Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subjectReviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives

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.

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

August 20

07:04:18, 20 August 2014 review of draft by BrandonWalker2014

• BrandonWalker2014 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:KraVen Tionne Williams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, Can a Wiki expert/administrator please assist me with formatting. For some reason, (i do not know) the "Filmography" section table is below the "Reference" section. How can I correct this formatting to put the "Filmography table" underneath "Filmography. Also, can you please review the entire article and give feedback/corrections on any errors that you may see in this article, to ensure it is correct and ready to go live? THanks so muchBrandonWalker2014 (talk) 07:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC) BrandonWalker2014 (talk) 07:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done the first. You were missing the table closing syntax. I added |} at the foot. I do not feel competent to review this draft, I am afraid, so I will leave that to others. To ensure it is in the review 'queue' please click the green "Submit" box in the top greay box. We prefer editors to do this for themselves. Fiddle Faddle 10:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

TimTrent! THANK YOU SO MUCH! I really appreciate you helping me out. :) BrandonWalker2014 (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

10:27:11, 20 August 2014 review of submission by Satish 2554

• Satish 2554 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Satish 2554/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Satish 2554 (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

 Declined Please do not submit your test edits for review, and very definitely do not bring them here to ask for help. Wikipedia is for you to read and enjoy, or for you to make meaningful contributions to. Fiddle Faddle 10:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

12:34:29, 20 August 2014 review of submission by BEDownes

• BEDownes (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Virginia Myers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

First, I am not asking for a re-review of the Virginia Myers article as yet. I just need a bit of help in what I should do. I do plan to do a much longer article about this extraordinary dancer whose achievements have been largely lost to history over the last 80 or 90 years. But that is certainly about to change. The large amount of documentation I discovered in a sealed box in an art storage room titled "VIRGINIA DANCES" amazed and startled me in what it revealed about a truly unique and unmatched creative talent who was the talk of New York for her entire dance career between the ages of 4 and 17.

By the way all the information and documentation about her career has now been chosen to be part of the Jerome Robbins Dance Collection at the Lincoln Center Library of the Performing Arts.

I had intended the short article I put together only to be a stepping stone to the full article to come. I had included a number of references and direct quotes from newspaper reviews and articles about her over the years, including the name of the paper and the date. I assume what is needed as proper reference are the actual newspaper pieces including a specific date or whatever.

What I also don't know is how much of this documentary material should be included. I did do quite a good article for Wikipedia on Ethel Myers, Virginia's mother and an excellent New York artist. This was with the invaluable advice and guidance of Sarasays of the Wikipedia family.) The little Virginia Myers is a very different challenge. Ethel was one of many fine artists at that time and she did some excellent work. Virginia was a creative dancer like no other in the field of arts or dance had ever seen before and as far as my research goes, there's never been a dancer since that could perform as she could. She is probably the greatest intuitive creative dancer the world has ever witnessed. Anywhere. That's a hell of a statement to make about anybody in the arts at anytime, but it seems to fit in this case. Though I've been a successful professional in both television and film, I still can't understand how it was possible she did the sort of solo dancing she did. This was totally without her ever having a single dance lesson and never even rehearsing for a dance concert before she performed.

Anyway if you have the time you might want to take a look at a site I've been working on about her. Here is a link to it. http://ques.com/virginia%20dances/

The first four pages are virtually complete, you need not look at the remaining pages which are largely no more than a starting point. Still the first four will tell you most of what you might want to know, and the detailed page 4 gives you a good assortment of the supporting documentation that is available (still only part of the full total).

Also I'll paste in here just the copy from page two of the site. It offers one of a great many reviews that were published about "little Virginia" over the years. I think you might find it interesting.

Thank you for your help and also for rejecting a largely unfinished article. I had thought the newspaper quotations were at least some indication that she certainly was a notable candidate for inclusion in Wikipedia.

My regards, BEDownes (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

BEDownes (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a strong likelihood that she is notable, and also that the newspaper items you refer to may show it. I think the issue has been the review did not spot those because they are in "A chronology of newspaper and other clippings" rather than in references. So I looked at them hard to determine whether the article could be accepted almost 'as is' today.

My view is "Almost". This is the same as "No", by the way.

The thing that would turn this into a definite acceptance for me is the dates of the reviews, the day and month and year. We need, you see, for references to be capable of verification themselves. Do that and there is a string probability that a reviewer will accept it like a shot, but put them in the "References" section.

