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 208.95.51.115 (talk) at 14:16, 1 March 2017 (→‎13:46:13, 28 February 2017 review of submission by 208.95.51.115: WP:BURO). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		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


February 23

05:27:28, 23 February 2017 review of submission by JacobBul


how do i insert an infobox on the top right of my article? JacobBul (talk) 05:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jacob. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I'm not sure that we have an infobox that is appropriate for the subject of your submission. The closest I can find is {{Infobox organization}}. If you think that this might be useful, the instructions at the linked page will provide guidance on how to add it to your draft. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:41:21, 23 February 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Jammin75


Hi, I'm having trouble meeting the criteria expected to submit this Wiki page particularly finding reliable sources. I have searched high and low for anything on subject. Because she had a career in the 1990's at the beginning stages of the internet there doesn't seem to be a lot that I can find that classes as a "reliable source". I can only find discography websites with her name mentioned in the credits for her vocal contribution and proof of her own releases. I also found articles in Billboard magazines showing her chart success in Japan and other achievements when she was signed to her label (Which i thought might have got me over the line as a reliable source). There is another Lisa Maxwell (Musician) who has a page up in Wiki but with all due respect she doesn't seem to be as notable as the Lisa Maxwell (Singer, Songwriter) that I'm writing about and yet the other Lisa's page has been approved, with flimsy sources at best! Quite frustrating to be honest. Anyway, I'm new to wiki and it's rules so if anyone can help that would be very much appreciated. Thanks Jammin75 (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jammin75 (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jammin. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Creating an article from scratch can indeed be a daunting task, especially if you're just learning the "Wiki ropes". When looking at your submission, I see three big problems. First, much of the biographical detail is unsourced. This is unacceptable, especially for a biography of a living person. You will stand a better chance of getting your draft accepted for publication if you simply remove unsourced biographical details, rather than trying to justify its inclusion based on your own personal knowledge. As for the second problem, Discogs.com is a great resource for finding information, but it is a user-generated website and, thus, not acceptable for sourcing content in the article. And removing the Discogs-sourced content will reduce the size of the article even further. But, it still can be publishable, even if only in "stub" form, so long as the subject can be shown to meet any of the criteria set forth in WP:MUSICBIO. And that's where the third problem comes in. An artist who has charted multiple times on a major national chart will likely be deemed to have enough "notability" to justify an article, but your draft appears to make this claim on the basis of appearances on the J-Wave "Tokio Hot 100". However, even though this chart is published (as an advertisement) in Billboard, it is not the same as the Billboard-Japan Hot 100 and I don't think that the J-Wave chart is accepted here as a major national chart. (For more detail on this point, see WP:CHART.) So, I see three big problems, only two of which can be solved by pruning the article. The third, satisfying WP:MUSICBIO, seems to be the one that you should be working on. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks NewYorkActuary for the feedback and advice, appreciate it. I will prune article and keep working on it and hopefully it will be accepted. Cheers Jammin75 (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

06:02:24, 23 February 2017 review of submission by Dragunsky1922

I would like the Party of Communists USA page to be published. The Wikipedia page is neutral and brief. Dragunsky1922 (talk) 06:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dragunsky. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Although your draft is neutral and brief, it also is sourced only to the organisation itself. In order to be accepted for publication, you will need to demonstrate that it has received in-depth coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the organisation. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12AM edit: There are references from around the world, even news sources, such as Sputnik News. Is Sputnik not recognized by Wikipedia user review board? what gives?

Dragunsky1922 —Preceding undated comment added 08:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need a second user to approve my article please!

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

The current user reviewing this article has denied the article 3 times.

Help please!! The article meets all standards!

