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 Calgarytech (talk | contribs) at 08:10, 29 March 2015. 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
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


March 23

Request on 08:28:25, 23 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by DestroyMyJeep


Hi there, I have updated my page with the assistance of a user on the live-help section, to bring it into line with your requirements. I have been waiting about 15 days for someone to come along and give it the final approval, but no one has come along. Can you please let me know if I need to do something to notify the reviewers that this is ready for final review? Please advise,

Ashton Wood. DestroyMyJeep

DestroyMyJeep (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean Draft:Destroy My Jeep it was deleted as unambiguous advertising on 11 March 2015 by MelanieN, who will be able to discuss this with you. Fiddle Faddle 13:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:54:52, 23 March 2015 review of submission by Magnet321


Magnet321 (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Dear Help Desk, Reviewing your ability to reject articles you do not like and then make redress system inpenetrable. To whit receive negATIVE FEEDBACK ON MARCH !ST . CORRECTED SO I THOUGHT BY MARCH 5TH AND RESUBMITTED. NOW i find it impossible to reconnect with CraigyDavi to get further data or a response to my resubmission. Please instruct me as to what I must now do, in plain text please I cannot cope with more Wikispeak. It is dehumanising. of your writers and your volunteer Unpaid editors. It also allows them to escape ownership of their decisions.Psychologically if not administratively Now simply where must I go to find further feedback on my resubmission. Incidentally your search engine can find no reference to CraigyDavi. Would the real Craig Davison Stand up please? Magnet321----[reply]

The best way to get help is to be rude. What you must do now is be pleasant, link to the draft you would like help with and ask nicely. I think you will find that no-one is much interested until that happens. There are no paid staff here, so please change you attitude. Fiddle Faddle 12:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:30:21, 23 March 2015 review of submission by Maybelline Ooi


Maybelline Ooi (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editor,

I am have been trying to publish an article on Queen Silvia Nursing Award in Wikipedia but it had been rejected on 3 occasions due to the content, references and notability issues. I had since made the necessary edits, could I have some feedback on them so I can work towards creating a useful article for the audience.

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

Thank you so much.

Maybelline Ooi (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Maybel[reply]

If I could read Swedish I would be able to assess the draft's sources. I wonder, is there a Wikiproject regarding Sweden where you could ask for help? Fiddle Faddle 11:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Timtrent - I'm sure if you ask at WP:WikiProject Sweden someone would be willing to Verify the sources. (There is a WikiProject for almost every country) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:49:31, 23 March 2015 review of submission by Axemangraphics


Hello I have recently received a second rejection for my submission to Wiki on St. Mary's Catholic Church, Williamstown page. Reasons given were that info had not been cited, however almost every single sentence has been cited! can someone please be a little more specific? Which phrase is preventing this from getting posted?

Axemangraphics (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Axemangraphics (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, because Wikipedia is a gazetteer, this would qualify for inclusion. My opinion differs form that of the other reviewers. I'll take a brief look. Fiddle Faddle 11:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point about WP being a gazetteer is relevant only to named natural features and human settlements (hamlet, village, town, city, district and so on) not individual buildings. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Saw this after I accepted it. I'm reasonably content either way. Fiddle Faddle 13:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12:41:42, 23 March 2015 review of submission by Redtango88


Hi there,

My proposed page entry for business pitches has been rejected as it apparently read more like an essay than an encyclopedia. I've made some changes and was wondering if I could get it critiqued? I was wondering how my page differs from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevator_pitch, in terms of compliance with Wikipedia rules?

Thanks in advance for your time. Redtango88 (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you resubmit Draft:Business pitch for review. I have a feeling that it is more like a dictionary definition than an article Fiddle Faddle 13:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Redtango88 - I've made a few minor changes to improve the layout, I also added a "See also" link to a related concept; sales presentation, although that article needs quite a bit of work to get it up to standard. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:36:10, 23 March 2015 review of draft by Brehman90

@Brehman90: Draft:Islamic_Relief_Academy does not yet exist. Would you like the draft at User:Brehman90/sandbox moved there? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:21:25, 23 March 2015 review of submission by Slipvoid

