Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AlphaTangoVideo (talk | contribs) at 21:16, 7 October 2014 (→12:25:21, 5 October 2014 review of submission by Smichok). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
June 2025
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • 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


October 1

02:37:06, 1 October 2014 review of submission by Rogecr

Hi there, the first time that I submitted this article, the reviewer gave me very clear objectives to address to address for resubmission. I thought I had addressed them, but the article was rejected again, and I'm not clear why it was rejected the second time. Would you please give me some examples of what should be changed? I'm new to Wikipedia (writing, at least!) so I may just be missing something in the process. May thanks for your help!

Rogecr (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Writing in a dull enough manner for Wikipedia is a skill that takes a bit of learning. Your draft is a lovely narrative, using phraseology which is good for magazine articles. And that is great if that is the target audience. The problem with this tone is that it is easily possible to misconstrue it as promotional. I'd appreciate Cutest Penguin's thoughts here since they declined it and pushed it back to you. It is not mandatory for a reviewer to leave a comment in addition to a review, but it is preferred when things like article tone are involved.
The hints I have for you are "Dull-but worthy" is the tone we need. in our terms this is WP:NPOV. However exciting and interesting a topic is we must rely on the reader to generate their own enthusiasms from the bland text we provide. 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. For me this one is borderline. CP disagrees. It is fine that we disagree, by the way. That is why many sets of eyes can be very useful on a review. Fiddle Faddle 12:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

04:21:19, 1 October 2014 review of submission by Helen7274

Timtrent (aka FiddleFaddle?)

Thank you for your extensive comments and helpful suggestions. It seems that I have much work to do <deep sigh>. Perhaps a good place for me to start would to dramatically reduce the article and use only facts to which I can apply secondary sources. I can then add to the article later? Your comment about most of the references referring to the works rather than the man, is valid.

Thanks also for the info regarding the formatting of the references - I know they're a '...mess and sea of blue', but didn't know how to fix that. Lots to learn!

regards - helen

Helen7274 (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helen7274 (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Helen7274 (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the fun of Wikipedia is learning how to do it. We try very hard to give as good a set of pointers as we can when we review drafts. Yes, cut, cut, and cut again. This is heartrending initially, but the material you have written is never lost. It remains in the article history, form where it can be scooped out and reinserted at the right time. Secondary sources are vital to acceptance. Even so, WP:PRIMARY shows you the limited ways you may deploy a primary source. Work steadily and slowly. The only deadline is the one you set for yourself. Think always "How does this look for me as a reader?" but do not prettify for the sake of prettification. Above all, expect the next submission to be pushed back for work, too. The process is iterative. Just continue to do your best and continue to ask for the help you need. Fiddle Faddle 09:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

07:46:22, 1 October 2014 review of submission by Angeliquemagno

Hi Wikipedia Team,

I'd like to check how I can upload a table with a logo and some details on the right side of our entry?

Appreciate your assistance.

Best regards,

Angelique Angeliquemagno (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You probably mean an infobox, such as {{Infobox Company}}, bit you need to look, first, at the quality of your article, which I view as promotional and to read WP:CORP which I view this as failing. You see to have a conflict of interest. This is heavily deprecated in the main name space (articles) but is tolerated in the WP:AFC process. The article YuuPay Secure Pte Ltd is potentially going to be deleted. You either need to improve it significantly and fast in order to save it or to start again using WP:AFC. Fiddle Faddle 13:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

08:05:58, 1 October 2014 review of submission by SitalTech


I would like to ask regarding a new article that I'd like to publish, it is currently in my sandbox, got declined twice 1th time was declined for This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Since it is a new technology, the only source I could apply is the Patent number then, it was declined for - This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.

How can I tell the world via Wikipedia that this technology exists? please help, thanks! Nissim

SitalTech (talk) 08:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot. WIkipedia is not a media outlet. It records items that pass WP:GNG only. When this emerging technology is notable and reported in WP:RS then will be the time for an article. Fiddle Faddle 09:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

12:54:13, 1 October 2014 review of submission by Walkerbigtalker


How do I change the name of the entry from Ian Walker to Ian Craig Walker?

How can I clean up the reference section for this entry? As you'll see, there are a number of blank references I'm looking to eliminate the references from 10 onwards.

How do I get only the first 9 references in the entry?