Thank you

Dragunsky1922 (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Dragunsky. Although you've added some sources, none of them provide an in-depth discussion of the subject by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Without this, it is unlikely that your draft will be accepted for publication. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09:11:54, 23 February 2017 review of submission by Golan789


Hi, I am trying to check my articale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Golan789/sandbox so there will be no copyright violations, how can i do that? thank you Golan789 (talk) 09:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked myself; there is a 77.2% confidence that your article is plagiarized from a Neaman.org page. This link compares the two. I hope I helped! JTP (talk • contribs) 15:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11:28:46, 23 February 2017 review of submission by Dick Whittington


Why does this article, which has been accepted, not appear on a Google, Wikipedia search? Dick Whittington (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Dick Whittington (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dick. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. The article will not be indexable by search engines until after it has been reviewed by the New Page Patrol. I understand that they have a bit of a backlog there, but I don't know how long it is. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Backlog is over 14,000 articles dating back to 2007 (8 articles are before October 2016). JTP (talk • contribs) 15:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11:50:35, 23 February 2017 review of submission by Harsha Fan


Page created on one of the tellyactors is misprinted. Her real name is Harsha Khandeparkar, I had accidentally named it has "Khanderparkar". How do I correct it?

Harsha Khandeparkar (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Harsha. I've put in a request at WP:Requested moves/Technical requests#Uncontroversial technical requests. I expect that the change will be made within a few hours. On a different note, I see that, although your user name is "Harsha Fan", your signature says "Harsha Khandeparkar". Are you Ms. Khandeparkar? If so, you must declare a conflict of interest with respect to the articles about you and your television show (and see the blue-link for information on how to do so). If you are not Ms. Khandeparkar, you should not be impersonating this person by using her name as your signature. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13:27:18, 23 February 2017 review of submission by Mgenzac

Once again thank you for your insight. I have added two more references that display the controversiality of the subject's research article which is only relevant in the time period it was written. Addition of the C. Wong article was only to establish point of reference, for the reader, as to the procedures that were accepted as standard of care in 1943, not to specifically state my subject's name. As far as his career, the research article is the most documented portion of it, but the career as a whole was notable compared to other physicians at that time and now. Thanks again for your comments, they are encouraging me to find more citations. --Mgenzac (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC) I would also like to address the concerns about my references that were left in the comments on my page. The Fleming reference actually does mention specifically the total control over labor and delivery afforded by the technique of spinal anesthesia, and mentions the subject by name. While she as a midwife believes this to be medicalization of the process, it is important because many things can go awry during childbirth. Establishing a modem of control is essential and necessary. The subject's research article was published separately by at least 3 major medical journals of that year and was commented on in yet another, by three other physicians. The timing (1943) of the subject's article is what renders it both controversial and pertinent. Thank you again for your input.--Mgenzac (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mgenzac (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Mgenzac. Our apologies for the great delay in response. Later today, I'll leave some comments on the Talk page of your draft (and I'll notify you when I do that). In the meantime, comments from other reviewers would be very welcome. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 24

03:58:55, 24 February 2017 review of submission by Jammin75


Hi, can someone else at Wiki please review this article beside SwisterTwister? Or at the very least, could someone advice me what to prune in order to get this article published? I've cited some sources that I believe makes subject in this article notable but it has been declined. I have seen other articles on Wiki with very flimsy sources that have been accepted and I'm finding it hard to understand why my articles are not being accepted, even at stub class. Thanks Jammin75 (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jammin. Our apologies for the delay in response. I see that you have already been in discussion with one of the reviewers who declined your submission. If we can be of any further help, please let us know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

05:33:28, 24 February 2017 review of submission by Dragunsky1922


Hi all!

I have been learning steadily how many sources one needs to publish an article on Wikipedia. So far there are 13 credible sources which are independent from the article (some sources actually attack the article's subject).

I would like a user to review this article; I am starting to fail to see how this article is not authentic. Perhaps a Wikipedia user can help me work on this article?

Draft: Party of Communists USA

Thank you,

Dragunsky1922 (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Dragunsky. I'm responding here to your posting on my Talk page. I do see that you've doubled the number of sources that appear in your draft. But they haven't done anything to establish "notability" in the sense that Wikipedia uses the word (for which, see WP:NORG). About half of the sources do nothing more than give the organisation a passing mention and two of them don't even mention it at all (presumably, they're there to provide context). An interview with a member, the subject of which is Stalin, doesn't establish notability, nor does a blog posting of an open letter from the organisation. You have succeeded in demonstrating that the organisation exists, but you haven't demonstrated that it has received substantial coverage from reliable, independent sources. And without that demonstration, it is unlikely that your draft will be accepted for publication. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are more sources than the ones you listed. A College Newspaper, Political Journals, and international news agencies. None of these sources are associated with the article's subject. And more sources are being listed, also the Wikipedia article draft itself is going to be expanded.