I submitted my first Wikipedia article but received a message indicating the article was rejected because the submission was not adequately supported by reliable sources. This confuses me because I took the proper steps to include 9 very credible sources (scientific publications and online magazine articles). A user responded saying "Anything you can't source should be removed - even if "you know it's true". All of the information on the page is unbiased and true, I do not understand how every fact can be sourced. For example, how does one verify where they were born, worked, or studied as a major? Do I need to publish scans of work records, birth certificate, diplomas? Some of this information cannot be found online or in a book. Please advise. Thank you. Slipvoid (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I push a draft bio back for more work on referencing I flag it thus "For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS." You will see that there is wriggle room here, in the area to do with being susceptible to challenge.
I have not looked at your draft, but suggest you use 'my' rationale in the prior paragraph to inspect your referencing. If you believe that it meets that then it is good to be resubmitted. Do note that mine is but one opinion. Fiddle Faddle 16:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, birth certificates etc. No. Please do not supply these. There are very restricted circumstances in which they are valid, and usually only for historical figures. Fiddle Faddle 16:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:24:56, 23 March 2015 review of submission by MITAeroAstro


Hi. I am new to the wonderful world of Wikipedia page creation, and, alas and alack, my first foray into page creation was denied...because the individual was not sufficiently notable. I would love some help since said insufficiently notable person is my boss, Jaime Peraire, Department Head of Aeronautics and Astronautics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Truly, Jaime is as (if not more) accomplished as many who have Wiki pages, so I'm a tad confused why he doesn't make the proverbial grade.

Thanks in advance.

Joyce

MITAeroAstro (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MITAeroAstro: I believe that the reviewer was incorrect when they stated that Jaime Peraire wasn't notable. Per WP:PROF, the fact that he holds a named professorship at a major institution does makes him notable enough for a Wikipedia article.
However, your article still doesn't meet the minimum standard for inline citations required for a biography of a living person. Every statement of fact needs to be baked up with a citation to a reliable source using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see the note I left on your talk page regarding your username. Thanks. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22:48:18, 23 March 2015 review of draft by Arise again, Arisedrew!


I'm creating an article that was deleted over a year ago because it lacked sources for notability warranting its place as an article. I reread that article in the history; it was quite poorly done and focused on in-universe information. If I create this article appropriately, with sources indicating its notability in the real-word (like an item that has been reviewed), can that warrant it becoming an article once more (even though it was already deleted in the past)? --Arise again, Arisedrew! (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Arise again, Arisedrew! (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes Fiddle Faddle 08:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 24

10:19:38, 24 March 2015 review of submission by Silentarif


Silentarif (talk) 10:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE ADVISE WHICH REFERENCES ARE REQUIRED TO CREATE THE ARTICLE?

Please confirm that you have visited your draft and read the review comments. Once you have confirmed this please ask for more information, specifying what you do not understand. Please do not use all capitals. Fiddle Faddle 11:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I confirm that I have visited the draft and read the review comments. I have added some references for my article but the article is not accepted so i am unable to understand which type of references you required. Please be noted that I have added almost 7500 songs of Asha Bhosle songs in my article and my wish is that people must know about her songs details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silentarif (talk • contribs) 11:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:26:34, 24 March 2015 review of submission by Dhmellor


Having revised my first draft of the article Leeds Lieder, to include references to reliable independent sources, The Times and the Austrian Cultural Forum, I'm puzzled that it has been rejected again. I'd appreciate your advice as to what should be done in order to ensure that the article is accepted. Those two sources are certainly independent and reliable - do you simply want more than two? Dhmellor Dhmellor (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhmellor: The article from The Times is a good start, however we generally need more that one example of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article to show notability. The Austrian Cultural Forum appears to be more of a directory entry than significant coverage, and it refers to the line-up being chosen by "our Artistic Director", implying that it's not an independent source. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - it's helpful. I'll put a couple more references in and re-submit. Dhmellor (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:49:50, 24 March 2015 review of submission by 2.125.172.90


We recently had our article declined on regulatory data management, saying it reads too much like an essay. We don't quite understand as we've tried very hard to do it in a similar style to other articles in this space. It's not an essay, it's information about what regulatory data management is all about and why it is important at the moment, since it is becoming a hot topic in the city. Banks need to understand what to look for in a tool in order to help them comply with the regulation - then they need to go and find the right tools for their particular needs. Even if we write this again it will be saying the same stuff so we aren't sure what to do. But yet this is what users out there need to know - I thought that was what Wiki was for. Please can you clarify why this is more of an essay style than something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance,_risk_management,_and_compliance, for example? Thanks

