Main page

Talk page

Submissions
Category, Sorting, Feed

Showcase

Participants
Apply, By subject

Reviewing instructions

Help desk

Backlog
drives

Shortcuts

Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
- For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, visit the Teahouse.
- For unrelated questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
- Create a draft via Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.

Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.

Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions

Top of page
Table of Contents
Today's posts
Bottom of page

July 20

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Francis Duroy

I transtaled a wikipedia page of Francis Duroy which is already exist in French for long time. And I wrote that it's translated page at last. I don't understand that i need more reliable source for this page...Maybe I didn't mention well it's a translated page or else? Can you please tell me what I need to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Couple de musicien (talk • contribs) 14:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did mention that, but Wikipedia does not consider either itself or its foreign-language sister projects reliable sources, and the fact that there is a French article on Duroy does not imply that we should have an English article. I currently see no indication that Duroy meets our notability guidelines; see also WP:MUSIC. You'd need reliable sources that are independent of the subject to serve as the basis of the article. Huon (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Miriam Riggs/Mriggs23417

Hello, I am working on the "Floorcloth" Wikipedia page, and I am having trouble with my edits being accepted. I am doing this as a project for a college course, and it is my first time. How can I be sure that my submitted edit information will be acceptable for Wikipedia? I think at least one of my posts should be used; I feel that I have much useful and credible information to add. Thanks!Mriggs23417 (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Mriggs23417 (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFC is only for entirely new articles, not for modifications to existing articles. You can either modify the floorcloth article directly or propose changes on its talk page. Huon (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Villikins and his Dinah

I'm writing an article on a 19th century comic song which is based on a traditional ballad called 'William and Dinah'. Is there a way of formatting text so I can list the lyrics of each song side-by-side, rather than sequentially, so that it's possible for readers to compare the two more easily?

I would also like to upload an image I believe to be in the public domain, dating from c. 1850. The image is currently in the Lester S. Levy Collection at John Hopkins University (http://levysheetmusic.mse.jhu.edu/catalog/levy:049.075). Their copyright information states: 'Any music published in the United States before 1923 is in the public domain, so you are free to use these images in any way you like, including public performance. If you use any of these images from the Levy Collection, we ask that you credit us with the following statement, "Courtesy of the Lester S. Levy Collection of Sheet Music, The Sheridan Libraries, The Johns Hopkins University".'

Am I right in thinking I can use their image in wikipedia by uploading it to wikimedia commons first? And how do I best comply with their request for crediting them? RLamb (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For side-by-side lyrics I'd suggest using the <poem></poem> environment within a table - see for example Jana Gana Mana#Lyrics: Code.

You'll indeed have to upload the image to the Wikimedia Commons; using their Upload Wizard is probably easiest. Once it's uploaded, the picture tutorial explains how to display it in articles. I believe the Commons should ask you for a source; that's where you can credit the Sheridan Libraries. If I'm mistaken, you can simply edit the image page at the Commons and manually add a line with the credits. Huon (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Adela Amador

This article was declined because 'Wikipedia is not an obituary.' Could you please tell me what this article needs so that it is NOT seen as an obituary? I don't understand why this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Adela_Amador is seen as an obituary and not as a notable person when this article, her husband, is seen as a notable person http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Willson, and they did much of the same things in publishing. Please let me know what I can do. Smtran (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some of the most detailed sources are obituaries, while many of the others seem to mention Amador only in passing while they focus more on her husband. I expect that Amador is notable on her own, but right now the draft gives the impression that her death is the only event which caused others to write about her in any detail.

On an unrelated note, it would help if you provided links for the sources available online. I have added some, but it might be worth the effort to check whether I missed some. Huon (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MichieHamlett

Hello,

My latest submission of a page (MichieHamlett) has been declined with the reason being that there is only one reliable source with other sources being related to the company or submitted by the company in question. The resources listed range from a government website to a newspaper to reputable peer and client review websites.

I'm not sure what else I need to do or change in order for my page submission to be accepted, can someone offer some help? Thanks in advance! Tbyers (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Tasha B.[reply]

The second, third and fourth sources don't even mention the law firm . Several others are just business directories, not reliable sources subject to editorial oversight. Much of the content does not cite any sources at all. A newspaper article may be a reliable source, but that doesn't help if the article provides no information on your draft's topic. Huon (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 21

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Just Punishment (Documentary)

Hi,

I created "Just Punishment (Documentary)" Wikipedia page, but when I hit "save changes", only half of it shows on the preview page (Release and Reception paragraphs are missing). Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouiseRR (talk • contribs) 04:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That draft was deleted as a copyright violation. Only half of it showed because the closing </ref> tag for one of the references was missing the slash. Huon (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thittuvilai

Sir, When can i submit my page for publishing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmesajan (talk • contribs) 15:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page was submitted, but I had to decline it because it cited no reliable sources, making the content unverifiable. On an unrelated note, why is the article illustrated with images of a German grave and an unidentified child? Huon (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/Catholic Church Reform

Hello, It has been over a week since I resubmitted our article for Wikipedia. Could you please let us know if it is acceptable as is or if there is any further change you require? Here is the link to our submission: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Catholic_Church_Reform

Thank you, Rene Reid Churchreform (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Churchreform (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't actually resubmitted your draft, and if you had, it would not be accepted because it's more of an essay than an encyclopedia article. I had a look at some of your sources, and none of those I looked at so much as mentioned the organization that's supposed to be the article's topic. Huon (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Deneen Borelli

Hello,

I recently submitted an article for Deneen Borelli, but it was declined. Could someone please explain why, so that I can make the corrections, if possible?