How do these pages exist:

Party for Socialism and Liberation, American Party of Labor, Workers World Party

None of these pages have the same references as the Party of Communists USA draft, and the few references those pages do have are mostly linked to their own web pages.

Another Wikipedia user stated to me that the Party of Communists USA Wikipedia article should not be published because the article's subject is "too new for Wikipedia." Please verify that argument as well.

Thank you

Dragunsky1922 (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dragunsky1922: Hello once again, Dragunsky. Our apologies for the delay in response. Despite the ever-increasing number of references in your draft, you have still not presented a single reliable, independent source that discusses the organisation in depth. In a few moments, I'll be declining your submission for that reason. As for your concern about the other articles you mentioned, Wikipedia now has more than 5 million user-generated articles and it is inevitable that some of them do not meet our standards. But this does not mean that we should relax those standards. Instead, it simply means that we need to do a better job of identifying and addressing those problem articles. And regarding the advice you received at the Teahouse (here), that advice came from some of our most-respected editors here on Wikipedia. It was good advice that does not need to be "verified" by us. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10:09:23, 24 February 2017 review of submission by 2A02:C7D:49B:4200:B0B1:5FDB:12D9:8EE7


Please help give me specific instructions telling me what I actually need to do in order to get my draft entry on Soumik Datta accepted and entered into Wikipedia. I have provided a lot of material and references. There are so many other artists who have produced and performed much less than Soumik Datta and of far less reknown. Yet they have a Wikipedia entry.

I have been so disheartened by rejections you will notice I have taken a year to get back to tackling this task!

Thank you, in advance

Tana Wollen

2A02:C7D:49B:4200:B0B1:5FDB:12D9:8EE7 (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tana. Because your draft was deleted for inactivity, it should be easy to get it restored. To do so, go to WP:Requests for undeletion and follow the instructions there. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:59:18, 24 February 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Mikerollem


Hi

I'm sorry, I was trying to submit an article which was rejected. I really need more specific guidance. I'm a total ignoramus in the Wikipedia Universe.

I would like someone to say the submission would be acceptable if various changes were made. I've spent a lot of time struggling to get it to this state. I don't want to spend a lot more time making it conform to your standards only to find that it's not something you want anyway.

If it was considered worthy of inclusion, I would be happy for a more seasoned and competent contributor to take it over and make the necessary changes, which would probably take them a minimum of time and effort.

Yours somewhat despondently

Mike Mellor

Mikerollem (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon left a note on the top of your draft as to why it was rejected. It should be helpful in conforming your draft to Wikipedia standards. JTP (talk • contribs) 15:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:22:19, 24 February 2017 review of submission by Calexit

I just took a look at main space and saw the wikipedia article Cloudbleed of one line and a single citation, yet main was rejected!!! Calexit (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Issue appears resolved. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:26:48, 24 February 2017 review of submission by Comtos


Inserted museum references as requested - how do I resubmit or notify editor? Thx Comtos (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Comtos (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Comtos:, you just click the blue "Resubmit" button in the pink Decline box, but it appears you've successfully resubmitted. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MatthewVanitas:, Thanks - it wasn't declined - the editor requested refs to approve. I replied to their request on the draft page so am guessing no resubmission was needed. Does my reply on that page notify the editor?

23:21:23, 24 February 2017 review of submission by MikeJonesJones


Hi there, the draft has been getting declined due to the referencing. The person in question is a high profile, Grammy nominated songwriter/producer so I'm concerned I'm not referencing it correctly. Be great if you could lend some advice. Thank you

MikeJonesJones (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MikeJonesJones: Hello, Mike. Our apologies for the delay in response. The quick answer to your question is -- yes, you most certainly are not referencing your sources correctly. You might want to take a look at WP:Referencing for beginners, which will provide some background on how the information should be presented. You might also take a look at the {{cite web}} template, which will guide you in presenting essential bibliographic detail in a standard format. By the way, your reference to the subject's Grammy nomination is a dead link, so you probably want to fix this. As for the rest of the submission, it all reads as if you are asserting the subject's notability merely on the basis of his working with other people. Here on Wikipedia, we call this "inherited notability" and it isn't accepted as a good basis for establishing notability. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 25

02:02:53, 25 February 2017 review of submission by Littlemissphoneface


I don't understand why it says that I did not use the correct code for the reference. That is why I edited it so many times.