Thanks in advance for your time.

Walkerbigtalker (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined with full rationale on the draft. Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY which may apply here. How do you eliminate the spare references? You delete them. Fiddle Faddle 13:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

19:11:32, 1 October 2014 review of submission by RodeishaV

RodeishaV (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have this article that I think might be ready for submission

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Insight_Consultancy_Solutions

Can you tell me if it works, and is in compliance with wikipedia, and how long it might take for it to be accepted if that is the case? I would like to know what I need to change if it is not in compliance?

Thanks so much RodeishaV

In its current form it looks unduly promotional to me. If submitted, it might take several weeks for it to be declined telling you so. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

19:53:16, 1 October 2014 request for review by SusanCummins

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lisa_Gralnick

I have started to work with a number of people to add representative American Jewelers and related subjects to Wikipedia. I have made my first entry on Lisa Granlnick which is waiting for review.

What I want to know is how do I create a second draft page while I am waiting for the first one to be approved.

SusanCummins (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You visit WP:AFC and click the link to create an article. Fiddle Faddle 20:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2

02:29:01, 2 October 2014 review of submission by Mardomdar

Mardomdar (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mardomdar: no Declined I nominated your draft for deletion because it's a copy of kordestan.irib.ir. Furthermore, your draft had no independent reliable sources. You have to make a claim to notability. Assuming English isn't your first language, try writing in Persian-language Wikipedia first. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

05:07:52, 2 October 2014 review of submission by Brahmcharini shivaniji

Brahmcharini shivaniji 05:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brahmcharini shivaniji (talk • contribs)

We can't be sure what you need. User:Brahmcharini shivaniji/sandbox was created after you posted this message. PLease come back and add your question in this section. There is no need to start another section. Fiddle Faddle 19:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

06:04:37, 2 October 2014 review of submission by Helen7274

Hi - thanks again, Fiddle Faddle for your encouraging words. I am slowly working through the biography and have found what I THINK are valid and reliable secondary sources. I THINK (but am not sure)that I have done the citations properly. However, I also acknowledge that there is a way (yet to be discovered by me) to to add superscripts to a reference that I use more than once. So, for example, I have used the same reference three times, and each appears with a different number in my reference list, instead of, for example, 2 a b c etc. I don't know if this is the correct place for me to ask someone to check just the first 10 or so citations/references, and to let me know whether these are acceptable sources. Part of the problem, however, is that most are not available online, which makes it difficult for you to confirm!

Please note that I have nowhere near completed the biography and there are errors in it. thank you helen Helen7274 (talk) 06:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Helen7274 (talk) 06:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Helen. In general we would consider a published magazine or newspaper to be a reliable source. However, particularly as these are offline sources, it is often useful to provide rather more detail than you have. For example regarding the Blue Mountains Gazette, you could provide the title of the article concerned. Even more so, a reference that only says "The North Shore Advocate, 1983" is not really sufficient for someone to identify and find the source even if they wanted to. Is there an issue number or an author or an article title?
For using the same reference more than once for different statements, please take a look at Wikipedia:Named references. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18:19:51, 2 October 2014 review of submission by Rahel.gebreyes

The HuffPost Live Conversations page was submitted (and rejected) twice. I tried to correct the issues with the post the first time, by adding more references and information, but it was still rejected. Is there a reason why? Also, is there anything I can add to get it accepted? Thanks!

Rahel.gebreyes (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to leave a comment on the draft for you to assist. Fiddle Faddle 18:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


October 3

03:38:41, 3 October 2014 review of submission by Helen7274

Thank you, Fiddle Faddle for this useful tip - I have used it to good effect. Thank you, too, Arthur Goes Shopping, for your recommendations: I shall insert the titles of the articles.