Your idea to start with a small article and to build is the right one. Our cornerstone is that we require references from significant coverage about the person, and independent of her, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. This is as true with 1912 references as 2014 ones. Fiddle Faddle 19:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

21:34:58, 20 August 2014 request for review by Libertyofcourse

• Username missing!
  • No draft specified!

Hector Bejar

21:34:58, 20 August 2014 review of submission by Libertyofcourse

• Libertyofcourse (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

Can you please let me know why my submission has been rejected? I have included all suggestions from reviewers previously and this decline does not have a reason.

thanks Libertyofcourse (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Libertyofcourse (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It has been accepted (or directly created), at Hector Bejar. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

August 21

00:23:27, 21 August 2014 review of submission by Joe verola

• Joe verola (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • No draft specified!

Joe verola (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I respect all the work you people do. But there should be a database that when submissions are entered they able to be easily viewed and edits can be made and reviewed. My original article which was deleted, I entered another which wasn't available on wikipedia and I haven't received any response and have no idea what the status is.

Hello Joe. Sorry that the system isn't as easy to use as it should be. Your earlier draft article is still awaiting its second review at Draft:Brian "Glaze" Gibbs. It is almost certain to be declined, however; June 13, 1990 is still not "yesterday"! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

16:19:01, 21 August 2014 review of submission by DrMinktheStink

• DrMinktheStink (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

The Bloody Foreigners (band) Hi can you please provide more details as to why my piece on 'The Bloody Foreigners' was declined?

DrMinktheStink (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi can you please provide more details as to why my piece on 'The Bloody Foreigners' was declined?— Preceding unsigned comment added by DrMinktheStink (talk • contribs)

Hello Dr. Mink. Do the links provided on the draft page itself, Draft:The Bloody Foreigners, give you the information you need? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

August 22

02:28:02, 22 August 2014 review of submission by Amin El Ardi

• Amin El Ardi (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Amin El Ardi/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Amin El Ardi (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This submission has been declined, and the subject matter is not a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. Sorry. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

06:54:17, 22 August 2014 review of submission by Dtrident

• Dtrident (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

It looks very unclear and difficult to get approval for any newly written article. Is it because we need to pay anyway to those editors, that said they have privilege to edit as an "encyclopedia way"? (I'm honestly not very happy with that experience!) Please provide me a reasonable explanation. Thanks so much! Dtrident (talk) 06:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No-one ever suggested that writing an article to a high standard was easy. You may be confusing the simplicity of creating an article with the complexity of making sure it passed WP:42, something your brief words with a single reference do not. You may waste your money by paying someone to write something, certainly, or you could actually do the small work required to find references yourself. WIkipedia has standards and those are inviolate. YOur article looks pretty much like a poor piece of promotion, not an article. Instead of complaining it would be far more useful to do the work.

Because of your complaint I perceive that you have a conflict of interest. It would be worth your reading about that.

Improve the article and resubmit it. Alternatively, "If at first you don't succeed, give up. No-one wants to fail twice." I think that was Homer Simpson among others. Fiddle Faddle 08:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, the software described in this draft, appears to be a product of the company related to the draft below. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

08:15:22, 22 August 2014 review of submission by Garywfchan

• Garywfchan (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

It has been a month and more already. What's the review status now? Garywfchan (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The review status now is that I have just now declined this submission. I have provided a number of comments on the draft page providing reasons why I believe the draft is still unsuitable to be accepted as an article. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

16:20:12, 22 August 2014 review of submission by GerryHayes2

• GerryHayes2 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Gerald Hayes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

GerryHayes2 (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

If the review of my page is approved, Please post under name, Gerry Hayes. There is another Gerald Hayes and I don't want confusion. Thanks, ---Gerry Hayes

@GerryHayes2: I left comments on your talk page. I think the subject (you) might meet WP:ARTIST. I'm concerned there aren't enough in-line citations since this is a biography about a living person. I'm not declining it but I don't think I can accept it. I encourage you to sign up at our list of LA Wikipedians so you can attend our edit-a-thons and get help from me and others in person. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