Littlemissphoneface (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Littlemissphoneface:, like the red text on your draft says, whenever you use a "ref" tag to start a footnote, you must use a "/ref" tag to close that same footnote. I see you've erased your draft, but if you want to go back to working on it you can just click the History tab, and view/edit any past version of the draft.
That said, all your citations are to the subject's own website, but you need WP:Third-party sources like news/journal articles to establish objective facts about her. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why her website is the only reference that you saw. I attempted to include references to two different articles about her. If that didnt show up I have no idea why. I also made a hyperlink at the end of the last draft to another Wikipedia article that mentions her. These are the other two references that I used

http://cre8con.com/cth_speaker/beth-harrington-2016/

http://www.pfppublishing.com/Beth_Harrington/default.html

You didn't see them in any of my previous drafts? The are links to articles about her, not to her website.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlemissphoneface (talk • contribs) 22:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Littlemissphoneface: Cre8con and pfppublishing are not independent of Harrington. Speaker bios are routinely provided by the speaker, they aren't the product of a team of independent, fact-checking researchers. The same goes for publisher bios. The publisher has a financial incentive to promote the subject. You may use such sources, but they do nothing to establish notability, and the bulk of any article should come from independent sources. The kind to use are:
  • Mathias, Elizabeth (March 1989). "Ave Maria: The Story of the Fisherman's Feast. 1986/Hello Columbus!". American Anthropologist. 91 (1): 268–269. JSTOR 679830.
  • Del Giudice, Luisa (Spring 1997). "Review: Moveable Feast By Beth Harrington". Western Folklore. 56 (2): 186–188. JSTOR 1500211.
  • Garofalo, Denise A. (15 May 1997). "The Blinking Madonna & Other Miracles". Library Journal. Vol. 122, no. 9. pp. 115–116.
  • Albright, Carol Bonomo (Winter 1998). "Review: The Blinking Madonna by Beth Harrington". Italian Americana. 16 (1): 99–100. JSTOR 29776479.
  • "unknown". The Independent Film & Video Monthly. 2003. pp. 13, 15–16. {{cite magazine}}: Cite uses generic title (help)
  • Atkins, John (July 2011). "The Winding Stream". Maverick. No. 108. Maidstone, Kent. p. 40–41. ISSN 1477-8173.
  • Bernstein, Paula (18 September 2015). "The Challenge of Making a Music Documentary and Why 'The Winding Stream' Took 12 Years to Make". IndieWire.
  • Hewitt, Scott (14 November 2015). "Bits 'n' Pieces: A winding tale of country music royalty". The Columbian.
  • Mechanic, Michael (15 January 2016). "Before Taylor Swift and Shania Twain, There Were Sara and Maybelle Carter". Mother Jones.
  • Higgins, Lisa L. (Spring 2016). "Review: The Winding Stream: The Carters, The Cashes And The Course Of Country Music By Beth Harrington". Journal of American Folklore. 129 (512): 247–249. JSTOR 10.5406/jamerfolk.129.512.0247.
You've chosen a promising topic, one that Wikipedia should have an article on, so I hope you stick with it even if it ends up being more work than you expected. To get access to the off-line sources, ask at a good library (maybe a research university), request at WP:RX, or email me. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions, I'll probably end up using them, but what I didn't understand is that those references that I mentioned weren't even seen on the draft by the last person who responded. I wanted to understand why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlemissphoneface (talk • contribs) 21:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omitting the closing </ref> tag or using a malformed closing tag like <ref> or </ref creates display problems that could have caused MatthewVanitas to miss cre8con and pfppublishing. WP:REFB can help you with any reference syntax problems. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I did come across the indiewire article before you mentioned it, but I had no idea that JSTOR would contain any reviews about her work at all. I'll try to include that. Hopefully this will be my final draft before it is accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.14.199 (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

06:30:21, 25 February 2017 review of submission by 117.211.103.176


This is first I have tried to write something about the school I am working in. I am new to this totally. I need your help to recreate this page with all the necessary changes needed.