Thank you both for your continued support and suggestions - it does make things much easier! have a good weekend. helen

Helen7274 (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC) Helen7274 (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

13:39:47, 3 October 2014 review of submission by Kingsho

I need help regarding adding external link to my (draft) pages. If I add the official video link to the (draft) pages [(I am a Man), Full episode, verified], is it consider as promotional or as informative? Since I'm doing for first time, I'm still not sure yet. Kingsho (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are writing a draft of an article about a talk show, it is entirely reasonable to list the show's main website as an external link. And indeed, you already seem to have linked to its YouTube channel. However, the show's own website or video uploads are not independent of the show, and therefore are of little or no use for proving its notability so that Wikipedia can have an article about it. For this, independent sources are required. Such sources might for example be a review article about the show in a newspaper or a serious magazine that have no connection with the show or its producers. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15:13:58, 3 October 2014 review of submission by 41.206.12.42

41.206.12.42 (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no draft submissions connected with this IP address. Please may we have your question and a link to the draft you need help with. Fiddle Faddle 16:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15:35:48, 3 October 2014 review of submission by Wikibenchris

Hello, I have been told my draft article has been rejected. What went wrong? It is not the 1st article I submit, but it is the 1st to be rejected. As soon as I know what to change/correct, I'll be able to upadte and resubmit it. Wikibenchris (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts do get pushed back you know. There is no shame in that. 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. What I suggest you do is to chat to the reviewer who declined the draft, on his talk page. He has some very specific things in mind as you can see when you visit the draft. Fiddle Faddle 16:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:46:57, 3 October 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Nicolamilan

Hi, My submission on Wikipedia has been blanked because its content violates Wikipedia's policies. Please could you give me some further information about why this is? I don't know how I am supposed to edit it and improve it if it has been deleted. I am trying to create a page for the notable person at their request and on their behalf. They are definitely a notable person and are extremely high profile in Turkey (Hasan Arat) - so I know that once I am able to provide the necessary sources, it is something that should be on Wikipedia.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Many thanks, Nicola

Nicolamilan (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of an overenthusiastic reviewer who had misinterpreted the rules, please accept our apologies. I thought he had reverted all of these. Obviously this slipped through. I have reset it to before the review. There are a couple of obvious things wrong with it - the odd picture examples at the end. Please have a look at those.
The draft will now be treated on its merits, and is on the oldest submissions so has a certain priority. Once you have cleaned up anything extra you fee important to clear up, let me know on my own talk page and I'll see if I feel competent to review it myself. Fiddle Faddle 16:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


October 4

02:44:02, 4 October 2014 review of submission by Williammargolin

I have made improvements to the page, including linking from other pages, providing inline references in the correct format, and uploading an image. How can I get the status of the page to be changed without the warnings at the top? Thanks. This is my first wiki page, so I'm still on a steep learning curve. Williammargolin (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello William. Normally you can remove such templates yourself (just by editing the page) once you believe the issues have been addressed. The only exceptions are for things like deletion notices. In this instance, I have just now removed all of the templates from FtsA myself, as all the issues seem to be fixed. Thank you for your contributions! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

05:23:00, 4 October 2014 review of submission by Michelle Noronha


Michelle Noronha (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Template:Dear Editor, would appreciate your assistance in getting the article featured.[reply]

Hello Michelle. This draft has been declined for the reasons given on the draft page itself, Draft:Vijay Jain. You can read the decline reason there and click on the links within it for more information on how to revise your draft so that it might become acceptable. In addition to the decline reason given there, I would also mention that your draft is currently written in an unacceptably promotional style. For example phrases like "His keen business sense and strategising prowess have made him an advisor across different verticals" are not the sort of thing we would expect to see in a neutral encyclopedia article. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

08:16:51, 4 October 2014 review of submission by J.shahin31

Why was my article declined?


J.shahin31 (talk) 08:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was a Wikipedia:COPYPASTE copyright violation by copying from another website whose contents are not appropriately licensed for Wikipedia. This is explained in the decline reason given on the draft page itself, at Draft:Dr. Vijay Anand Reddy Palkonda. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:54:42, 4 October 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by 3dprojectionmapping

My submission has been rejected. I need help in fixing the article. This is a genuine personality who has contributed towards the Education System of Pakistan. Please support me to fix the issues which have caused the rejection.