At this stage please do not worry about naming. We can handle renaming at any stage and are skilled in ensuring that similarly named folk are disambiguated. Your draft has been  Declined this time around and I have left a substantial comment on it. Autobiographies are troublesome to write and cause the author substantial pain and heartache. I hope you do not find you wish you had not embarked upon this quest, for ot is very hard to write an acceptable autobiography to our standards. Fiddle Faddle 16:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

August 23

12:49:19, 23 August 2014 review of submission by Nunubell

• Nunubell (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Nunubell/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nunubell (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Please do not confuse WIkipedia with a site that answers questions or is a social media forum. This is a serious encyclopaedia. I have declined your purported article. I have also reverted the major change you made, presumably by accident, to this page. If you have a real question please ask it. You do not beed a new section. Edit this one and ask. But do not ask the question you have asked in your sandbox. For things like the Google is your friend. Fiddle Faddle 13:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

16:41:28, 23 August 2014 review of submission by Alawadhi-art

• Alawadhi-art (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Alawadhi-art/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Alawadhi-art (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

What are you expecting to happen as an answer here? Fiddle Faddle 19:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

16:42:21, 23 August 2014 review of submission by NicolePoole

• NicolePoole (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:O. Gail Poole (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi folks - having a hard time inserting images into relevant sections. Any advice?

NicolePoole (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It is likely that you do not yet have the privileges that allow file upload. Please concentrate on the text. The pictures will be the final embellishment. Fiddle Faddle 17:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Ha. I kind of charged out of the gate there. Thank you (and I hope I'm responding in the right place).

17:52:09, 23 August 2014 review of submission by Youghalonline

• Youghalonline (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

I have no idea why my page was rejected. Can someone please help with the specifics.

Thanks

Youghalonline (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Youghalonline: The reviewer left comments on your draft, so you should read those. The issue was a lack of independent sources to establish notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

August 24

06:15:32, 24 August 2014 request for review by Tristanhead

• Tristanhead (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

Tristanhead (talk) 06:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 06:15:32, 24 August 2014 request for review by Tristanhead

• Tristanhead (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

@Tristanhead: Both of these submissions are entirely unreferenced and read like original research. I recommending interacting with WikiProject Physics before you attempt to write a new article. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

08:04:49, 24 August 2014 review of draft by Taliop

• Taliop (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Wiener Library for the Study of the Nazi Era and the Holocaust (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have submitted my page for review a while ago, but it has not yet been approved. Is there anything I can do to speed up the process? Taliop (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Reviews happen when a reviewer who believes they have the competence to review your draft takes the task on. All you can do is to continue to improve the draft while awaiting review. I shall have a look to see if I feel I am competent to review it in a moment. Fiddle Faddle 12:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Taliop: The article has not been submitted, so I have left a detailed pre-submission review comment on it. Please do submit it, but do attend to my comments at the same time. If there is anything you do not understand, either ask me directly on my own talk page, or come back to this section and ask. Fiddle Faddle 12:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

13:52:24, 24 August 2014 review of submission by 88.164.181.110

• 88.164.181.110 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

My article about a UNESCO senior manager was rejected without any comments. Why is that? Is there any limitation on such personalities. I know of many UN senior manager who have their Wikipedia page. I can provide several examples from UNESCO itself. Why reject this one person? If you have issues with the content why not informing of your concerns?

I thought Wikipedia belonged to all of us and as long as the content was accurate we could publish articles on any subject. Clearly, I was mistaken.

88.164.181.110 (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't belong to anyone. No, Wikipedia does not publish articles on any subject. The criteria for whether to include or accept an article about a person (including UN senior managers) are at Wikipedia:Notability (people). If there are existing articles about other UN senior managers that do not meet any of these criteria, you are welcome to nominate them for deletion. It may well be that your article was not in fact rejected, or not in fact rejected without any comments, but since there is nothing at Draft:Saniye Gulser Corat, we can't tell. Please could you link us to the page in question, or even the page where you were notified about this? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

21:05:08, 24 August 2014 review of draft by Avik sinha

• Avik sinha (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Gurubochon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear team,

I am the admin of GuruBochon, and while crating the article about my page, I was using the contents directly from my website. Now all the image files are "speedily deleted" due to copyright issues. Now my question is, how come the copyright issue can appear, if the contents and images are designed by my own team? If I draw something on my PC, from where someone can expect that to be copied from somewhere else?

We are facing difficulties regarding this. Kindly assist us.