Thank you. Danaricc (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In order to prove notability, articles require citations to multiple independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail. (See WP:42.) IMDB is not considered reliable, and none of the other sources you provided are independent of the subject. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Patrick Low

Quality control volunteer User:Arctic Kangaroo declined moving Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Patrick Low to article space.

Special notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN, gives guidance on the notability of office holders:

Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[12] This also applies to those who have been elected to such offices but have not yet been sworn in.

Low was a senior office holder at the World Trade Organization. Why shouldn't his holding an office at the WTO be recognized as an "International office"? Why shouldn't the existing references be considered sufficient to substantiate that "Patrick Low" met our notability criteria?

Note: WP:POLITICIAN says nothing about applying only to elected office-holders. Geo Swan (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly Low is less of a politician than an academic, and I don't see him satisfying the criteria of WP:PROF. Also, the list of criteria of which WP:POLITICIAN is a part says subjects are "likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards" - ie it is likely that significant coverage in reliable third-party sources exists. Secondly the article was not declined on grounds of notability but of verifiability: The New York Times articles only mention Low in passing, effectively treating him as a spokesperson, while the draft's content is almost entirely based on primary sources such as his faculty web pages. If there are not enough secondary sources to serve as the basis of the article, then Low may not be as notable as his position suggests. Huon (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How much do you know about the WTO and the International Monetary Fund? These are the two primary International economic organizations. They are extremely important, their decisions to extend or refuse credit to struggling economies have deep-reaching political implications, so I strongly disagree with you over whether or not Low's appointment to this International office satisfies the special notability criteria of WP:POLITICIAN.

As for WP:ACADEMIC, various kinds of peer recognition establish an academic's notability, like being appointed to a named chair, like Lucasian Professor Newton held, or having an entire book or journal devoted to a restrospective of the academics work, so far. I suggest that when an Academic is appointed to a high-level office, like a Science Advisor to a US President, like Vannevar Bush, or to an important office at an important organization like the WTO, that too is a strong endorsement that the incumbent is recognized as one of the top men or women in their field.

You write: "Secondly the article was not declined on grounds of notability but of verifiability: The New York Times articles only mention Low in passing..." The NYTimes articles verify he held a position that we should recognize as notable, as per a special notability guideline. The project made the decision to have special notability guidelines -- deciding that the GNG were not always adequate. Congressional Medal of Honor awardees, and those who awarded the Victoria Cross, or whatever is the very highest valour award of their country, are regarded as notable solely after it is established they were awarded that medal, even if an RS only mentions the medal in passing. The same should hold true for those who have held notable political or diplomatic offices. Geo Swan (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Quality control volunteer" - that's a nice title! The next time I get called "too fussy" or "an obstructive so-and-so" I'll just remember that I'm actually a QCV. Thanks! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I googled for "Patrick Low" and the top hit is his entry in www.wti.org, and a news search for "Patrick Low WTI" returns a few news and book hits. So he might be notable enough to pass WP:GNG. The problem with the submission as it stands is, as Huon stated, any claim to notability, whether by GNG or by one of the other criteria, still has to be verifiable by reliable sources, which this submission currently doesn't. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently read criticisms of the AfC process, where the challengers speculate that some reviewers regard it as a failure if the new article is subsequently nominated for deletion. I didn't follow the discussion as AfC was initiated? Is that really the goal? Alternately the more modest goal of ensuring the candidate article isn't nominated for speedy deletion could be the goal.

Many new articles only really come into their own when additional contributors weigh in. But that doesn't happen when candidate articles remain at AfC. The administrators who close {{afd}}s were chosen by the community. AfC reviewers are not vetted by anybody, and could be lacking in judgement, experience, fund of general knowledge. Yet, if we AfC reviewers who see themselves as gatekeepers whose goal is to avoid {{afd}} aren't we encouraging unvetted individuals, who have not had their authority entrusted to them by the community to act with an administrator like authority? Geo Swan (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WRT your google search here are some alternted google searches, which I suggest further confirm Low's notability: [1], [2], [3]. Geo Swan (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed up the article and passed it, adding some additional news references. There is no restriction on anyone passing an article that somebody else has declined at any time - you don't have to wait for the creator to resubmit. Indeed, I have done this several times in the past week. I would recommend if you strongly disagree with a reviewer declining an article and believe you can improve it to acceptance, that you should do so. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan, the Afc reviewers don't have administrator-like authority. Article writers are given a message telling them about this help desk and new users are invited to the Teahouse as well. If the writer or anyone else feels that a review is unfair or doesn't understand what to do, they can leave a message at one of those two places. Then all it takes is for one of the many reviewers to feel that the article is ready for the encyclopedia, or to have time to fix it up, and it will be accepted. The issue here was not about being notable but about demonstrating it through references in the article. It looks like three Afc reviewers helped fix up the article (Thanks guys!). If you find another case like this, why not just pick appropriate references from your Google searches and add them to the article yourself? You probably have more experienced at this than most of the reviewers at this help page, and the beginning editors can use all of the help they can get, especially with adding references! Oh yes- the reason we try to make sure that the articles are not deleted is that we want to encourage new users to create articles, and having your first article deleted after you've just been told it was acceptable would be a pretty confusing introduction to Wikipedia. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carlos Damas (2)

