Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk
| Main page | Talk page | Submissions Category, List, Sorting, Feed | Showcase | Participants Apply, By subject | Reviewing instructions | Help desk | Backlog drives |
- 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. |
| Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions |
|---|
November 12
Hi, My first posting and it has been greater than 3 weeks. What should I do?Athoma103 (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- You could continue to wait, or you could improve the submission further while you wait. For one thing, all of your references seem to be bare links without supporting information; some are just links to YouTube videos. Their usefulness in proving the notability of the topic might be difficult to establish. Take a look at how the references are set out on some of the Wikipedia:Good articles. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I submitted the article "European Company Lawyers" and it was declined, can anyone explain why ? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.128.12.218 (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Your article submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/European Company Lawyers was rejected for the reason given in the pink box at the top of that page. Is there anything we can clarify about the reason given and the details in the pages linked from there? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- It was declined because it's nothing more than an attempt to write a 'profile' or some kind of general overview about a company which is unlikely to be notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Bellerophon talk to me 21:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I am in the process of creating an article titled Gyrotonic Expansion System. It seems there was previously an article by this title created at some point in the past, and that article was redirected to the article titled "Gyrotonic".
The Gyrotonic, and Gyrokinesis Methods are two movement methods that fall under one larger umbrella called "The Gyrotonic Expansion System". (see the official website gyrotonic.com for verification of system structure) Because "Gyrotonic" is a subcategory of "The Gyrotonic Expansion System", it is the Gyrotonic article that should be redirected to the Gyrotonic Expansion System article. Not the other way around. Is it possible to publish the new article and redirect the article titled "Gyrotonic" to the newly created article "Gyrotonic Expansion System"?
Oglala19 (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Oglala
- It might be best to discuss this on the talk page of the article that already exists. We wouldn't necessarily rely on what the "official website" says, to decide how independent reliable sources refer to the topic. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
My submission was rejected but the referencing I think is fine and have compared it to other articles. As for the sources used, I used what the subject in question gave me and he says his notability is no different to that of his colleagues and they are accepted on Wikipedia- so why is he rejected? Thanks. Scubesscubes (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- It is rejected because you have no third-party references that talk about him at all, and thus have failed to prove notability. As a reviewer told you, notability for academics is not dependent on the number of research papers they've authored, but on whether reliable sources talk about the researcher. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
This page got created bypassing the review process. Do I put a speedy delete tag on it to get rid of it? (db-maintenance?) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- never mind, I figured out how to decline it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
My page says I need more or specific categories. Please make suggestions. NBELQ (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- @NBELQ:Well, I think the categories you have do not need to be more specific. But you add more like Category:Artists from New York and Category:People from Washington Heights, Manhattan. I get ideas for categories by looking at other bios. Go to the categories he is already in and look at some of the other bios and see what they have. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well- one the one hand it says that, but on the other- you've succeeded, your article accepted and is in the encyclopaedia, yay!. It's now out of the AfC system. It's just a suggestion for an improvement, that's all, don't worry too much about it. Any member of wikipedia can do it now, the onus isn't on you personally to make this improvement. Rankersbo (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi
I am a bit confused. i have just entered this page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel Greenberg, Parliamentary Counsel for review. However at the top of the page it says "Article not currently submitted for review." and at the bottom of the page it says "Review waiting. This may take over 3 weeks. The Articles for creation process is very highly backlogged. Please be patient. There are 1954 submissions waiting for review." Can you please tell me the real status of my article?
Thank you Laurasykes (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's awaiting review. When you added the submission box there was an explanation that read:
- Just press the "Save page" button below without changing anything! Doing so will submit your article submission for review. Once you have saved this page you will find a new yellow 'Review waiting' box at the bottom of your submission page. If you have submitted your page previously, the old pink 'Submission declined' template or the old grey 'Draft' template will still appear at the top of your submission page, but you should ignore them. Again, please don't change anything in this text box. Just press the "Save page" button below
- I've run a clean-up on the page and it should now look less confusing. Rankersbo (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Laurasykes. While waiting for a review, I strongly suggest you make some improvements to the article. It lacks inline citations to sources which discuss the subject himself, not the legislation he has helped author. Also, you should rewrite and restructure this so that it reads like a biography rather than a résumé, and to ensure that he is referred to as either "he" or "Greenberg" not by his first name. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies has further guidance on this. Voceditenore (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
November 13
Finally have time to ask about the article I created back at the beginning of October. What do I need to edit on the article for it to be accepted? I read that it was declined because of copyrighted information. What information is copyrighted that is not my own work? Please elaborate, so I can fix the article.Kathy Grant (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Thanks for your help. Kathy Grant (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- I assume an earlier version of the document was deleted per our policy on speedy deleting copyright infringements. Put simply, the copyright in Wikipedia is a little unorthodox - anything you write can be reused by anybody, and even bound up and sold as a commercial book. The net result is that unless another site explicitly acknowledges the copyright is the same as our own, we cannot accept it.