2.125.172.90 (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you delete everything below the Context section it could probably be an acceptable article. Wikipedia is absolutely not at all interested in the "why" or the "should be" aspects of any topic. We have articles about things that happened thousands of years ago so being a current "hot topic in the city" is also of no relevance. We never tell readers what to think or do about a topic - in fact we never even refer to the reader. Your draft currently consists mostly of unsourced opinions and arguments about what needs to be done and why - all completely irrelevant. Give us only the what, when, where and who. That other article has a rather prominent tag at the top pointing out it's problems, so using it as an example of an acceptable article is a rather bad idea. The English Wikipedia has almost 5 million articles - more than a few of them rate somewhere between barely adequate and utter rubbish. Hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:15:29, 24 March 2015 review of submission by Crimsontidealabama

It seems my entry was rejected over the citations. Only one citation was from a self-published source. The others were from third party sources. Please help me understand what may be wrong with these sources. Thanks.

Crimsontidealabama (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crimsontidealabama: The reason that the article was rejected is that large sections of it (such as the first 8 paragraphs of the background section) don't have any in-line citations. To quote the decline message left by the reviewer: "Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation".
Also, please see the message I left on your talk page. Thanks. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:44:13, 24 March 2015 review of submission by Datablue12

The article submitted was flagged for copywriting. The article/biography written is for Peter Aiken. The information sited was provided to Virginia Commonwealth University for his bio there by us (Data Blueprint). Peter is the Founder of Data Blueprint and a Professor at VCU. The information provided is our written biography for him. Please help me understand how we can get a biography posted for Dr. Aiken. Thank you.

Datablue12 (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Datablue12: Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly exists under a compatible licence and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure.
If you wish to license the text that your company wrote under a compatible license, you can follow the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted material. However, official biographies are usually written to promote the subject, and therefore are not written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. You are much better off re-rewring the information from a neutral point of view, avoiding peacock terms that are designed to promote or show-off the subject, or waiting for someone who does not have a conflict of interest to write an article about this person. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:30:24, 24 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by FrankAbalistreri


Hi I submitted an article and it was rejected for Copyright issue. The problem is I am the person that wrote the content on the other site... How do I deal with this? Thanks!!

FrankAbalistreri (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrankAbalistreri: If you wish to license the text that you wrote under a compatible license, you can follow the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted material. However, text written for company websites is usually designed to promote the subject, and therefore is not written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. You are much better off re-rewring the information from a neutral point of view, avoiding peacock terms that are designed to promote or show-off the subject, or waiting for someone who does not have a conflict of interest to write an article about the subject. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:34:40, 24 March 2015 review of submission by Tfennes

i do not understand why my entry is not notable; the reference given is a genuine scientific publication. To be precise, I am the author and the article cited is part of my thesis.

Tfennes (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you have just given the precise definition of WP:OR, something we do not allow. You may find reading WP:ACADEME useful to help you gain an understanding of Wikipedia vs Academe. If you are here to publicise your own research, that, too, is not allowed. If the topic is inherently notable it will have been peer reviewed, published in a peer reviewed publication, and/or have multiple people commenting upon it it recognised publications. Fiddle Faddle 18:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What if this user were to use the very sources he cited in his thesis, instead, as the citations for the article? This looks like a legitimate and encylcopedia-worthy entry. --Arise again, Arisedrew! (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Arise again, Arisedrew!: It depends upon the quality of the sources and their peer reviewed status. At present the Tfennes is protected from WP:COI issues, but needs to understand that, the moment the draft is accepted, great care is required with editing a topic in which they have ultimate involvement. Fiddle Faddle 23:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23:38:19, 24 March 2015 review of submission by Vivre101


Vivre101 (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to keep this page going until I have more time to edit as requested. I have changed the date formats on the numerous references. Can you tell me if it is safe for awhile now as a Start Class article or in imminent danger of being deleted? Thanks, Pat

Your Paula Bourne article? It's already in the mainspace and doesn't seem to be up for deletion at all. --Arise again, Arisedrew! (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 25