Could anyone help me to improve this article? This artists have one article in Suomi, Deutsch and Portuguese Wikipedia, it will be great to have it also in english. Thank you. CarolineAdartists (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have tidied up the references, but many of them are primary sources such as his recording companies or Damas' own website. Worse, significant parts of the article, including the more grandiose claims, are not supported by the given sources. For example, the sources for the claim that "Damas made the first world recordings of several Portuguese composers' music" don' actually say so. Huon (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank youn for the help and improvements done!!! Do you think I can try to submit the articule again or should I wait to try to find more sources? Thank's again. Caroline Adartists (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 22

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Muneeb Faiq

I have submitted an article for review. The title is Muneeb Faiq. It is a biographical sketch of a renowned personality. I am not able to trace the proceedings. Please help... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.45.243 (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined on July 12. The given sources were either primary sources such as Faiq's own writings, or unreliable sources such as a wiki talk page. Such sources cannot establish that Faiq is notable enough for an encyclopedia article; we'll need reliable third-party sources such as newspaper articles about him or peer-reviewed scholarly papers (written by others, not by Faiq!) that discuss his work in some detail. You were notified of this result at User talk:14.139.45.242, the talk page of the IP address you had used to submit the draft. Huon (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Openmatics

Good morning,

could you please give me a more detailed explanation for the article rejection. I would of course like to improve it so it could be published, but the comments I received are twice the same and don't really help me much with the improvement process.

I appreciate any help or specific feedback you may offer.

Thank you for your time and help,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Openmatics

P.S. - Also the article was in the final document twice...which also spoiled the content menu. Why does that happen?

OM (talk) 08:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, your username may not be acceptable - a Wikipedia user account is for one person and implying you edit on behalf of a company will cause problems up to, and including, you being blocked from editing. Click here to see how to change your username to something more appropriate.

Secondly, the principal problem I see with the article is that, while there is coverage from news in the telematics industry, and it looks like Openmatics might be notable, the article doesn't really mention much of the content that is in those sources and comes across more like a bland product description. Have a look at the information in the sources, and try and write the article around that. For example, there's a good quote from Motor Magazine which states, regarding Openmatics, "At times, I wonder whether we have made things more difficult and complex than they need to be, and are reluctant to change our ways." That's a pretty different point of view to what the article currently says. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Grunbaum

Hi ,

is it possible to create a page on Otto Grunbaum and or the history of the standard-grunbaum furniture company.Normally when researching on wikipedia this sort of information is normally available however not in this case.

Have tried several other lines of enquiries to see how the company was built, the history of its originators such as :-companies that have ceased trading ,mergers etc but am not having much luck either on wikipedia or on the net.

kind regards,

Charlie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.132.171 (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This board is for questions about Articles for Creation submissions. If you feel that this man or his company meet Wikipedia's standards, feel free to start an AfC for him or it. If you're trying to find information on this subject, try the reference desk instead. Howicus (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 23

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jamie (Jay) Unwin

Hi why isn't my page being submitted?Jayjay1227 (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have not supplied any references to reliable sources. I've had a look myself, and found a Motorsport News source that confirms Unwin tested in Formula 3 here. Our notability guidelines for motorsport figures generally agree that motor sport participants are notable if it they have competed in a "fully professional series". My opinion, though, is that while many highly notable racing drivers such as Michael Schumacher, Ayrton Senna and David Coulthard progressed through F3 during their early careers, I don't think it can really be classed as a completely pro contest, let alone somebody who only tried out for F3 as opposed to actively competed. You might have more success asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Varsha1990/cartoon_character_PRince

Hi

The above article has been declined three times for notability and reference reasons. This article is about the cartoon character, which was launched by Former President of India.

In one of his speeches, he has also made reference about this character and wanted the cartoonists to create characters like 'common man and prince'. 'Common man' is another cartoon character in India published by Times of India. PRince cartoons are being published every month. Even Former Indian President himself is the fan of this cartoon character.

I am not able to understand who else can be the better person than the former President of India, world's largest democracy. Since the editors are from other countries, probably, they do not understand the significance and importance of such highest position.

