not need two articles on the same subject. The question is how best to merge material from it into the existing one. I should explain at this point that it is a very strongly-held principle that nobody "owns" any Wikipedia page (see WP:Ownership of articles) - as soon as you click "Save page", it becomes Wikipedia's article, and anyone can edit it.

Another important principle is explained at WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. In summary, if you think a change would improve the encyclopedia, be BOLD and make it; but if it is then reverted, do not re-revert (possibly leading to an edit war), but discuss the question on the article talk page, or with the reverting user, and try to reach WP:Consensus. If that fails, there are WP:Dispute resolution procedures.

So if you do not hear from Medgirl131 you could, in principle, overwrite "her" article with "yours" and wait to see what happened, but that would not be good manners. I would suggest bringing in your new material in relatively small changes, being prepared to discuss if any of them are reverted.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry is a group of editors interested in chemistry articles, and a message on their talk page would probably bring other experienced editors to join the discussion. ("Editor" means just the same as "user" - there is no superior class of "editors").

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Communicating with Medgirl131[edit]

I am sorry to say that there is a problem, which I have never before encountered in eight years here. If you click "edit" on User talk:Medgirl131, you will see a notice saying that she declines to take part in any conversation on talk pages, and will only converse by email.

You can email her by clicking the link "Email this user" under "Tools" in the left-hand sidebar. Although that protects her email address, I must warn you that yours will be visible to her. If you are not happy with that, you could consider setting up a separate email account for Wikipedia use.

Her refusal to converse on talk pages was raised on an internal notice-board last year and, rather to my surprise, was not generally thought to be a problem. She says that she does read messages, so I have given her links to this talk page and to what you wrote on Talk:4-Chlorokynurenine by way of briefing. I suggest you email her and invite her suggestions for how to proceed.

Failing any response, I advise starting to make any changes to the article that you think would improve it. As far as possible, change it by stages rather than by wholesale rewriting. If your changes are reverted, anyone who refuses to engage in talk page discussion will be at a marked disadvantage when it comes to the D part of WP:BRD. Let us hope it goes smoothly; if not, I will post a message at the talk page of WP:WikiProject Chemistry to ask for others to come and help.

I am sorry that your introduction to Wikipedia has hit this, in my experience, unprecedented stumbling-block. JohnCD (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: AV-101 (June 30)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by FoCuSandLeArN was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:AV-101 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
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 get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! GC2013, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:AV-101 concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:AV-101, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]