Thanks,
Avik Sinha
Admin - GuruBochon

Avik sinha (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

But we have no idea who you are., You could be anyone at all. So we protect the copyright owner's copyright. IMagine if we did not protect that and your copyright were infringed. How angry would you be at that?

Please read Wikipedia:Donating copyright material, and go through the relevant processes. If you are truly the copyright owner this will be no problem for you.

I have  Declined your draft because it is improperly sourced. You seem to have proved it exists, but not that it is notable. Please read the comment on the draft. Fiddle Faddle 21:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

August 25

01:28:21, 25 August 2014 review of submission by Forevermore2314

• Forevermore2314 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

I was just editing the page because it was not accepted but then there's An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, and it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please report this error. that appeared.. what should I do?????????? Forevermore2314 (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

What were you trying to add to the article? It may be you included a link to a website on our blacklist and that tripped an alert. Let us know exactly what you were adding and exactly what the error message said. Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Request on 04:35:19, 25 August 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by AshleyMarcella

• AshleyMarcella (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:AshleyMarcella (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not sure why my article was declined. Can you message me? Thanks!

AshleyMarcella (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@AshleyMarcella: There are comments on the draft, so you should read those. The draft reads promotionally and half of your sources are not reliable. I would chop half of the content to start with, sticking to the facts that are reliably sourced. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

08:25:56, 25 August 2014 review of submission by Limylemony

• Limylemony (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

Limylemony (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Dear Team,

Pls clarify the reason for rejecting my article for Kredit Financial.

Regards,

Limylemony

13:30:13, 25 August 2014 request for review by 50.244.35.129

@Limylemony: It's entirely unreferenced and there's no apparent notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

14:40:39, 25 August 2014 review of submission by Emiskew

• Emiskew (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:March Networks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am hoping that someone can please read my article for submission. I have been waiting almost a month for another review on an article that has been in the works since early June. I have made significant changes as per the last editor's advice. I really feel this is a good article that is worthy of publication. Can someone please help? Emiskew (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Emiskew (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Emiskew:  Declined I think the genesis of your difficulty is that you're trying to write a puff piece and you're using unreliable sources to support those assertions. By my count you have three, maybe four, reliable sources. Instead, cut down the draft and use like 80% reliable sources (leaving only 20% of the PR stuff) and then ask for another review. Try adding this book, this book, this book, this piece from The Guardian, and this piece from The Globe and Mail. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I have to disagree. Is our submission being declined, simply because it has been declined in the past? Our sources are entirely independent and reliable. Can I request a review of this review? Emiskew (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Emiskew: All reviews are reviews of the article as it stands today. Prior reviews are read with interest to see if the work either has been done or if the current reviewer agrees with the prior reviewers. Your draft is being declined because it stands very little chance of surviving as an article as it stands. Our objective is to seek to avoid summary deletion of your work when it is accepted. We tend to know what will and will not make the grade. If you think this process is hard you really do not want to experience a deletion discussion. Cut your article to the bare minimum necessary to make the grade. Use robust citations that pass WP:RS. We have no interest in declining article for the sake of it. All that does is creates a longer backlog. Once you understand that we want to accept articles you may start to take our advice better. Work with us not against us. Fiddle Faddle 16:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I am requesting another review of my draft article. We have used entirely independent third-party sources, yet the editors appear to simply repeat the feedback of the last editor, who has rejected it. The article has been changed to cite only THIRD PARTY SOURCES! If someone takes the time to read each reference, they will realize this. Please, can someone help? This is a legitimate article that deserves to be published. Emiskew (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Emiskew (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Emiskew: There is a substantial difference between "Third Party Sources" and significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42.

Again, let me reiterate, we want to accept articles. You are simply making it hard for us to do so. Read my reply to you above.

Not every corporation is notable. If March Networks is, then look hard at WP:42 and show it well. The references you have so far are well placed PR pieces, but that does not make them independent.