3dprojectionmapping (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While it is always possible that others will join in, until it is an accepted article authors tend to be the ones to make the changes. Please start slowly and quietly working through the points in the extensive comment I left for you on the draft, taking them one at a time. Fiddle Faddle 12:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15:03:37, 4 October 2014 review of draft by 117.197.133.104


117.197.133.104 (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Text of draft article is not required on this page

Prof Satya Pall Mahajan, PES-I, Retired Principal, Government College. Resident of 42, Maya Nagar,Civil Lines, Ludhiana,Punjab. India Born November 28,1934 Died January 25,2011

Prof Satya Pall Mahajan was born to Sh HarGopal jee Mahajan in District Sakargarh,Punjab (Undivided India). After completing his primary education, he joined Hindu College, Amritsar to complete his graduation. Thereafter, he joined DAV College, Jalandhar for his Masters degree in Mathematics. He was an intelligent student. He stood first class first in MA examination and was awarded Gold medal by Panjab University,Chandigarh. Shri Mahajan cleared PPSC examination and joined PES. Prof. Mahajan served at Government college Tanda Urmar, Gurdaspur, Muktsar,Ludhiana and Talwara. He was Head,Post-graduate department of Mathematics, SD Govt College,Ludhiana, Principal Govt Arts and Science college, Talwara and founder Principal, KLSD College,Ludhiana. He was nominated to several committees of Panjab university,Chandigarh.He authored several books on Mathematics.

He enjoyed good reputation as as teacher and mentor. He had cordial relations with his colleagues and popular with students.

Prof Mahajan was a self made man. He lived a simple life. He always believed in honesty and supported truth. Besides studies, he loved to serve society, especially poor. He strived to inculcate high moral values among-est his students and family members. Many students of Prof Satya Pall Mahajan are placed at high and powerful positions in Govt. and private sector. The students and colleagues of Prof Mahajan hold him in high esteem. He is survived with two sons and two daughters. Both sons are engineers and one daughter is doctor and other is Associate Professor.

I have no idea why you feel it is necessary to reproduce your draft text here. Your draft is at Draft:Satya Pall Mahajan and has not yet been submitted for review. It will be declined currently because you have no references at all. Please read WP:REFB and WP:CITE and add references. Fiddle Faddle 16:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

19:41:52, 4 October 2014 review of submission by Rpjones12

well basically my girlfriend said a word but its not a real word and it should be so can u make my page please xxx Rpjones12 (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. All our reviewers are volunteers and we have quite a large backlog of material to review. It's great when we get one so easy to decline. It cuts the backlog right down when we can decline a draft without even needing to check references. Fiddle Faddle 21:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

19:53:11, 4 October 2014 review of submission by GoodnessGreatnessHighness

hello, im just writing to inquire as to what portion of my submition was denyed. was it because i made one big list of all the new concepts and terms to discribe then instead of making a seperate submition for each one? was it because i never properly puncuated? was it due to the fact that i described some terms with other terms that i felt were self explanitory; such as mental alination (alignment). please provide reason so that i may properly recatigorate and describe their meanings to your preferances. GoodnessGreatnessHighness (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of it. Please do not add non notable neologisms and ask us to review them. You may find a Wordpress or Blogger free blog a better place to do this. Fiddle Faddle 21:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20:15:50, 4 October 2014 request for review by 142.254.24.210

The article on James Lerner is not substantial enough to stand alone, but can it be added to another existing page? For instance James Lerner worked side-by-side with Betty (Goldstein) Friedan from 1946 to 1952 when both were labor journalists at UE News, the publication of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers Union of America. Could it be added to the page for United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America?

142.254.24.210 (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)jancamp[reply]

It seems you are jancamp and the draft of whcih you speak was deleted becauise you have not improved it for many, many months. Since we cannto see your draft we cannot answer your question with any degree of ease. Why not aks for it to be refunded to you, see User talk:jancamp and work on it, and submit it when you have worked on it?
Please remember always to log in. Fiddle Faddle 21:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

21:20:52, 4 October 2014 review of draft by ErnestManigoJr


Spock 21:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You have not submitted this draft and you have some errors to remove first. What are you asking us here? Fiddle Faddle 21:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 5

06:56:49, 5 October 2014 review of submission by Mystic Hays

Mystic Hays (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply] 

 To whom it may concern :

I tried to do a page of me and my music background as a professional musician. However I have no clue on what I am doing here ! Can you please instruct me on deleting my bio, and my account here ! Thank You, D. E. Hays

Accounts may not be deleted. This is a foible of WIkipedia. You have no personal details online here that I can see. Fiddle Faddle 09:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

12:25:21, 5 October 2014 review of submission by Smichok


Smichok (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am having difficulty finding a certain 'special character' for my article. In French ordinal numbering, they use the letter e after the number, but it is a small letter, raised in comparison to the main text. Could you tell me where to find it so I can put it in my article please?

