User talk:YCatherine

Copyright problem on Draft:Fluctuating Workweek Overtime

Your additions to the above draft included passages copied verbatim or nearly verbatim from a non-free source. This was detected by automatic plagiarism detection software. For copyright reasons, part of your contribution was deleted. Please review the Plagiarism and Copyright training module before proceeding further. Thanks. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fluctuating Workweek Overtime moved back to draftspace

do not move your own drafts to mainspace. Wait for them to be reviewed. If your instructor has told you otherwise, please let me know on my user talk page {{User talk:DGG]]so I can give them the proper advice.

Notes

Hi! I wanted to give you some feedback on the draft.

I noticed that you start the sections by saying things like "this section is about...". With sections it's best to just dive in and discuss the topic rather than introduce it, as that can make it feel too much like a journal article or paper. So for example, the section on conditions should start like this:

There are several conditions that must be met before a worker can receive overtime pay.

This may seem like an introduction, but the key difference here is that it's not introducing the section - rather it's a statement that certain conditions must be met. I definitely recommend reviewing similar articles to see how their sections are written and styled.

The lead also needs to be tweaked for style. Here's how I would style the first sentence of the lead:

Fluctuating workweek overtime, also known as Chinese overtime, is a method of wage calculation that provides labor remuneration for workers who continue to work outside the prescribed working hours.

This makes it into a straightforward, brief statement of what the article is about. The first sentence doesn't have to describe everything - just give a general enough overview to where people could understand what it's about. I also bolded the article title and the alternate name per style conventions for the lead's first sentence. I did remove the term "new" since that can be a fairly subjective term. For example, for some "new" means that it was created within the last few days or weeks, while for others it can mean within the last year or two. It's also a term that can swiftly become outdated, so with things that are relatively recent it's best to refer to the year that they were created or became popular.

From there we can tweak the content to read thusly:

Fluctuating workweek overtime, also known as Chinese overtime, is a method of wage calculation that provides labor remuneration for employees who continue to work outside the prescribed working hours. The idea behind fluctuating workweek overtime is that employees who work overtime should receive reasonable remuneration as overtime prolongs the working hours and increases their extra workload, regardless of their regular work hours or fixed salary. By utilizing fluctuating workweek overtime, the expectation is that employees who work more than their regular work hours can use these methods to receive proper remuneration and defend their rights. This approach may become more attractive to employers due to the increase in overtime hours, as overtime paid to employees will decrease. Specific conditions must be met for an employee to receive remuneration.

We don't really need to label the sections as those will be self explanatory in the article.

Be very careful of sources. Not all sources on the Internet are reliable. For example, this source is a blog post on a website for a company that sells payroll software. As such, this puts the reliability of the source into question since the site is going to use this as a way to sell their products, meaning that they may represent the content in a certain way so that companies will see their product as necessary. The conflict of interest here poses a big problem. It doesn't mean that the information is necessarily wrong, just that they're not the strongest possible source.

I hope that this helps you out! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fluctuating Workweek Overtime (August 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Scope creep was:

This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.

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:Fluctuating Workweek Overtime 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:Fluctuating Workweek Overtime, 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.

scope_creep^Talk 09:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, YCatherine! 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! scope_creep^Talk 09:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Fluctuating Workweek Overtime concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Fluctuating Workweek Overtime, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Fluctuating Workweek Overtime

Hello, YCatherine. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Fluctuating Workweek Overtime".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]