User talk:Shadowowl: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Orfeolille (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
NRCBeng |
NRCBeng |
||
<!-- End of message -->[[User:NRCBeng|NRCBeng]] ([[User talk:NRCBeng|talk]]) 22:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
<!-- End of message -->[[User:NRCBeng|NRCBeng]] ([[User talk:NRCBeng|talk]]) 22:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
== Request on 17:09:49, 19 December 2016 for assistance on [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|AfC]] submission by Orfeolille == |
|||
{{anchor|17:09:49, 19 December 2016 review of submission by Orfeolille}} |
|||
{{Lafc|username=Orfeolille|ts=17:09:49, 19 December 2016|declinedtalk=Draft:Laraine_Stephens}} |
|||
<!-- Start of message --> |
|||
Hello, I submitted an article for the actress Laraine Stephens for the 5th time and although I gave references of serious books on television or serious article from newspapers articles , I always get the answer that my references are not fiable enough. I wonder if the editors are familiar with the screen and tv scenes as Laraine Stephens is a famous actress with more than 100 credits , something I don't see in some inclusion of a lot of actors or actresses who get a publication on wikipedia. I know she retired in 1983 but an encyclopedia should include people from the past as well, especially when they were popular during their prime (in the cas of Ms Stephens the 1960s and 1970s). |
|||
I would appreciate that you reconsider the inclusion on wikipedia of Laraine Stephens. Thank you very much in advance . best regards Christophe Vetter (OrfeoLille) |
|||
<!-- End of message -->[[User:Orfeolille|Orfeolille]] ([[User talk:Orfeolille|talk]]) 17:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:09, 19 December 2016
16:18:55, 10 December 2016 review of submission by Chris33smit
- Chris33smit (talk · contribs)
Hello,
The reason I'm asking for a re-review is that I don't understand the reason. My article is declined because it has a link to my podcast. This podcast is non-commercial and free. I have been doing this podcast for years and have had people for all walks of lives as guests. The content of these interviews are educational, noteworthy, entertaining and add to a better understanding of cultural differences. Simply mentioning that there is a podcast available, but leaving it up to the reader to go and find it does not make sense to me. Wikipedia being a complete site with references to everything should (could) not object to a link to this podcast. An earlier decline was based on so-called "peacock" talk. I have based this entry on an entry of a friend of mine who, in my view, certainly has so-called "peacock" talk (e.g. ...who is regarded as the world's leading expert in...). the link to that particular page is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navid_Moazzez
Finally, other contributions that I have made to subjects relating to my expertise should show that I am an expert in my profession and not merely after self-promotion.
So with all the above I kindly request you to reconsider my submission.
Sincerely, Chris Smit
13:42:32, 14 December 2016 review of submission by Chris33smit
- Chris33smit (talk · contribs)
Hello,
The reason I'm asking for a re-review is that I don't understand the reason. My article is declined because it has a link to my podcast. This podcast is non-commercial and free. I have been doing this podcast for years and have had people for all walks of lives as guests. The content of these interviews are educational, noteworthy, entertaining and add to a better understanding of cultural differences. Simply mentioning that there is a podcast available, but leaving it up to the reader to go and find it does not make sense to me. Wikipedia being a complete site with references to everything should (could) not object to a link to this podcast. An earlier decline was based on so-called "peacock" talk. I have based this entry on an entry of a friend of mine who, in my view, certainly has so-called "peacock" talk (e.g. ...who is regarded as the world's leading expert in...). the link to that particular page is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navid_Moazzez
Finally, other contributions that I have made to subjects relating to my expertise should show that I am an expert in my profession and not merely after self-promotion.
So with all the above I kindly request you to reconsider my submission.
Sincerely, Chris Smit Chris33smit (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please remove the links. The article will be not accepted by any reviewer if it contains promotional links. Also read Wikipedia:Autobiography -- » Shadowowl | talk 12:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Request on 22:44:58, 18 December 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by NRCBeng
Hi,
I do not understand the comment you made for declining my article.
What do you mean by "Remove the (P..) in the article." ? What is "(P..)" ?
Thank you,
NRCBeng
NRCBeng (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Request on 17:09:49, 19 December 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Orfeolille
- Orfeolille (talk · contribs)
Hello, I submitted an article for the actress Laraine Stephens for the 5th time and although I gave references of serious books on television or serious article from newspapers articles , I always get the answer that my references are not fiable enough. I wonder if the editors are familiar with the screen and tv scenes as Laraine Stephens is a famous actress with more than 100 credits , something I don't see in some inclusion of a lot of actors or actresses who get a publication on wikipedia. I know she retired in 1983 but an encyclopedia should include people from the past as well, especially when they were popular during their prime (in the cas of Ms Stephens the 1960s and 1970s).
I would appreciate that you reconsider the inclusion on wikipedia of Laraine Stephens. Thank you very much in advance . best regards Christophe Vetter (OrfeoLille)