User talk:LinzCarey

Your submission at Articles for creation: Spiritual Care Intervention Codings (WHO-SPICs) (September 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• User:LinzCarey/sandbox/Spiritual Care Intervention Codings (WHO-SPICs) may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 06:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, LinzCarey! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Dan arndt (talk) 06:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pastoral Narrative Disclosure (December 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Pastoral Narrative Disclosure may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Atlantic306 (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Pastoral Narrative Disclosure

Hi, have looked into this and I agree the copyvio is not an issue but the fact that it is being used for promotion by the authors of the research paper is an issue as promotion is not permitted on Wikipedia, see WP:PROMO. It is also advised that articles are written in a neutral point of view by an independent editor unconnected with the subject as per WP:COI. Finally, the fact that the article is so much a copy of the research paper is an issue because Wikipedia requires articles to be based on what independent reliable sources have written about the subject so it seems that it is too soon and that the article would be better postponed until the research is more widely reported. In conclusion, the subject is unfortunately not suitable for Wikipedia at this time. If you wish to be sent a copy of the article you can follow the procedure at WP:REFUND where you will need to refute the copyvio claim, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia - Your response is seriously disappointing and expemplifies why Wikipedia will always be regarded as out of date and failing to engage new developmental material - and hence one of the reasons why we as academics tell students not to utilise Wikipedia! Surely one of the values of Wikipedia is to permit community commentary and hence the very reason why we want PND to be on Wikipedia - to gain community feedback. We certainly do not need to promote PND, it's accelarated viewing via academic circles has been outstanding! You were wrong the first time, and now wrong again !! Such it seems, is Wikipedia. However, thank you for your feedback - although unfortunately it reinforces our initial hesitation of engaging our exploratory work with Wikipedia! Adios Wikipedia !

September 2019

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Health and Social Care Chaplaincy, from its old location at User:LinzCarey/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 15:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Health and Social Care Chaplaincy (September 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Liance were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Health and Social Care Chaplaincy and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Health and Social Care Chaplaincy, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

-Liance^{talk/contribs} 15:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Seriously? Rejected by Wikipedia?? Health and Social Care Chaplaincy is no different from any other journal listing, such as the Journal of Religion and Health. Wikipedia is meant to be a community encyclopedia, not an Orwellian ministry!