- The reason your article has not been reviewed is because it hasn't been submitted! When you are ready for a review, add the text
{{subst:submit}}(including curly braces) to the very top of your submission. When you save that edit, a yellow submission box will appear. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Ritchie333 and Kathy Grant, I've done a basic clean up on the draft and moved it into article space. Notability is clearly established. It's a very worthwhile topic with sufficient sources for start class. It needs more work on the writing style and the referencing and formatting of citations need a lot of work, but I feel it has a better chance of achieving this if other editors collaborate on this in article space. I've notified WikiProject Military history WikiProject Nursing, and WikiProject Women's History asking for any interested members to lend a hand. I can find no evidence of this article ever being marked for copyright infringement and no logs for previous deletion. It was declined the first time as having insufficient references to establish notability. I am somewhat concerned about the colour illustrations, however. If they are from the recently published book by Kathryn Grant or have appeared on her website, there may well be copyright problems in having them here because they have been previously published in a copyright work. If that is the case, the permission documentation on Commons is insufficient, and they might be proposed for deletion. Voceditenore (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Review of Cedars Park, Broxborne
Hello,
There is a spelling mistake in the title of this page, it should be 'Cedars Park, Broxbourne' rather than 'Broxborne'. I can't quite figure out how to make that change. Can you help, please? Broxbourne (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Done The article has been moved. For future reference, you need to be a autoconfirmed user ie: have an account older than 4 days and with more than 10 edits to move pages. You meet both of these criteria, so you can rename pages using the "Move" button at the top of the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
is there a way to put an article up without going through this submission process and how will i know someone is answering this query? where do I look for an answer? is it possible someone could email me at (Redacted)? thanks 75.99.90.238 (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- 75.99.90.238, any registered user can create an article directly. Are you the draft's creator, User:Mikesiris? If you are, you need to log into your account to create Alan M. Meckler. However, please also see my reply above regarding needed improvements to the article. Voceditenore (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Review of User:SergioDeleon/Vinny venditto
I need help resolving some minor issues. I have two reference sections and both have reference #23 with the following code: Cite error: The named reference ref1006723952 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
My question is how do I fix? Also I have a few reference without numbers, please help guide me.
Lastly, I have a bit of extra unwanted coding under a chart how do I delete? Thanks so much for your help
- In the table of chart positions there is a reference for US chart entries, this is something like <ref name=ref1006723952 />. At least one of those references needs to be like this:<ref name=ref1006723952>http://www.example.com</ref>.
- I'll check the unwanted code. Rankersbo (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Review of User:Hfthurn/Kii Arens IMPORTANT!!!
To Whom it may concern,
We have a music video in which Kii Arens directed for Queens of the Stone Age launching tomorrow and were hoping to have this content available. We understand the review process takes time, but hope to you can see that Kii Arens is very much a person a note. Let me know if there is anything you can do.
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfthurn (talk • contribs) 19:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Article
Accepted, but not because something is launching tomorrow. Wikipedia is not a venue to promote your cause, or anything for that matter. Bellerophon talk to me 21:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
November 14
Help me out to improve the article. It says the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. To my knowledge it is not written from a first or second person perspective. what types of peacock terms are used ?
--Stallion444 03:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stallion444 (talk • contribs)
- "Swamini Ātmaprajñānanda deeply appreciates the knowledge/intellectual heritage/tradition in India" - which independent reliable source said so?
- "People are in for experience and miracle, and do not want to study" - what does this have to do with a factual biography of a living person in an encyclopedia?
- "One cannot bypass Sruti" - this is a statement of opinion, not a factual piece of encyclopedic information backed by an independent reliable source.
- ... and much else similar.