Request on 07:29:28, 25 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Jefferyseow


Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Satwant_Singh_Dhaliwal

Rejection cites This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. I cannot see where the article has been written in the informal style and am still waiting for someone to point out the problem passage(s). Rejection cites Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. I have cited published works, to wit, The Star (a national daily English-language newspaper), Asia Samachar (an independent news portal for Sikhs in Southeast Asia and the surrounding countries like Hong Kong, Australia and New Zealand), The Straits Times (a national daily English-language newspaper), published UNESCO meeting proceedings, publications of the Pacific Science Association and the Malaysian Historical Society and an awards list from the office of the Prime Minister of Malaysia. Blanks were filled in from his unpublished resume and bio in order to make the writing more cogent. I'd like to know which of these is deemed unreliable or non-independent.

Rejection cited Please make sure to avoid peacock terms, that are designed to promote or show-off the subject. I did not use any peacock terms. But I did cite things that notable people said about him in an article. Is citing what someone said in an article not allowed? If citing is allowed, then please someone point out where I have used peacock terms.

Thank you. jefferyseow (talk) 07:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC) jefferyseow (talk) 07:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have left you a comment in the draft itself, and notified you that it is there. I hope you find it of assistance. Fiddle Faddle 21:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:18:36, 25 March 2015 review of submission by Gmcvoy


Would like to change the title to "Sustainability Rating for Transportation andItalic text Other Infrastructure"

Can't seem to find the source of the "reference not included" diagnostic.

Would ultimatly like this article linked to the other wickpedia articles cited.

Meanwhile, a bit confounded by the bibliography -- footnotes seem in order, so perhaps that's sufficient.

Thank you.


Gmcvoy (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One thing you should change is that, instead of inserting hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles as references, you should instead wikilink the relevant terms directly in the text of your article. Wikipedia:CHEATSHEET can help you with how to create wikilinks and other basic aspects of formatting.
Avoid language like "has been generally accepted as" and "It is thought by some that", as these can give the impression of being vague. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

02:36:37, 26 March 2015 review of submission by Diazmr.90


There was a wikipedia page for "Rafael Yañez". Was the page removed by Wikipedia for a specific reason, or was it vandalized? The page had previously been vandalized and cleared before being the action was undone and the page returned the normal. Now the page redirects, and the content is gone. Is it somewhere?

Diazmr.90 (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look; User:Tiller54 deleted it and created a redirect as "puffery nonsense" [1]. I'm somewhat surprised - it's clear the article had multiple issues, but he didn't propose the merge, redirection, or deletion before doing it (not that I would know if such is policy or not - I'm quite new, myself). --DawnDusk (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See here. Tiller54 (talk) 09:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:24:29, 26 March 2015 review of submission by SisRob


Hello. My draft was declined on the notion of notability. As underground independent artist, the press coverage of Scaramanga is understandably very limited. However, I'd argue that he meets at least one criteria from the guidelines. He released (#5) multiple records on one of the more important indie labels (Rawkus) and (partly #6) he had numerous collaborations (on several albums) with very notable artists Kool Keith and Godfather Don. His collaborations with Wu-Tang, Brand Nubian & El-P are considered by many to be Hip hop classics. Wikipedia already hosts similarly notable artists e.g. Kurious. Also, there are already lots of pages that mention him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:83DA:1DE6:AE81:12FF:FECA:E147 (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SisRob (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


March 26

11:08:46, 26 March 2015 review of submission by Elisabeth Ahlefeldt


Elisabeth Ahlefeldt (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If these new references are not sufficient - what does it take to contribute acceptable references?

13:51:00, 26 March 2015 review of submission by 212.100.68.214


1) The Wikipedia Chinese version of Brian FOK is available since a year ago. Please see [1]. 2) The information in this English version is very similar to the Chinese version which are always quoted by media or people discussing in different forums. 3) This English version is necessary for people who cannot read the Chinese version of Wikipedia. 4) Brian FOK is a young football star in Hong Kong, he was born in Nigeria. Therefore, there are a lot of people in Hong Kong and Nigeria who want to see his information in English version. Please see the following article in Nigeria media: [2] 5) Brian FOK is the only player playing football outside Hong Kong (on loan from CSL team - Shanghai Shenhua to CF Cracks in Spain)in the Hong Kong Olympic U23 youth football team. Although Hong Kong football is very low in the FIFA ranking, football is still the most popular sports in Hong Kong. People in Hong Kong always hope there will be famous football players to bring HK football as well as HK national team to a higher standard. 6) Brian Fok, a 21 years old young player, is one of their hope. 7) If the draft is written in poor English or not organised, please kindly assist to improve, so that more people can understand this article.