I have also given third party references. Even the current Chief Minister of a North Indian State has also praised this. All the references have been given. Now, I am in a confused state as to how to convince your editors about the notability. It is sad that even Former Indian President is treated as an insignificant reference. Can you please independently review and guide me. Varsha1990 Varsha 11:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, and not everything endorsed by the former President of India requires an encyclopedia article of its own. Here the third-party coverage is very thin; for example, the Wall Street Journal doesn't discuss the character at all, and many of your sources are primary sources of one kind or another (say, the ezine publishing the comic). My suggestion would be to not write a stand-alone article, but to add a paragraph on the comic strip to the article on the ezine. Huon (talk) 12:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Huon for your suggestion. As suggested by you, I will include a para on the ezine, instead of a separate article. thanks again for your guidance. Varsha1990 Varsha 12:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joyou

Hello there,

I'm trying to create a page about a Chinese manufacturer of faucets and sanitary fittings. As a publicly listed company employing 3,000 people they meet Wikipedia's relevance criteria, and I tried to reference as much as possible from 3rd party sources. Still, my submission was rejected. Do you have any specific advice what I could further improve? Edits welcome.

Cheers, --Pfandtasse (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The company looks notable - a quick news search reveals this that states Joyou are the market leaders in China and there are several other news hits. So I'd hope your article passes at some point. The main thing I'd focus on at the moment is the article mainly concentrates on its funding and market share, which is a bit lop sided. Try writing a bit more about what Joyou is, what specifically it makes, and what people think of it. Since they were the official sponsors of the 2008 Olympics, there should be plenty of quotes about their product range from various news sources, I would have thought. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie, first of all thank you very much for your advice. I'll try to extend the article the way you suggested. I shied away from mentioning products because I did not want it to appear too promotional. Would you recommend me to create a "products" section? Can you point me to a best practice? Again, thanks for helping me out. --Pfandtasse (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look around for examples. The nearest in terms of industry to Joyou are things like B&Q, Focus DIY and Wickes, but looking at those, they seem to also have corporate information, and nothing else. However, they're not necessarily ideal examples of a high quality Wikipedia article, for which you need a good or featured article. If you want an example of a good article about a multinational corporate, that balances products and finance, reading KFC might give you some ideas. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Liam Middleton

Hi I've had my submission declined twice but I don't know why. Please could you advise? Thanks. Sian SianKrotiuk (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For biographies of living persons we have especially strict citation standards. It's not enough to simply list the sources at the end of the article, but (especially for claims that might be considered promotional) inline citations are required. You may want to have a look at WP:Referencing for beginners on how to easily create nicely-formatted footnotes. For example, I couldn't tell which source confirms that Middleton "developed the National 7s team into a recognised competitive team on the IRB World Sevens series". Huon (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Irwin (Author)

Hello,

I have just written the above item, which was rejected the first time (and will be again) for having no references. As my source is the subject himself and the information here is collated for the first time by me (and of course he has no auto/biography yet, being a relatively new - but crucially, published - author), I do not have any source to refer to. I would be grateful if you would advise.

Thanks,

Desi

Desivanb (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The good news for you is that an Emeritus Professor of a major university probably means that Irwin is inherently notable under point 5 of our notability guidelines for academics, and in fact, you have more sources than you realise - a google search of "site:kent.ac.uk Michael Irwin" reveals many hits, most obviously this one that confirms his post. DGG (talk · contribs) is something of an expert on this topic, and can probably also advise you on sources (such as WorldCat) that will verify his bibliography too. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DARE: Accepting the Challenge of Trusting Leadership

In regards to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DARE: Accepting the Challenge of Trusting Leadership, I am a bit confused about why my submission was declined. Based on the short explanation of the rejection, it seems that you all want sources that are not directly associated with the subject in mention. However, I have two very strong sources that are not connected to the book at all. Also, the remaining sources that are related to the subject can not be accessed anywhere other than Scott's website because they are all print versions or they are radio interviews. I followed your guidelines and I am frustrated that this request was not accepted. I have gone through several existing Wikipedia pages with less relevant subjects that have even less sources. What edits should I make to see that this goes through? Should I remove all references other than the two not related to the subject?

Pmcgonnigle (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Patrick McGonnigle[reply]

The first four sources are, in order, an interview with the author, the author's website, another page on the author's website, and a book award website. The last of those four arguably is independent of the book, but it's still a primary source on the award and doesn't cover the book in any detail. The author's web pages are a screenshot of a one-sentence "review" and of an Amazon sales rank. The "review" is hardly significant coverage, and Amazon is not a reliable source. That leaves us with the fifth source Forbes, which is a reliable third-party source but which again doesn't cover the book in any detail. In particular, it doesn't say anything about "embracing honesty" and thus doesn't even confirm the sentence it is cited for. I'd say we'd need some reviews that discuss the book in some detail, or maybe newspaper articles about it. Huon (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher Herbert, baritone

Hello, I have submitted an article for review on Christopher Herbert. The current title of the article is "Christopher Herbert, baritone". I'd like to change the title of the article to simply, "Christopher Herbert". I do not see a way to change the article title in the editing section. Thank you very much for your help and attention to this question. Regards, Jamie Van Eyck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvaneyck (talk • contribs) 19:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Question for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Outsell

On the article for Outsell which has since been approved and posted, it lists the following at the top:

This article uses bare URLs for citations. Please consider adding full citations so that the article remains verifiable. Several templates and the Reflinks tool are available to assist in formatting. (Reflinks documentation) (June 2013)

We have since fixed the issue but do not know how to go about getting that alert removed now that it has been fully reviewed and posted. Please inform. Thank you!