Many thanks,

Stephen Thomson

Hi, do you mean this character? ᵉ as in 1ᵉ24? You should be able to copy+paste it from the text above, hope this helped. If you are using Windows operating system, open the start menu and look for "Character map" where you can find this and other non-keyboard characters. Regards, AlphaTangoVideo (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14:50:19, 5 October 2014 review of submission by AlphaTangoVideo

Hi, the draft I originally submitted was rejected due to lack of sources, I've subsequently re-edited the page to include some. With regards to the notability, I'd like to point to the fact that the software Aestesis (which is produced by the company that produced Elektronika, and still exists within the program) is already noted in the article on VJing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VJing#Technological_developments_3 (see the end of the before last paragraph). I've contacted the author of the software to ask him to provide more details on the history of the application and a copyright free screenshot for the article, and am awaiting his response. Any further advice on editing the article would be most welcome.

Thanks,

AlphaTangoVideo (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:25:10, 5 October 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Zinfandelorganic

Hi, My submission, Hunt Monitor, has been rejected as you will know for 'not suitable for Wikipedia' I am happy to make suggested changes to help me get this submission accepted. I have read your 'what is not suitable' but I need help and sugestions please. Thank you Judy Gilbert Zinfandelorganic

Zinfandelorganic (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Zinfandelorganic: The term "hunt monitors" perhaps more accurately called "anti-hunt saboteurs" appears to be a neologism. I can see the media and the animal rights groups themselves use the term. I'm not sure there's coverage enough to write an encyclopedic entry about it. Further, your draft is horribly slanted in favor of this activity. I think rather than opining about hunting being wrong, you would do well to discuss emergence of the term itself and the activity it describes. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16:53:29, 5 October 2014 review of submission by Rayna Jaymes

I submitted my first article today and at the bottom it says Warning: This page should probably be moved, but a page already exists at Draft:Sandbox. The intended title of my article is 'Agatha Raisin and the Quiche of Death (film)' so should I type that in and press 'Move to Draft Space'? Is it bad that my article is in my User area?

Rayna Jaymes (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

My article has been moved now so it's not a problem anymore, but for next time, how do I create my article in the Draft area?

Rayna Jaymes (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how do I move my article from Draft:Agatha_Raisin_and_the_Quiche_of_Death to Draft:Agatha_Raisin_and_the_Quiche_of_Death_(film)? There is another warning at the bottom of my article, saying

Warning: The page Agatha Raisin and the Quiche of Death already exists. Please verify that it is not a copy of this submission and that this page does not need to be moved to a different title.

I assume this means that I need to move it so it says (film) at the end so how do I do this?

Thank you very much for your help.

Rayna Jaymes (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft now seems to be located at Draft:Agatha Raisin and the Quiche of Death (TV film). Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of that now, thank you. I would just like to know for next time how to create my article in the Draft area instead of my user area. Thank you. Rayna Jaymes (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've figured it out now, you can create a draft through the Article Wizard. Rayna Jaymes (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:14:06, 5 October 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Fj1cyber


Because of might be grammatically mistake I want you to re check the article then

Fj1cyber (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about your just working on the things the reviewer who declined it says is wrong with it? We tend only top check drafts that are submitted for review. Please do not submit this unless you have worked on the tasks required, then submit it. Fiddle Faddle 21:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 6

Request on 03:18:30, 6 October 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by 174.50.191.15

I was not trying to create, I thought I was submitting an edit to an existing page that contained incomplete and erroneous information. My submission was intended to modify (Edit) the last line on this entry; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayfield_Brewery I have not attempted to edit a Wiki page before and help in correcting the errors would be appreciated. Daniel V Klevesahl 174.50.191.15 (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Daniel. Please proceed to click Edit at the top of the article Mayfield Brewery and change it as appropriate. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

07:47:39, 6 October 2014 review of submission by Dickersonmoney

Hi, Can I just check that my article is definitely waiting for review please? Also, can I make amends to the article while I'm waiting for review? The references I attached didn't seem to work properly so I just want to know if I can amend this while I'm waiting. However, does this mean I will have to re-submit and go back to the end of the queue.