Hello @117.211.103.176:, did you read the comments at top? You draft lacks any WP:Sourcing whatsoever. I suggest you take a look at WP:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines to get some ideas of what to improve. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 26

13:15:43, 26 February 2017 review of submission by Jammin75


Hi, can someone please re-review my article? I keep getting rejections re notability and yet I've cited references that show the notability of the subject, which are 3 links showing chart positions of single releases on 2 music charts. I was under the understanding that you only have to meet at least one of the notability criteria, in this case I believe I have with references of chart activity. This is getting unbelievably frustrating as I've seen pages on Wiki with very little citation and notability and yet they've been approved. Thank you Jammin75 (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response provided above, under February 24. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:35:58, 26 February 2017 review of submission by Col Jacob Griffin


how do I remove citation numbers?

Col Jacob Griffin (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Col Jacob Griffin: If you're asking about the stray [4] in Draft:Jacob Griffin (born 1730), I've removed it for you and done some other basic cleanup. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 27

Request on 16:14:49, 27 February 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by 95.147.92.2


My submission has been rejected as it says it is a copy and paste from a web page. This is partially correct. The bulk of the text is indeed the same as the web-page reported although I have added a few lines and taken a few away, but the BIG point is that it is my article on the web page!! Please tell me how I can continue.


95.147.92.2 (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:REFUND to get your article back and WP:MYTEXT for items of which you are the owner of. JTP (talk • contribs) 20:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:33:05, 27 February 2017 review of submission by Nbcarder


I am new to Wikipedia. I created an account to specifically make a page about a professor at my university, Timothy A. Philpot. There is a submission in review right now. I recently found some information that might be helpful in the notability issue. It is a document written up from the publisher of the professor's textbook. It lists all the universities who use his textbook. It also has a list of statistics that may be useful. This report was written by an associate developmental editor with the publisher, however it was mostly for internal usage so it is not published online. She sent me her document to use. How do I go about this? Thanks

Nbcarder (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nbcarder. Sources need not be online, but they must have been published to be used as a source. An internal document shared with you would not count and should not be cited in Wikipeida. It may still be useful, however. Suppose it says the textbook is used by MIT, Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, and Cornell. You could scour those universities' web sites for pages that says it's a required book for course such-and-such. A handful of pages like that, ideally from well-respected engineering programs, would go part way towards satisfying WP:PROF criterion #4. The fact that it's in its 4th edition and is held by more than 180 libraries worldwide[1] would also help. The problem remains that the example in the footnote for criterion #4 says "if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks ... at multiple institutions of higher education" (emphasis mine). It may be difficult to make a convincing argument for notability based on one textbook.
Another thing to note is that user-generated sources, such as Amazon customer reviews and RateMyProfessor ratings, are not reliable sources. They should be removed from the draft, along with any content supported only by them.
If you're willing to improve Wikipedia by writing about professors at other universities, I can suggest a few for whom demonstrating notability should be easy. The more you write, the better handle you'll develop on which topics will be successful. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:43:16, 27 February 2017 review of submission by Col Jacob Griffin


1. I can't figure out how to add another photo to my article. I've added it to Wikimedia, but can't get it to my Jacob Griffin article. 2. And someone changed my article title....they removed his title: "Col.". 3. How do I change my username? to JulieDCol Jacob Griffin (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Col Jacob Griffin (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Col Jacob Griffin. Please take a look at WP:THQ#how do I add a photo from Wikimedia to my Wikipedia article? and Talk:Jacob Griffin#lost in Wiki. In general, it's a good idea to post a question in only one place and then check back to see if you've received an answer. Try and remember that all editors are volunteers who occasionally get busy, so it sometimes may take a little time before someone responds. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Col Jacob Griffin: (1) Marchjuly offered good guidance on the mechanics of image use. If you use File:Col Jacob Griffin portrait.jpg in Jacob Griffin, be sure to note in the caption that there is uncertainty about whether it is the Colonel or his son.[2] (2) Normally military ranks are not included in Wikipedia biography titles. (3) WP:RENAME explains how to change your username. Deliberate carefully. A number of Wikipedians I know regret having included any portion of their real name in their username because of the resulting loss of privacy and, unfortunately, harassment. Finally, this help desk is specific to the Articles for creation process. Now that your draft has been accepted, it is outside our scope. For any future questions, you'll get a better response at the Teahouse or Wikipedia:Help desk. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 28