Ameuwissen (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Ameuwissen[reply]

Y done. Removed cleanup template at top of page. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 24

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Red Wedding

Hi,

I don't understand why my article about the film "Red Wedding" is systematically declined. I have added many information and references (much more than many film pages) and don't know what else I can do. Can you please help me with this ? Thanks.

Julien — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tipasa Production (talk • contribs) 03:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined only once - not "systematically". You have added many sources and improved the draft a lot since then. I have just reviewed it again (only the second review) and it is ready for mainspace. However, there is an existing redirect blocking the move so I have requested administrative action to clear the blockage. The article will be moved soon. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Huon (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Margulan Seisembayev

Hello! Article which I edited was declined again with note that it's not "adequately supported by reliable sources". Can you please clarify that because in article right now we have few different sources of information including Reuters, Financial Times, Bloomberg and local media, plus links to websites. Why all this sources are not reliable and what I can add at the moment? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asylbek Omirkhanov (talk • contribs) 04:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which source says Seisembayev founded the golf championship? Which source says he has a law degree? The source cited for the claim that Seisembayev was "justified and freed from paying any compensation" doesn't actually say so - in fact it mentions an arrest warrant issued for him. The source for the atlas is a primary source. His family isn't mentioned in the sources at all, for all I can tell. So yes, you do have some third-party sources, but they don't suffice to support the draft's content. Huon (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sansad Ratna Award

hi

I have created an article on Sansad Ratna Award for the top performing Parliamentarians of India. This is the only Award for such Parliamentarians. This is happening for the past 4 years. Even the Constitutional authorities have participated and given the awards. This was declined for the first time. I added more references of national media and images. Can you kindly review and approve the article. If any further improvement is needed, please guide me.

Varsha1990 (talk) Varsha 05:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance all your sources look like routine news coverage; few of them so much as discusses the methodology (and that section in the draft cites no sources); most are just announcements of the winners, at most with a quote from a spokesperson. The first three sources don't even mention the award by name, and I don't think I saw a source for the award's renaming. Other sources are highly redundant; in fact one of them is a reprint of another. Citing a half-dozen sources which all report the same few facts about the same event isn't really helpful. My suggestion would be to remove quite a few of the sources and keep only the best few, those which actually discuss the award in some detail, and to make sure that all the draft's content is actually supported by sources. Despite the multitude of sources (or maybe even because of it, there are far too many details where I can't tell which source supports them. Huon (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/EXNESS

Hello, The submission of my article was declined several times, and I rewrote it also. Could anyone please give me any exact advice about the article? Which parts are not suitable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia.tretyakova (talk • contribs) 09:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the reviewer that the draft is unduly promotional. For example, the "many awards" are vague, and for all I can tell those are entirely inconsequential awards that are handed out literally by the dozen, and no one but EXNESS and the organizations handing out the awards bothered to report them. The draft's sources are rather dubious, with disclaimers such as "Forex Magnates has not verified the accuracy or basis-in-fact of any claim or statement made by any independent author". That's the explicit opposite of what Wikipedia considers a reliable source, and I don't see any more mainstream news sources or financial magazines among the draft's sources. Huon (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/McCallie Rocks, Australian Antarctic Territory

Earlier today I attempted to ADD a further citation to my Article. I do not know whether I have been successful in doing this.

Essentially, the complete details of the citation are as follows:

"The Distribution and Estimated Abundance of Adelie Penguins Breeding in Prydz Bay, Antarctica" Michael D. Whitehead and Gavin W. Johnstone, Biology Section, Australian Antarctic Division, Channel Highway, Kingston, Tasmania 7050. Australia Proc. NIPR Symp. Polar Biol.,3,91-98,1990. See http://polaris.nipr.ac.jp/~penguin/polarbiosci/issues/pdf/1990-Whitehead.pdf

The name McCallie Rocks is explicitly referred to in the citation.

I have also carried out further editing of the text in the body of the Article.

A further issue related to the use of the HTML language is the command which needs to be used, just below the heading, to separate the geographical coordinates in terms of degrees, minutes and seconds of latitude and longitude from the following degrees and decimals equivalent of both latitude and longitude.

Bmurphy99 (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the reference. You may want to have a look at WP:Referencing for beginners on how to easily create nicely-formatted footnotes.

The coordinates are displayed via the {{coord}} template at the top of the article. The coordinates in the article were wrong according to the source (which provides coordinates both in minutes and seconds and in decimal fractions of degrees); I fixed that. I don't think we need to bother with giving the coordinates in both systems. Huon (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/User:Predheini/sandbox - aka "Genetics of warfarin resistance"

Dear HelpDesk personnel, A short while ago I tried to submit a new Wikipedia article for consideration/approval. This was done from my sandbox at: User:Predheini/sandbox, but I now see an alert at the bottom of the page in the yellow "Review waiting" box that says "Warning: This page should probably be located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox (move)." When I clicked on "move", I was directed to a page that says the page can't be moved. It may be the case that I previously started a new page called "Genetics of warfarin resistance" by clicking on a make new page URL when I was researching if there was already any entry by that name. Also, where can I follow the progress of my submitted page if it doesn't appear in the pending AfC area?