- There are also three lengthy sentences about the person's material being available on YouTube. This needs trimming. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I have created this entry for an important historical company (in my opinion) to do with the nuclear accelerator industry worldwide. What can I do to have it accepted ? I have tried to find supporting doccumentation and added those links but clearly it is not enough. Where can I find more material? Vector1 nz (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Vector1 nz. I've added more references to it to establish notability and moved it into article space at Auckland Nuclear Accessory Company where you can continue improving it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering if I could change the name of this instead of just being Spire, but instead to change it to Spire (company). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johne1323 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes that is sensible. You can't move (rename) pages yet, but it is fine to leave this for the reviewer to do if/when the article is accepted. The reviewer will know they have to do this, as there is already an article spire on a different topic. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dental Savings Plans Not sure how to take it to the next step of having the article reviewed? I have the article saved, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dental_Savings_Plans
KellyWhalenPR (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Please see the messages on your talk page here: User talk:WhalenPR. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
- WhalenPR, at the bottom of the grey notice on the top of your draft page click on "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!". However, if you submit this now it will be almost certainly rejected. It is a rather blatant advertisement for DentalPlans.com (a client of Whalen Public & Media Relations?) masquerading quite unsuccessfully as an article on a general subject. The only example of "providers" that you give is the following:
- "Among the companies that sell dental savings plans, DentalPlans.com is largest in the nation, offering consumers the freedom to choose a dental savings plan from more than 30 of America’s most trusted networks, like Aetna, Cigna, Careington, Signature Wellness, and UNI-CARE. Finding a local dentist is easy–more than 100,000 participating dentists across the country participate in at least one dental savings plan."
- You also provide no references to support any of the other assertions in the draft (the rest of which reads like a brochure to get people to buy these plans in general), simply some general external links. If you want to write an encyclopedic article on the subject of dental savings plans in the United States, fine. But it requires considerably more work than this and there is no need whatsoever to mention any commercial sellers of these plans or their brokers. Voceditenore (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Despite submitting my page for review, the page still says at the top that the page has NOT been submitted. Can you double check and confirm whether or not it has actually been submitted?
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cardinal Peak Engineering — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aking1309 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that has been submitted. You can ignore the "not submitted" message because it is incorrect. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
November 15
I was trying to create an article but I made it in talk page instead of project page as I am a new user. I then changed my page to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Frompo and deleted whole thing form talk page. Have I done anything wrong? And what should I do with talk page what should I will write there a bio of that term or technology? Please Help me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerBenson1984 (talk • contribs)
- This is now awaiting review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frompo. You should probably look into adding some more independent reliable sources - Wikipedia:VRS explains what is needed. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Reply to your Articles for Creation Help Desk question on Frompo
Hello, WikiProject Articles for creation! I'm RogerBenson1984. I have replied to your question on the Articles for Creation Help Desk about Frompo.
You can read it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#NEW SECTION.
Dear Sir, I posted an article about Yogacharya Tapan Bose, aka Swarupananda Brahmachari. Please let me know if it has been reviewed and when I would expect this article to post. Thanks for your help,
Lakulish — Preceding unsigned comment added by LAKULISH (talk • contribs) 07:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, this was reviewed and declined today. You can see the reason for it being declined in the pink box at the top of the submission page. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I have re-submitted a page for The Minories for approval, but have 2 concerns. 1 - I am not sure if the page is in the correct place for submission 2 - The title of the page is "Minories" but should be "The Minories" and I am not sure how to change it. I have tried but failed. Can you help please? Thank you. Claire and Iris 11:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrisB at TMG (talk • contribs)
- It's your lucky day, I know Colchester well, love walking round Castle Park, and have heard of the Minories. It's definitely notable, so I will pass it now, then try and cite the article to reliable sources over lunch (it has enough to pass the minimum criteria, but I would quite like to get the entire article properly sourced to C class ASAP). I've gone with The Minories, Colchester as there already is an article on The Minories for the street in Central London. Thanks for the article! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi all I have received these comments with regard to a recent submission I made. Can you please elaborate to give me any ideas on how to improve the submission: This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics 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.