You do not need to open a new section, by the way. Please continue to comment in this one. Fiddle Faddle 16:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You might also look at the list CT has suggested of potential references. He may be blunt in his words at times but he usually hits the nail on the head. Fiddle Faddle 16:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC

I have many notable references, - Toronto Star, Canada.com, Ottawa Sun, Ottawa Business Journal, Bloomberg News. How are these at all considered PR pieces? These are major daily and weekly newspapers. Emiskew (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bloomberg URL is a company profile, not a news article. The other sources you listed are good. The problem is that the few journalistic sources you do have don't convince me of notability, which is why I suggested other sources you can add to it. @JSFarman: would you want to review this submission? Chris Troutman (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I have left you a detailed analysis of the pseudo-references you have used on the draft itself. Fiddle Faddle 17:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Tim and Chris' assessment. Tim's already reviewed it, but I would have come to the same conclusion. The only difference in our opinion would be that I wouldn't consider ABCfunds.com a valid source, since the author of the article is an investor in the company. JSFarman (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I had expressed doubts about that one based on needing to know more about the link between the two. This draft as it stands is quite a lot of WP:BOMBARD and needs to be cut right back to basics. I suspect some genuine notability can be found, but it is being well concealed by the bombardment. It's up to Emiskew to prove it. So go to it with a will. Fiddle Faddle 20:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

16:56:05, 25 August 2014 review of submission by Jfreije

• Jfreije (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Abraham Freije (Ibrahim Freiji) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I just moved this article around based on user name as suggested by the site. I've submitted this draft a month ago and no action has taken place. I'm very confused as to where this draft should go and now believe I may have created an issue by moving to "user" as suggested by site. Any suggestions/advice?

Thank you. Jfreije (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Any issue you may have created we can solve. Be unconcerned . The article is safely at Draft:Abraham Freije (Ibrahim Freiji) for the moment. It is awaiting a reviewer who feels they have the competence to review it. Sometimes one needs extra patience. To help with the review, are you able to find any online versions of the print media you are using as a reference. It is not mandatory, but, if you can find it, it may speed the reviewer's hand. I do not feel competent to review this draft or I would have done so already. Fiddle Faddle 17:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

18:20:24, 25 August 2014 review of submission by Summergs1

• Summergs1 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

Summergs1 (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Asking a question is usual at a help desk. What is yours, please? Fiddle Faddle 20:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

August 26

06:20:16, 26 August 2014 review of submission by Nimantharaj

• Nimantharaj (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Chandima Gomes, the Lightning Protection Guru in Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nimantharaj (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure whether I have submitted my paper for review. It always says that the draft is not yet submitted for review. I am confused

It is submitted just fine. It will not be accepted in the state it is in at present because the tone is promotional. Please edit it to a "Dull but worthy" tone. Fiddle Faddle 06:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

09:34:30, 26 August 2014 review of submission by The Editor is Here

• The Editor is Here (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kreditech (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I have a few questions concerning an edit on a recent draft that I made (still waiting for a review). I replaced one of the article’s sources with an independent source from a national German business newspaper and noted a plainly stated fact about the company, but yet it was tagged in the Revision History as being “Possible self-promotion in userspace”. I’m not sure why adding a more reliable/independent third party source to an article would be flagged like this… should I be concerned, and will this eventually be removed? What could I do to avoid this from reoccurring in the future? Thank you for your help. The Editor is Here (talk) 09:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I suspect a gremlin in a filter. Unless it happens often, when there will be some sort of mechanism to report it (Probably at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter/354 ) just ignore it. I may have missed something, of course. Fiddle Faddle 09:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I found the location to make a report of a false positive, and have done so on your behalf. Fiddle Faddle 10:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help, it’s very much appreciated! The Editor is Here (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

17:44:33, 26 August 2014 review of submission by DDlb5

• DDlb5 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:DDlb5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I created an article in my sandbox and it was approved. I now want to create another one but my previous article is still in my sandbox. What do I do?

DDlb5 (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't in your sandbox; your sandbox was redirecting to the accepted article, as is the norm when a draft is accepted. I've removed the redirect for you. Your sandbox is now free again for you to use. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 20:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

21:08:26, 26 August 2014 review of submission by Danaostomel

• Danaostomel (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Deposit a Gift (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I essentially made all the revisions that I felt needed to be made to the Deposit a Gift company page, but I am still having trouble with a couple of things. I am having a difficult time inserting an image into the infobox. In addition, the reviewer told me that each of my sources were unacceptable, which I disagreed with. I thoroughly read through both articles that the reviewer provided me with prior to actually writing the first draft, and I looked at the sources used by competitors as well. I would highly appreciate it if I received a more thorough review this time so that I can make the necessary corrections to ultimately complete an acceptable wiki page. Thank you for your understanding. Danaostomel (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)