This is my first authored Wikipedia page in a specialty area of my expertise - I'm a Biophysicist doing basic and medical research on the enzyme that is the target of warfarin. I've found it exceedingly hard to get the table information into the page so far and am having trouble finding answers to simple questions about setting up the page layout so that it appears like any normal Wikipedia page. Also, understanding where I am at any moment when using this Wiki editor window is also difficult. I've tried digging around both in the Wikipedia help pages (which are too full of jargon for me to easily understand) and also tried looking for help using Google and YouTube, but can't find much useful BASIC information about setting up and editing a simple page. Can you point me in the right direction?

Thanks, in advance, for your help! -Carville Bevans Predheini (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your draft is now at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Genetics of warfarin resistance where you can continue to work on it. A reviewer has already given an opinion that the large "tables" of "raw data" are unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. You need to first explain in fairly simple language what the article is about and its significance. I'd like to reccomend that you request some specialist help from WP:WikiProject Genetics, many of the contributors there are also researchers like you so they understand the problems you are experiencing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have tidied up the tables and written some little prose, but there's still far too little context for laypersons to even understand what the draft is all about. For more details on tables you may want to check Help:Table, but prose is far more important to the draft than prettier tables. Huon (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/McCallie Rocks, Australian Antarctic Territory

Can you please assist me by showing McCallie Rocks in the following existing (sub)category:

Bmurphy99 (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Phasegram

Hi!

The article concerning the "phasegram" was rejected on the grounds that the information is supposedly not verifiable. The reviewer must not have looked properly: The phasegram method has been thoroughly documented in a peer-reviewed paper in the journal "Royal Society Interface". This manuscript is open source, everybody can download it from http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2013.0288 (that is one of the reference in the AfC).

When I re-submit the Wikipedia article for creation it gets automatically rejected. That is a problem: I claim that the provided information meets Wikipedia's criteria and that the article should therefore be accepted.

Can somebody please help and resolve this issue?

Thanks, best regards.

BratschistHenri (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I rejected the article because it only had the one source (the paper you mention) which just showed the technique had been developed, not that it was accepted and used. There were links to a website, but these too were not independent of the creator of this method. If the technique is at the stage where there is just the one paper on it, I think we need to wait before writing it up on wikipedia. There was another problem, which I didn't spot- the article very closely matches the abstract on the Royal Society website, and as such has had to be declined for copyright reasons. Rankersbo (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article, as it turns out, is licensed under CC 3.0 BY, a compatible license with WP. I removed the deletion tag and added a note. But the rest of the comment remains valid. You would need to indicate in the article this more clearly. add at the bottom of the article ^[1] replacing "attribution details" by a link to the article. But it won;t be accepted until other people refer to it. What I suggest you do about the other problem, is to withdraw it by {{db-author}}, and then write it again when there are references referring to the concept. DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DGG Rankersbo (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is usually best to start by fixing pr

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Slosh

Hi there,

I just wondered if you can give any reason as to why my article was rejected? 86.147.171.55 (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because you cited but a single source, and that source has little to do with the draft's content. It doesn't discuss the dance in any detail. It doesn't even say that "traditionally" slosh is danced to a tune written in 1972 and thus doesn't confirm what it's cited for. Also, I would have expected "traditions" for something resembling a line dance (and if it isn't one, what's the difference?) to go back more than 50 years. When was the Slosh invented, what was it inspired by? Has it spread beyond Scotland? The draft doesn't tell, and these are pretty basic questions that should be easy to find sources for. Maybe there are books on dancing that discuss the slosh in some detail, or articles in reputable magazines? Huon (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gil Gutierrez

On the first reference I entered I got a message that wikipedia had issues with spam on that site. It told me to shorten the link and I did but now you can't see the footnote I created. This same article is repeated on the blog of Doc Severinsen but I was trying to avoid blogs.

I have edited before but never created a wikipedia page and am still unsure if I did the other citations correctly with footnotes.

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gil Gutierrez

Thank you. Candice Candice Michelle Lopez (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The footnotes should be put directly in the article text, immediately after the statement the source is cited for. They'll be displayed in the "references" section by the {{reflist}} template, and the references section should contain nothing but that template.

Examiner.com is indeed blacklisted. It's not a reliable source, and since its editors are paid per page view, linkspam is an issue. I'd suggest finding a better source for that statement than either Examiner.com (which doesn't have much editorial oversight) or blogs. Huon (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Star Furniture

In May I created a page for Star Furniture. It was denied due to copyright issues but I have since corrected those issues. How to I resubmit? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Star Furniture

GraceCarter (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like your draft is at User:GraceCarter/sandbox. The best way to do that is to move your draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Star Furniture and then add the template {{AFC submission}} to the top of the page. Howicus (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't make references

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ronald Goetz I am unable to create references. I hit cite, then use the scroll down, but no template occurs. Rebecca Clancy RebeccaClancy (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ronald Goetz