Any advice would be gratefully received. Suewesty (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
resubmit of article (Arnold J. Sameroff (psychologist)) in creation with recent edits. Needs to be re-reviewed
2xprofs (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Hi today ,I (2xprofs) edited an entry previously created but initially rejected due to formatting limitations. The article--- Arnold J. Sameroff(psychologist)--has been reformatted to conform with Wikipedia guidelines. I am resubmitting the latest version for further review . Thanks for your help. 2xprofs (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
November 16
I need support regarding a deletion of Kernow Positive Support article. Please see my comments on my talk page Davidtardis (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC) I look forward to your comments and assistance at your earliest to help restablishment of our important information and article.
Review of User:Houston T Watts/sandbox
Who will be doing the verification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houston T Watts (talk • contribs) 00:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- No verification is required, as that page is not currently submitted for review. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Review of User:Davidtardis/Article for creation
Please note I am rather confused, having taken over a year to get this article approved it was unceremoniously deleted around October 2013 stating we were not a national charity and therefore not notable. I have tried to work out how this article and/ or it's original can be reestablished on Wikipedia. As it was available for several months etc. please refer to my talk pages and messages I have left. I have therefore recreated the article with some minor changes as I firmly believe this article is a important information resource. Regarding advertising and promotion, after the eventual acceptance by Wikipedia I was assured that the article eventually conformed to the policies and rules after long discussions with a variety of editors etc. please help regarding the reestablishment of this article. Davidtardis (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- I've replied on Davidtardis' talk page, and suggested to the most recent deleting admin to take this article to a deletion review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
i notice that someone has recently decline the article ... Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dareysteel without droping a comment, please can anyone please take a good look to this article and see what is not relieble source, i feel to my understanding that wikipedia is a free and open source, not vandalism. please verify that very article and see why the source are not independent or relieble source, secondly i will be glad if you assist in developing the article , so the article can be more better.... thanks Akochanwata (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
what is wrong w my submission of bio for alan Meckler? I saw the comments about "context" but not sure what this means? is there a way for other editors to improve the content? this person surely deserves inclusion. also, I am confused about communication in wiki? when you respond, whoever you are, you will write on my talkpage? why cant you just write to me at my email address (which you say I am not allowed to give?) and/or give me a phone number to call. the whole experience has been frustrating and I would think that you would want to encourage people such as myself to make contributions?? Mikesiris (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)thanks, mike s
Please check why article on "Juuso Walden" is repeatedly rejected citing lack of references which is counter factual. The article is referenced from history studies, thesis work and sources listed in the reference list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spespatriae (talk • contribs) 23:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- The article lacks footnotes. Refer to this page for step-by-step instructions on how to add footnotes to your article. --Huang (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have accepted this article. The sources were highly reliable and independent, simply not placed as inline citations. There is no requirement for inline citations to accept an article, especially when the person is no longer living. Doesn't anyone here read the reviewing instructions?
- Avoid the following errors:
- Avoid declining an article because it correctly uses general references to support some or all of the material. The content and sourcing policies require inline citations for only four specific types of material, most commonly: direct quotations and contentious material (whether negative, positive, or neutral) about living persons.
- Voceditenore (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have accepted this article. The sources were highly reliable and independent, simply not placed as inline citations. There is no requirement for inline citations to accept an article, especially when the person is no longer living. Doesn't anyone here read the reviewing instructions?
November 17
Hi! My name is Karla Bernardo, and I am the Public Relations Officer of the UP Portia Sorority, the UP College of Law's only law-based sorority. I was also the one who made the iskWiki page from which this article appears to have been copied. Is there any way I can still post this here in the main Wikipedia page? iskWiki is the Wikipedia page for UP students, but our alumni is hoping (especially for this year, as we are celebrating our 80th anniversary) that we have an official Wikipedia page. The History and other information I placed here are the official ones we use every time we are required to put out something about our sorority.
I hope you can allow me to use this information here.
Best, Karla Bernardo
Karlabernardo (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Karla. Unfortunately, it can't be published here as a copy of this web page. That page is clearly marked © 2009-2013 Diliman Interactive Learning Center. I am going to reduce the draft to a stub temporarily. There are two things you can do which would allow Wikipedia to republish:
1. The easiest way is to place the following notice with this exact wording on the web page in question:
- The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
or
2. Send an email granting Wikipedia permission to use the text following the instructions at: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online. This one is more complicated and you must follow the instructions and wording there exactly or the permission will not be considered valid.