212.100.68.214 (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:09:54, 26 March 2015 review of submission by Reddirtmusic

I'd like if possible to change the page from THE Red Dirt Skinners to just Red Dirt Skinners so that it shows up in searches. Is that possible? Reddirtmusic (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Reddirtmusic:  Done: Your article is now at Red Dirt Skinners. Please also see the note I left on your talk page about your user name. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:02:14, 26 March 2015 review of draft by 205.200.229.136


Hi Wikipedians,

I am creating my first-ever Wikipedia article and I have two questions. The first is about formatting. The preview of my article looks good so far, but I want to add an infobox to appear in the top right hand side, with a picture and a few headings: abbreviation, formation, headquarters, president, parent organization, etc. I have found the Wikipedia page on adding infoboxes and found a template -- infobox organization -- that seems right for this purpose. However, I can't seem to get the picture to link. The Help:Infobox picture page makes it seem incredibly straightforward -- just type the file name in after "image =", basically -- but it just shows up as a red link at the top of my infobox. I'm probably missing something extremely obvious, but can you help?

The infobox part of my page currently looks something like this:

WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk
AbbreviationKAP
Formation1984
Typenon-profit
HeadquartersWinnipeg, Manitoba
Parent organization
Canadian Federation of Agriculture
Websitewww.kap.mb.ca

My second question is about conflict of interest. I am creating the page as part of my job duties for my employer, Keystone Agricultural Producers, which seems to me to be a COI based on what I've read on the Wikipedia site about creating articles. However, I have also read that articles written by someone who is not objective may still be allowed to stay up if the writer is careful to use objective, neutral language and if the article is submitted to the Wikipedia community for review first with the conflict of interest declared. My question is, how do I do this? When I go to submit my article for review, is there a place where I can provide additional context for who I am, why I'm submitting it, and why it might be a conflict of interest?

I don't have a real personal vested interest in the organization I created the article about -- I'm just working here for a few weeks on a temporary placement -- but I am creating the article as part of my paid work for the organization, so that seems worth declaring.

Thanks in advance for any assistance you can offer,

Jacquie

205.200.229.136 (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to tell your employer that they are asking you to do something that is deprecated on Wikipedia. Of course, that will then get yo fired for admitting here that you are connected! Wiser not to.
On the talk page of the draft, reply {{Connected contributor}} with all parameters filled out. Ideally, though, this works only if you have an account!
Using the WP:AFC process is your wisest move. We help you to rip out any COI style fluff and clutter, and we are the arbiters of when the draft is ready. Use us wisely and do your best to do as we ask. However, walk away from the article once it is accepted.
Abide by the following guidance: "We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42" but do not go overboard. A maximum of three, ideally one, reference per substantive fact you assert is considered wise. Not reference? Lose the fact!
Images on Wikipedia must first be uploaded to Wikipedia or to Commons, and licenced correctly for onward use. They must be suitably licenced by their source for use here. Once uploaded they will show up.
Thank you for working with us, not against us. Fiddle Faddle 23:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:04:33, 26 March 2015 review of submission by 176.12.107.139


176.12.107.139 (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC) This refers to a copyright issue with my article Alfred Edwin Jones. I have rewritten the sections which were at issue. How do I submit the corrected article for acceptance. At the moment the offending sections were removed.? Do I go back into my Sandbox? But the sections have also been removed from it? How to proceed? 176.12.107.139 (talk)[reply]


March 27

00:44:06, 27 March 2015 review of submission by Inkwell765


Inkwell765 (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC){{Lafc|username=Inkwell765|ts=00:44:06, 27 March 2015|link= I am having trouble adding references to my article.[reply]

Request on 01:22:58, 27 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Monelle



Monelle (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was quite a while ago, but I believe that I copied the text from the website I own and created. I was wondering if you would check to see if the website was registered to me, but I guess you did not.