My article is rejected again. I am not sure if it is because I didn't format my references correctly (I am having trouble using the reference tools so I put them in parentheses) or that my references are of insufficient quality. Can you advise? Rebecca Clancy RebeccaClancy (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you have deactivated JavaScript? While the Reftoolbar is a great help, you can add the references manually. They consist of two parts: The footnote is created by <ref>...</ref> tags. Within those tags, the text of the footnote is created by a citation template such as {{cite book}} or {{cite web}} - the template pages explain the available parameters. An entire reference would then be created by something like this:

<ref>{{cite book|editor1-first=Michael Joseph |editor1-last=Bell |editor2-first=H. Scott |editor2-last=Matheney |editor3-first=Dean G. |editor3-last=Peerman |title=Faithful Witness: A Festschrift Honoring Ronald Goetz |publisher=Elmhurst College |year=2002 |isbn=9780971512016}}</ref>

On an unrelated note, I'd remove the vast majority of the publications. If some of those have been the subject of third-party discussion, we should highlight those and summarize what they say (ie what research of Goetz' has been discussed), but listing everything Goetz has ever written is overdoing it - Wikipedia is not a library catalogue.

Regarding the quality of your references, two of them look like the same private website to me that is not reliable by Wikipedia's standards (I combined those two), the very first one is an obituary by his own university, not quite as independent as we'd like our sources to be, and the fourth, the Festschrift, is only cited for its own existence, not for whatever it has to say about Goetz. So it is indeed an issue of quality, not of citation format. Huon (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mordecai Island

Mordecai Island, is one of the British Commenwealth Islands apart from Darwin Island, Chester Island. The Ẹṩṡḁḇị(Ezzabie) was the Sword of Mordecai Island and it is the powerfullest, sharpest sword ever made(it was made in 3 May 1056(At Mordeai Kingdom Isle)to June 14th 1056) and was used by Ryan Chucks.

File:United Island

This is a picture the Northern Shores Town Island Coast in 1996

The Leaders were Mike Sife(Si-ye-fe), Elizabeth ||. At 1999-2001, the population was 170, but at 2010-2013 is 486'3467.

It was a WW2 Island were the Battle of Mordecai Shored took place against UK and Anglo-East Germany Republic and it had 278 bunkers and hideouts.

Till 1986, Rebbecca Soldan persuaded the island government that no war is alouded, just peace and quiet. Her Speech was(in English): 'Mordecai Island Government, Is hould allow to all of the island people should have Peace and Quiet to expand the population. But was causes destruction and deaths for the cities, towns and the enviroment, and we have to pay the British for more money. We are losing than expandin the population. You could beleive' and the Government agreed because she was beuatifal sexy woman. Until it growed bigger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.238.172 (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This content should be at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mordecai Island, not here. This is a place for questions about the AfC process. Howicus (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Final David Lerner Designs

Hi, I have created a draft of this article and wish to submit it for review, but cannot figure out how to do that. How can I have it reviewed? (And the sources are turning out weird at the bottom--there are 4 sources, each listed after the sentences they belong, yet the bottom is showing 1, 5, 6 for some reason).

VivianKGomez (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Thanks, Emma VivianKGomez (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can submit your draft via the green "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!" button in the "Article not currently submitted for review" message box. However, I don't think the current sources suffice to establish that the company is notable enough for an encyclopedia article, and they don't even confirm all they're cited for. In particular, press releases are not considered reliable. Furthermore, the draft's tone seems unduly promotional. Huon (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 25

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Neville Evans Collection

Hi,

I submitted an article in May and was wondering why it was turned down. Can you please give me some help to get it submitted?Thenfc (talk) 11:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here

Why not accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayank.aptidude (talk • contribs) 14:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/aptiDude - doesn't reference any sources at all and the text is full of promotional language. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here

How can I get my article approved? I am creating an article for a soccer organization and every time I try to submit it, it does not get approved. It has sources and is just stating the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbrownuysa (talk • contribs) 16:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Utah youth soccer association - All your references are from the organization's own website, which proves only that it exists. To prove notability you need to show that people who have no connectiuon at all to the organisation have decided that it matters enough to write about. Newspaper or magazine articles would be the most likely sources for this type of organization, if they exist. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:DALI.br0!

Dalibor Markovic odnosno palma ili DALI.br0 je oduvek bio cigan i imao mafijaske slike na drustvenoj mrezi fejsbuk. Njegov cale je patuljak i dzibra na roze ponici u fraku u potrazi za novim pristalicama pokreta roma. Cak i u osnovnom obrazovanju su svi mislil da je on cigan. To se vidi kad ga je uciteljica jurila sa toljagom da mu je nabije u cmar zato sto je on ukrao flomastere. DLI.br0 je ipak bio pametan i sakrio se u WC kabinu pa je uciteljica sutirala vrata u zelji da mu furiozno promrndz cmar sa toljagom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.222.79.30 (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia, we only accept articles in English. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ahuda International school

My article was rejected stating it looks more like an advertisement , can you help me get it accepted

Cabascas

Obvious troll

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Cabascas is a country in the Irish sea and durin WW2 it used to be one of the 'evacuating islands'. It's capital is Rando and it's biggest is Rando.

Celebrating Colour Day in Rando with colorful boats

Cabascas is a general island country in the Irish Sea. It has a democracy called British Isles Community Democracy with 17 goveners.