Please also remember that once you have released the text under a free license, you cannot revoke the release. Anyone can re-use and alter it freely, even for commercial gain. The only condition being that they must attribute the text to the copyright holder (UP Portia Sorority?) and they cannot republish it under a more restrictive license. In the meantime, I suggest you concentrate on adding independent sources to the article to establish the notability of the subject. Simply referencing it to the sorority's website is not enough. I hope that helps. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
please can someone kindly help me urgent to fix this article about.. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Margot O'Neill i have a big problem on the references list.... i need your assistance, thanks you in advance 15:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Mohammede aziz abdul (talk)
- What is wrong with the references list? --Huang (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing now. I fixed it for him :). There was a format mistake in one of the references that prevented them from showing. Voceditenore (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC) thanks u for help.Mohammede aziz abdul (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Since the Articles for Creation is severely backlogged, is there any reason not to simply post the article without waiting for review? Would it be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smackeben (talk • contribs) 20:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- You can move the article directly into mainspace if you are a autoconfirmed user (ie: your account is older than 4 days and you have more than 10 edits), but if it gets speedy deleted or deleted via discussion, don't say you weren't warned. The good news about GamerFitnation is that it contains citations to multiple reliable sources, which means it won't (and, indeed, hasn't) been declined without hesitation. However, a reviewer has to check all the citations to confirm they contain sufficient coverage about GamerFitnation, which will take some time. This does mean though, that if your submission passes, it's highly unlikely to be deleted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
How do I respond to the following reviewer message? (I have verified that there is NO Wikipedia article on this person.) Thank you!
"Please verify that Tim Jerome (actor) does not already exist and that it does not need to be moved to a different title." — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDR1944 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- That's an instruction for somebody reviewing the article. You can safely ignore it. As it is, I've declined your article but with some further work it might pass in the future. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ACURIL Can you help on this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ACURILKmccook (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
This article seems to have gotten lost. A colleague began it and I'd like to work on it.
Can you help on this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ACURILKmccook (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- The article was last submitted three days ago. There is currently a severe backlog of more than 2,000 submissions, which means unfortunately there's a delay getting things processed. Sorry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I have taken over the account for the Integrated Marine Observing System which previously had a page deleted from Wikipedia due to copyright infringements, which I believe were due to errors by the information provider, who was the holder of the account. I have inherited the username and password and hope to rebuild the entry.
I would like to re-create the page with similar content, but it is unclear how to contact the original deleter. I click on their name in the advisory panel but it is not clear what to do next.
Could you please provide instructions on how to either 1) contact the deleter or 2) re-list the page with approved content.
Jess Tyler, Communications Manager, IMOS Franhutchi (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- "I have taken over the account" ... "I have inherited the username and password" - that's not generally a good idea, because our policies on sockpuppetry specify that an account is used by one person only and that piggybacking onto another account is not allowed.
- The article was deleted due to infringing Wikipedia's specific copyright policies, which are a little confusing to new editors. Put simply, anything you write on Wikipedia can be reused and resold by anyone else. If somebody wanted to take the contents of my talk page and publish it as a book, they can (they'd be a little crazy, but they wouldn't be infringing copyright!) Because most people don't expect this, we can't accept text copied from another site unless it is specifically marked with the same copyright policy, or somebody has contacted the Volunteer Response System to clear its copyright status.
- The simplest thing to do is to rewrite the article in your own words. However, make sure you include references to reliable sources such as commercially published books, magazines or newspapers, or the submission is likely to be declined again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Help. I have spent way too much time trying to add an infobox with a photograph to the article about George O. Jackson Jr. I have uploaded an image and managed to add the infobox to the article. But I cannot make the image appear.
Thanks for your help. JoanLouise (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have fixed the infobox to display the image. The copyright status is a larger concern, but I see you have asked that on Media Copyright Questions, so somebody will be able to help you there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
November 18
I cannot understand why my page for Andrew Berry Hairdresser hasn't been published. I've supplied all the correct information.Lucyarnott (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Because Berry is a living person, the minimum standard for his article is stricter, and all information in the article must be cited to a good source per our policy on living people using in-line citations. Currently, your submission has none. The subject seems to be tangentially related to a number of people centred around Factory Records, but notability is not inherited so he can't have an article just because several of his friends do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm hoping to improve a Wiki entry that was rejected recently but have not heard anything as to why or what I need to do to get it published. I would be most grateful for any advice on how to proceed.