Many thank Tracy Dickersonmoney (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Amend away. Edits may be made at any time, but please do not submit items with errors in future
  2. You seem to have two accounts, Dickersonmoney and TDickerson101 and have forgotten about Draft:Money.co.uk when editing Draft:Money.co.uk (2). Please ensure you abandon one of these accounts completely, or declare that they are linked accounts. If unsure how to do this please deploy {{Helpme}} on the talk page of the one you wish to be your main account and state the issue clearly, linking to the other account and someone will help you.
  3. Draft:Money.co.uk (2) is submitted for review. Draft:Money.co.uk is not
The references, currently, are insufficient. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. It will be pushed back to you at its review unless you handle this. Fiddle Faddle 08:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, while we will seek to ensure that your massive WP:COI on this draft doe snot impact the eventual article adversely, you should note that you are a paid editor, and that we deprecate paid editing unless handled in very particular ways. You also need to be 100% certain that you are not going to use one account per PR campaign. This will get you blocked, as will attempts at spamming us on your clients' matters. Wikipedia is not personal or corporate web space. Fiddle Faddle 08:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10:04:09, 6 October 2014 request for review by Rahara The Amazing Place

Dickersonmoney/TDickerson101 The second draft has been deleted, both due to its promotional tone and due to its superfluity while Draft:Money.co.uk is out there. Please choose which account you are going to edit from; fully disclose your conflict of interest and status as a paid editor; and make your edits to the proposed article, after reading WP:PROMOTION and WP:COI. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10:04:09, 6 October 2014 review of draft by Rahara The Amazing Place


Rahara The Amazing Place (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Rahara the amazing place is not currently submitted for review. To submit it for review, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of it. The review process can take several weeks. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10:40:40, 6 October 2014 review of submission by Pumba2014

Pumba2014 (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC) i have submitted the references for my page.still i diden't get any reply?[reply]

I have now reviewed Draft:Department Of Management Science,Savitribai Phule University Of Pune(PUMBA) and declined it. Please read the decline reasons given on the draft page itself, and click on the links therein, to find out more. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

13:14:29, 6 October 2014 review of submission by Marcus mwangi


Marcus mwangi (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined - not suitable to be an encyclopedia article. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15:03:17, 6 October 2014 review of submission by Darrent71

My article has been declined, not sure why? Darrent71 (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the draft page itself, Draft:Belfast Olympic Handball Club, for the reasons why the draft was declined. The links in the decline reason provide more information. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

17:24:17, 6 October 2014 review of submission by Latency24

Am confused as to why the article was not accepted. Wireless Maritime Services (wmsatsea.com) is an ongoing business that does business all over the world. It is completely unclear why the business wouldn't justify a mention in Wikipedia as it is the market leader in it's segment, noting that I did not put that into the document so as not to read like a marketing piece.

Latency24 (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am not an AfC reviewer but I am still willing to help you :) I would even be willing to edit your draft a bit, if that's okay with you? I can add some secondary sources (as suggested by the reviewer) and also do some linking to prevent your article from being an orphan and a deadend. Is it okay for me to edit your draft? If it's not then I can leave the sources and instructions on your talk page. Rayna Jaymes (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Latency24: The reviewer already left sufficient comment on the draft, so you should read that. Also, please accept that just because you believe something to be so doesn't mean it is so. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

19:14:51, 6 October 2014 review of submission by Shir-El too

I would like to add a screen-shot to the sand-boxed draft article Muriel Hutchinson but get lost in the dos and don'ts as well as the mechanics of doing it. I believe the image to be legitimate under the 'fair use' clause.

Shir-El too 19:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For fair use to be applicable, the page would need to be a Wikipedia article... that is, your sandbox draft needs to be accepted first. So it is better to concentrate on improving the sandbox draft to the point where it can be accepted, rather than worrying about the screen-shot at this stage. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

19:22:02, 6 October 2014 review of submission by Novemberflower


Hi I'm not a seasoned programmer, or very good with code at all. This is a page request for Shane Stay, author, entrepreaneur. I am required to submit this for my work however, as I said, I am not the most competent person to understand the necessities on Wiki's pages for creation. I request for someone to help with this. Thank you very much.