It's history is during the WW2 it used to be an evacuating island(where some chidlren and parents go to if there is now-where else to go) and it had nearly 534. During the British Tropical War(1956–1964) Cabascas invaded the whole of the French islands, Carribean and Malta most countries called Cabascas, King of the Tropical.

Populations:

1999-156 2000-443 2001-559 2002-1,450 2003-1,257 2004,2008-2,035

Cabascish Writing ≤–°₪§|↔•₴₥≤ඇරඣඪඐණටຣໜຽສຄกฟฟค That says: The love is peace, the hate is war, the peace is the better, the war is the worse.(I) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stitch1100 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael PA

Hi checking in to see what I did wrong? It was declined. thanks K ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendardre (talk • contribs) 19:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ligefør

Hi.

i'm new to this. How do i get an article public? — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.Dyreborg (talk • contribs) 20:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References help

I am editing Articles for Creation/ Joseph M. Schwartz. In the preview I get; ^ Democratic Socialists of America. http://www.dsausa.org/our_structure. Retrieved July 23, 2013. Missing or empty |title= (help) ^ Schwartz, Joseph M.; Maria Svart (June, 2013). "The Problem is Capitalism". In These Times 37 (6): 18. ^ Schwartz, Joseph M. (March 29,2013). [www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/social democracy-for centrists "Social Democracy for Centrists?"] Check |url= scheme (help). Dissent. ^ Schwartz, Joseph M. (2009). [www.tikkun.org/article.php/20090226165948636 "How a President Creates Change"] Check |url= scheme (help). Tikkun. [Mark this page as patrolled]

I do not understand Missing or empty title. It is an organizational chart showing his position. The second two references. dissent. and Tikkun. I checked. Both references work.

How can I go back to the reference template to find out what the problem is?

22:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)DuaneCampbell1 (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)22:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)~ Duane Campbell.[reply]

Resolved via IRC. Huon (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 26

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Subversion_Edge

Can you tell me why my article was declined? I added 6 references the second time I submitted it. One of my references is from Forrester Research, one of the two leading analyst firms in this area. The other from well known online journals. This is my first article. Is it possible for you to be specific on what I need to do to improve it?

The article is here: [[4]]

Thank you, Shari (Sg75900)Sg75900 (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You added sources, which is great! I'd like to make some comments on the sources individually, in the order they appear now -

The source by Dana Gardner is a blog - not a reliable source for most things by Wikipedia standards, and not helping prove any notability for the subject (because it's a blog).
I'm not sure how reliable InfoWorld is as a source in general, but the article you have from it looks pretty solid, and is borderline significant coverage (as required for the general notability guideline).
The Forrester link gives me a redirect to this error page telling me the page no longer exists. You may be able to find it again by a search of the company website. As I can't see the source, I can't evaluate it.
The Floss Manual link gives me Google Chrome's "This webpage is not available" page. I'm not technically capable enough as to speculate as to why it's unavailable, and it may just be temporary downtime, but I can't evaluate this either at this time.
The DevX source, like the InfoWorld one, is one that I am unsure of reliability on. On the one hand, it's author is named, and is identified to the point that you should be able to trust that his reputation is behind the piece. On the other hand, my gut screams "blog" when looking at the format of the page. On the first hand, however, it is run by the developer.com network. Giving the source the benefit of the doubt (saying it's borderline reliable), and after taking out the interview parts as unreliable (primary sources), it's borderline significant coverage.
The Wiki, as a wiki, is inherently unreliable as a source.

Combining all of these leaves us with two (borderline to fully) reliable sources with borderline significant coverage. This isn't enough to satisfy the requirement that articles must have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. If you can add more instances of significant coverage, then it should be easier to pass. Happy editing! ~Charmlet ^-talk- 02:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Creators Touch/sandbox

Please note that your account has been suspended as it contains very serious infected files which are used to hack websites. These files are malicious uploaded via open source cms that you use or folders that have 777 permission in your website. There is also a possibility that it gets injected via your php coding.

The only way is to delete the website and re-create again. We can unsuspend the site for 45 min for you to download the website contents,email and database. After which you have to terminate and recreate the website. You cannot upload the same old files as it contains serious backdoors. The issue is quite serious and you must act immediately to avoid any problems to your websites and other sites in the server.

In general, if you are using any open source software such as wordpress, joomla, phpbforum etc, please make sure that the versions are upto date. Do not use older versions of these softwares. Also if you have given 777 permission to any file or folder, please change it to 755 which is the max you can provide in shared hosting environment. If you have enabled frontpage extensions while creating the domain, please disable it while re-creating the account again. Nannapaneni

File:Kick-ass-2-hit-girl-trailer-slice.jpg

Nannapaneni College Guntur

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Creators Touch (talk • contribs) 19:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zane Campbell (musician)

Hi,

Can you please tell me what other information needs to be cited. I can't seem to get the citations themselves to be hotlinked. In other words when I click in them it doesn't travel to the bottom where the relevant cite is and highlight it.

Thanks,

Travis

Linkwray (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ {Cc-by-3.0|Attribution details}}.

[1] {Cc-by-3.0|Attribution details}}.

[1]