You can't expect us to know you are the copyright owner of the website. Copying text into wikipedia from elsewhere isn't good practice, even if you wrote that text. Any article in wikipedia belongs to the community to be edited and reused as anyone sees fit, and in order for that to happen the text needs to be appropriately licecnced. For that to happen you need to formally donate your copyright to wikipedia, you can't just expect this permission to be implicit by the very fact you submitted an article. Rankersbo (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:08:53, 27 March 2015 review of submission by O'Segun Soulrich Emiola


Just want to know while the submission is still pending/rejected

Soulrich 11:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

18:45:48, 27 March 2015 review of submission by PrincessGame

My user name is PrincessGame, and i attempted to write a article about myself Sherelle Pgame Tolivert with little to no experience in the sandbox that was provided, Of course it was not edible for release. I have read the information concerning why it was denied but i am a bit confuse as to what it is i need to do in order to get my article published in Wikipedia. Please if there is any assistance that may be offered o would greatly appreciate it. Regards PrincessGamePrincessGame (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

PrincessGame (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PrincessGame, Wikipedia is not for advertising, promotion, or "getting your name out there": Information must be unbiased, not self-serving. To ensure that it is unbiased, we require citations (references) to outside sources of information (newspapers, magazines, books, etc.). Only after people are well-known do they have articles on Wikipedia. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 00:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 28

06:18:59, 28 March 2015 review of submission by Pauwelsruben


I am having some trouble revising my page. To be specific, I am not sure how to deal with the comments by the reviewer. I just don't see how it was found to be more of an advertisement rather than a neutral article. Shouldn't a page about a scientist list all of his scientific contributions (publications, awards, other output)? How else could one judge whether or not this person is important enough to warrant a personal Wikipedia page? Doesn't a Wikipedia article about a novel writer list his books, an article about a singer lists his songs, etc.? The reviewer mentions the needs to include "independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed", which seems like a general (and valid) statement. However, the sources I am citing are not like newspaper articles written by him, about him; they are peer-reviewed scientific articles as well as publications by esteemed international organizations (e.g. IAEA). While these references are indeed produced by the person himself (with several exceptions, such as award pages), none of them are meant to 'advertise' the researcher in question, they are inherently neutral and merely serve to inform the reader what this person has established. Before preparing this page, I had looked at articles about other scientists in the same field, such as: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjiv_Sam_Gambhir (which was initially used as a template for both formatting and content) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_G._Farman (which contains bio, list of accomplishment and a list of key publications... just like my page) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willi_Kalender (a very brief bio) I don't see too many differences between these articles and mine in terms of content and tone...

Any suggestions on how to revise the page would be greatly appreciated. Also, would it be advisable to contact the reviewer who declined the page for discussions (or is this considered improper)?

Thank you very much for your assistance, Ruben


Pauwelsruben (talk) 06:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:58:27, 28 March 2015 review of submission by Abdullah Al Wasif


I need more references to my article. if someone can assist me in translations of the words please do so. A.A.Wasif | Talk 14:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:46:10, 28 March 2015 review of submission by Sandpitturtle


My article was not meant to be hummus, its factual

Sandpitturtle (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually a blatant attack page, I have tagged it for speedy deletion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:31:17, 28 March 2015 review of submission by Dcw2003


Dcw2003 (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated my draft, Abraham Jacob Hollandersky to shorten the intro section. The only problem is that some of my inline references portions of the reference is sucession, and no "ibids" are used, but I do not believe this is a staunch requirement of scholarly articles.

Other than that, this should be seen as an article well researched, well worded, and of some scholastic value. I spent nearly two years researching Abraham Hollandersky, and his boxing record.

Please let me know if I must make other changes, as I have made many, and would be willing to make additional ones if it would expedite the process of having the article accepted.

Thank each of you for your help!! I genuinely believe at least the text of this article should be acceptable, and I can assure you the sources are quite reliable, including the Landsmen article, as Marlene Silverman is a genealogist of over 25 years.