13:46:13, 28 February 2017 review of submission by 208.95.51.115

I wanted to ask for someone to upload a better resolution of a {{PD-logo}} image, File:Ss logo.png, but it was really hard to navigate the wizard because it kept trying to send me to Commons to upload there (I at first missed the "If you don't have an account, you can upload without registering" line). I eventually had to pretend that it was a non-free image and go through the whole process needlessly. Instead of asking at the start "are you autoconfirmed" and "is it free," could you instead put Wikipedia:Files for upload/Wizard/Search as the landing page, and then ask license questions only if someone's trying to upload a new image? If you try to upload a new version of the same image, copyright shouldn't be quite as much of a concern for the wizard, because the old version of the image should already have the right copyright tagging, and the new upload should have the same copyright status as what's already there. 208.95.51.115 (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I'm not asking about the talk page. My question is about Wikipedia:Files for upload/Wizard, not Wikipedia talk:Files for upload/Wizard. 208.95.51.115 (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP address. Although you are not asking about the Talk page of WP:Files for upload/Wizard, that is exactly the place you should be discussing any proposed changes to the "Files for Upload/Wizard" page. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But User:NewYorkActuary, that talk page suggests that I come here with questions. 208.95.51.115 (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, IP address, but I see nothing at Wikipedia:Files for upload/Wizard that directs a reader to come here with questions. Nor would there be any reason for it to do so, because we here are not involved in the uploading of images. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is at the talk page that you just linked, right at the top. I guess I'll go to the other place, since you don't feel like helping. 208.95.51.115 (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:38:17, 28 February 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Melvin Wachira



Melvin Wachira (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Melvin Wachira. If you're wondering why Draft:Holy Dave couldn't be accepted, it is because of the quality of the sources. The article in The Star is a good start. The piece in The Daily Nation, however, is only a very brief repetition, without any independent analysis, of something the subject shared on social media. The same goes for Nairobi Wire, which describes itself as a blog, as does Ghafla. It isn't clear whether mpasho has the characteristics of a reliable source. I couldn't find much information about it. Can you find more sources like The Star - in depth coverage in mainstream media - perhaps in connection with the Groove Awards? --Worldbruce (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:34:12, 28 February 2017 review of submission by Patrizia1961


Dear Articles for creation desk help,

I would highly appreciate your help to understand why my submission at Articles for creation has been declined and what should I do to modify the article so that it can be accepted in the free encyclopedia. The deMon2k code is a computational chemistry code. Similar codes such as ABINIT, ADF etc are published as articles in the free encyclopedia, as well. I hope to receive soon your help. Many thanks in advance.

Patrizia1961 (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Patrizia1961. There may be no way that the draft can be modified so that it will be accepted.
Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia in the sense that there is no cost to read it, and no one can buy their way into it. That doesn't mean that anyone is free to add any topic they want to Wikipedia. The key to inclusion is meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria. In essence, a subject has to have received significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. This is measured by what independent, reliable sources have written about it.
User:Patrizia1961/sandbox cites three reliable sources, but they are not independent of each other. Calaminici, Goursot, Köster, and Salahub are authors on all three papers, and Alvarez-Ibarra, Dominguez-Soria, Flores-Moreno, Gamboa, Geudtner, Mejia-Rodriguez, and Zuniga-Gutierrez are each authors on at least two of them. Multiple publications from the same authors or group are regarded as a single source for the purpose of notability. If the authors of the sources are also among the developers of the product, then they don't count at all towards demonstrating that the product is notable, because they aren't independent of it.
You note that articles about similar products exist. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains low quality content and high quality content. The argument that articles exist that don't meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so more such articles should be created, is not one that will convince any experienced editors. See the essay "Other stuff exists" for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 1

11:42:06, 1 March 2017 review of submission by Liliya Yu


Liliya Yu (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=768052418"