User talk:Karenfrand

Welcome!

Hello, Karenfrand, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Margaret Lefranc (June 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

.

To edit the submission, 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.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

Please remember to link to the submission!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Fiddle Faddle 06:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Karenfrand (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Karenfrand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Karenfrand". The reason given for Karenfrand's block is: "time wasting image uploads".

Blocking administrator: RHaworth (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Can someone help me understand the best way to proceed? I am new to wikipedia and would like to better understand the best way to contribute within the guidelines. Is it possible for me to remove the images from the article and post the text?

````

Pointless

Pleas read this. You upload a load of images with invalid licence details. They get deleted. Instead of asking what you might have done wrong, you simply upload them again with the same invalid tags. This is wasting our time so I have blocked you briefly.

Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks you are notable and writes about you here. When that happens, you may upload your images: to the Commons, at a decent size instead of thumbnails and with proper licence terms. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Margaret Lefranc (August 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. 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.

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 real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sionk (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Margaret Lefranc (December 15)

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

Nothing significant has been done to address the concerns of the other reviewers.

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:Margaret Lefranc 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 real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Primefac (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Hello, Karen.

Another editor has tagged your draft at Draft:Margaret Lefranc as a suspected copyright problem, believing you might have copied material from [1] or [2]. I'm sorry you were not notified; you're supposed to be, when people think there are copyright problems in content.

I have been looking at this and haven't seen much sign of copying yet, but I did notice, strikingly, that an awful lot of the article seems to be what we call "original research". It reads like a very thorough biography based on primary sources - such as subject interviews. If so, I'm afraid that this is not really the purpose Wikipedia is here to serve.

Our intention is to be a tertiary source. We are supposed to be a neutral compendium of what secondary sources say about notable subjects. Our tone is deliberately a bit dry - encyclopedic. For instance, we don't refer to our article subjects by first name, but by last. The bulk of content in our articles is meant to be based on reliable, published sources like magazine profiles, newspaper articles, books, and industry websites that are not commercially benefitting from or directly connected to the subject itself. For an example of the kind of thing we ultimately aspire to achieve, please see Makinti Napanangka, which at this writing is listed as one of our "featured article" quality articles on a woman artist. Wikipedia articles are developed incrementally, of course, and nobody expects "FA" quality out the gate. But this is the basic format we typically use - a high level overview of a life and career followed by a chronological recounting. Quotations from the subject are used sparingly, as are images.

I might recommend you consider submitting the content you've already created to a website that does accept original journalism. As for Wikipedia, what we would be looking for is likely to be an article in much less detail, with a good more references to peer-reviewed published sources and a good bit less from interviews. If these interviews are not published, we can't use them at all. Our verifiability standard requires that everything on Wikipedia be based on published sources.

I'm relisting this article to give you an opportunity to respond to the copyright concerns, but also to give you an opportunity to retrieve all this work, if you want it. If you should return and find the content gone and want a copy of it for your records, please drop a note at my talk page. You will find it by following the "talk" link after my username.

Thank you, and I'm sorry for what must have been a frustrating first experience here for you. Unfortunately, people who don't really understand our mission do sometimes run into these concerns. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]