Request on 22:38:37, 28 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Dcw2003


My article Abraham Jacob Hollandersky is now in draft form. I have spent nearly a week including 25 inline references which have the proper format and are from reliable sources. There are also two external links which includes Hollandersky's boxrec record (He was a boxer). Technically most of the information on his fights in the article come from BoxRec (Although I sight other sources if the fights do not appear in boxrec). I would appreciate an honest evaluation as to the liklihood of my article being accepted as is. I have studied many of the current wikipedia articles on boxers, and mine is I believe, more carefully referenced by comparison. The article, at this point, is also quite encyclopedic in its presentation, as far as I can tell. (I haved worked a bit as a professional technical writer) The one photograph is from Hollandersky's 1930 autobiography, and I believe copyright should not be an issue. It is the only photograph. I worked a bit with BoxRec editing many of the fights in Hollandersky's online record, and feel quite confident all the cited fights are indeed accurate and from reliable sources, most of which I personally checked myself. BoxRec is a reliable source that verifies their sources.

THANK YOU FOR ANY HELP YOU CAN PROVIDE, and I appreciate it greatly.


Dcw2003 (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 29

05:07:55, 29 March 2015 review of submission by Artsandculture


Artsandculture (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do I update the publication details for Artlink Magazine without verifiable external sources? This must happen a lot, as not everything is an academic discussion. I have tried to edit the Artlink Australia Magazine site, which has not been updated for some years and now has a new editor. Artsandculture (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:10:33, 29 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Calgarytech


I would like more detail after a THOROUGH review of the page. There are definitely items to be improved and enhanced but I believe that the notion that Mayor Patricia Matthews does not meet the Wikipedia notoriety standard is mistaken. Perhaps your initial interrogation was a simple spot check and, given the amount of content on the page, you just happened to review the lighter weight references, missing the more in-depth mentions.

Hi Bruce;

Thank you for taking the time to review the page. I have read and understood the GUIDELINES FOR NOTABLE PEOPLE and the GOLDEN RULE, and I believe that Mayor Patricia Matthews fills those requirements:

1: She has navigated the Town to Alberta's 14th largest city for the last decade 

   - The reference to CANADA's 14th largest was simply a mistake that was easy to spot and correct... which it is now

2: She lead Canada's fastest growing Town, year after year.

3: She has a huge amount of documented television and print coverage for her work, spanning many years: 

   - If you don't like four references you point to, I could remove them but I thought Wikipedia wants as many references as reasonable
   - In depth coverage of Patricia on major media outlets, is available in many referenced articles including:
          - 3 dedicated minutes on Global TV seen throughout the Southern Alberta http://globalnews.ca/video/1752215/chestermere-becomes-a-city/ 
          - 5 dedicated minutes on Alberta Primetime TV seen Province wide https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQNR8Teu5pw 
          - 15 dedicated minutes on Radio Sirsangham heard throughout Southern Alberta https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zukUGid9zo 
          - 3 dedicated minutes on Global TV News https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JN5_ac5bNU 
          - 9 dedicated minutes on Radio Sirsangham heard throughout Southern Alberta https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEoUAtmSslM 
          - 6 dedicated minutes on CBC Radio heard throughout the Province - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZH1STdHS_o 
          - DOZENS of non-dedicated articles providing repeated and extended references to Patricia Matthews like http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Should+Chestermere+become+city+debate/10240040/story.html

Further, the suggestion that the Chestermere Anchor newspaper is not independent is odd. 

          - The paper has nothing to do with City operations or Patricia Matthews and is not in any way influenced by them 
          - Neither the City nor Patricia would not be considered major advertisers or account for any meaningful part of there revenue
          - Patricia has nothing beyond a passing knowledge of the papers operations and ownership
          - The paper employs many people (i.e. it is not 2 people) and is not tied to any political party

In addition to the above, this page far exceeds Wikipedia's practical standard of notoriety demonstrated in other pages for similar people. There a MANY far less notable, far less referenced, FAR less 'covered' Alberta Mayors and Provincial politicians with far weaker content pages on the Wikipedia site that have been added in recent years, like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Crouse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gale_Katchur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Spearman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Blake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_McAllister_(politician)

I believe that this page does provide the in depth coverage you refer as proof of notoriety and would be an asset to Wikipedia. As stated, I have read the guidelines and so I ask that you re-review the page in depth.

Thank you for your consideration.

Calgarytech (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Brian Fok Wikipedia (Chinese Version)
  2. ^ [2]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=654005922"