Many thanks for your help.
Best wishes,
Tanja
Forum on Information Standards in Heritage (FISH), UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasu08 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- The submission was declined because it does not appear to be a notable topic for a standalone article. Web forums are generally unsuitable topics for Wikipedia (simply because anyone can set one up and there are so many of them), and your references mostly deal with English Heritage. You might be able to mention MIDAS Heritage in that article briefly, but I don't think you'll be able to do much more at present. By the way, you should generally avoid writing about articles dealing with subjects you are closely involved with, as it can create a conflict of interest. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ian_Morison
...top of page shows "Article not currently submitted for review."
...bottom of page shows "Review waiting."
I suspect some meta markup has been left in place accidentally, please confirm that article is in review or advise corrections if not!
Thanks! 52degreesN (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- The article was correctly submitted for review, and has now passed. Thanks for your submission! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Why does the article Barry Jon Beck have a warning that it's an orphan, when other Wikipedia pages link to it? How can I get this removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gremlin700 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Question
Hi Folks, I am editing the entry Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Søren Brier as suggested by DGG but I am a bit confused on how to discriminate between information that should go into References, Sources and External Links. Thanks so much ˜˜˜CRAU999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crau999 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- @DGG: is, as he says in your submission, a specialist in biographies on academics. I've pinged him as he's probably the best person to answer your specific questions. For what it's worth, I tend to put references to inline citations in "References", general references (such as books or related reading where the entry in "References" is a shortened footnote) in "Sources" and anything that's also worth reading but not directly related to anything in the article in "External Links". However, to cut a long story short, for the purposes of getting your submission accepted, the honest answer is "it doesn't really matter too much". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Ritchie has it right: it doesn't matter much. What matters is that we do have references, not where we put them. The way I think on it, the distinction between additional reading and external links is that the reading is normally print, but can be online if it;'s book-type material, the ER's are web pages and the like. If something is in the refs it doesn't have to be duplicated, but sometimes it does help--like always adding the official CV as the first EL, even if you have previously used it to support routine biographical facts. It has happened that people have rejected AfCs for handling references in a way they don't like, but they're shouldn't do that, because any way that clearly documents the material is acceptable. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I've recently submitted a new article for creation. The first feedback was a little disappointing and actually confusing. I wonder if I could get a better one - what is actually wrong with it and how to improve it. I have a COI here and would very much appreciate your help so I can go back and try to make it better. Many thanks, Kat Kt1502 (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I am having trouble uploading my article. Everytime I think I have submitted it, the next pages says "Article Not Currently Submitted for Review". Are you able to tell me if my article has been submitted, or how I can submit it? Thanks! Lboureston (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Lindsey
- Done. When you submit the article there is a section of text that explains that you should ignore the grey box and it will get cleaned up later. I've just been and done the clean up and your article is awaiting review. Rankersbo (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Please inform me of the reasons for which this submission has been rejected and advise me as to how to rectify it. Yours Mark Daniel (Daniboy72)Daniboy72 (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Generally candidates for Westminster or Brussels/Strasbourg aren't considered notable under WP:POLITICIAN so either UKIP would need to take 2 seats in his region at the next EP election, or he needs to have a high profile in the press to be proved notable. The reviewer seems to feel that the mention of Mr Carvers name in the reliable sources of the article aren't significant. Rankersbo (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
[[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/La Jolla symphony and Chorus] Hi, I was wondering if you could explain exactly why the Wikipedia page for the La Jolla Symphony and Chorus was rejected and if it is possible to revise it in a way that would make it acceptable. Thank you.
Cesander (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
While I've edited Wikipedia before, I've never created an article, so I would appreciate some assistance.
I've created this new article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/National_Astronomy_Week
I've tried to submit it for review, but at the top it still says "Article not currently submitted for review".
At the bottom it says, however, "Review waiting. This may take several weeks, even months. The Articles for creation process is severely backlogged. Please be patient. There are 2201 submissions waiting for review." This appears twice, presumably becuase I clicked the "Review" link twice on seeing the message at the top.
Firstly - is this article in the review queue or not?
Secondly, this article is about an important astronomical event in UK in March. I've submitted it on behalf of the Organising Committee. Is there any way we can get this reviewed and live in a reasonable time?
Yours sincerely,
Dr W B J Blake.