Novemberflower (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We offer advice, and we review drafts. It is very unlikely that anyone will write this for you. Please note that you have a major conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not for Mr Stay to exploit in order to boost his notability, whether by his hand or by yours. Fiddle Faddle 19:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20:45:21, 6 October 2014 review of submission by Bemporad

Hello, this article was submitted on August 28, hence almost 6 weeks ago. I'd just want to ask when do you think that the article will be reviewed? Thank you in advance, regards. Bemporad (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC) Bemporad (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When a reviewer who feels competent to review it happens by, I'm afraid. Fiddle Faddle 22:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

21:52:30, 6 October 2014 review of submission by Helen7274

Hello Fiddle Faddle (or other)

Can you please advise whether, when resubmitting my draft, it joins the back of the queue as though it were a new submission? If that's the case, if I resubmit it now, can I continue editing it knowing that it will be a while before it is looked at?

thanks and regards, helen Helen7274 (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC) Helen7274 (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Helen7274: The concept of a queue is notional at best. While it is likely that your resubmission will wait for a reviewer the fact that you are posting here makes it more likely that it will be looked at faster than that. Always continue to improve it, even after submission, but no-one can say how long a review will take. Me? I would risk it. Fiddle Faddle 21:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

22:58:02, 6 October 2014 review of submission by 82.12.252.254

This page was declined and I need some advice as to why? 82.12.252.254 (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you visited the draft and read and removed the advice. Please go and read it again. I have restored it to you. If you do not understand it, eother ask the reviewer or come here and ask for a precise explanation. Fiddle Faddle 08:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined again, with very specific advice. It's on the draft. Fiddle Faddle 08:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 7

05:26:30, 7 October 2014 review of submission by Helen7274

Thanks for the advice, Fiddle Faddle, but I think I shall do more work on my citations/references before resubmitting. You have mentioned that it's likely that my resubmission will be rejected (actually, I prefer the words 'not yet accepted'), but would like to have done as much as I can to get it at least close to being accepted.

I do have another question: in one of my most oft-used (ahem, I do believe in'...beautifully punctuated text' but I also think it can be done without being a 'Wikipedian Hyphen Luddite.'!)citations, I have provided the wikilink (hope I've got this right...internal link?) every time: is this unnecessary? In other words, once I have provided an internal link, is it necessary to do it again? Instinct tells me it isn't, but I would like to confirm this. It's the same newspaper, but a different date each time.

thanks and regards helen Helen7274 (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helen7274 (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Helen7274: By "Likely to be declined again" I meant that the process is iterative and, while one should strive for acceptance one might reasonably expect a decline. However, each good piece of work you do tips the scales in favour of acceptance. I simply wanted to insulate you against disappointment. Asreviewers our job is to accept drafts once they have a better than 60% probability of being deletion proof. We sometimes are too cautious, sometimes not cautious enough. My view is that time spent in draft is never wasted while the author is improving the draft, but, once the author runs out of steam it should go forward as an article if it stands a chance of success. The community can also work wonders when an author runs out of steam.
Wikilinks should be to the first reasonable deployment of the word/phrase linked from/to, and not used on the same item thereafter. WP:MOS covers everything, but it is a dull read!
Did you know you can simply add questions to prior sections here? It isn;t mandatory, but tends to be done. Fiddle Faddle 08:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

05:33:02, 7 October 2014 review of submission by EtisalatUAE

I need to know the reason behind the decline of my article.

EtisalatUAE (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then go to the draft and read it, please. Fiddle Faddle 08:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18:15:59, 7 October 2014 review of draft by Melshaner


Why isn't this able to be submitted?

Melshaner (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I hate to answer a question with a question, why do you perceive that it is not able to be submitted? Fiddle Faddle 18:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18:46:10, 7 October 2014 request for review by Piandme

{{Lafc|username=Piandme|ts=18:46:10, 7 October 2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Toby_Sebastian Hi Guys, I'm really only writing so I can get an idea of when my article might be looked at. I realise there are a lot of articles waiting for review, but it would be nice to know when exactly mine might be looked at. If i needed to make any changes to the article I would then be able to do so, in order for the article to be accepted. I hope this doesn't seem like I'm impatient, I'm just genuinely interested to know if you know how long it ight be. Thanks.Piandme (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18:49:04, 7 October 2014 review of submission by Asher Raboy

My submission was turned down. Why? Would like to fix it and make it right! Asher Raboy (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=628705599"