Help desk
< March 14	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 16 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

March 15

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/shared atonement the jesus manifold

My review said this article reads like an essay instead of an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/shared atonement the jesus manifold. The primary works cited which were the book by D. Jeremiah, and the law suit filings by Massengale, with the book S. Unwin being the outline for the way the probability function is used. I have reviewed other wikipedia articles on other atonement theories such as penal substitution, and do not see the difference other than that this theory is new, but is being used by pastors, theologians and scientists. Hugh Ross for example in Beyond the cosmos uses a version of this theory with a multidimensional universe which would require an essay just to get to how the theory applies, and the criticism there from William Craig is too focused on the reality of the physics to criticize the logic of the atonement. To put it another way in every case I've written what is the common use by all, the probability and how it's applied to the evidence by the authors. What am I doing wrong?Jamey314 (talk) 04:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has this theory received any coverage in reliable, independent sources? If not, then you are wasting your time working on an article that will never be published, no matter how well written. We don't need references to people who use what you claim is "a version of this theory". We need references that discuss Massengale's theory, with reference to Massengale himself. He can claim all he wants that others are plagiarizing his work, but that means nothing on Wikipedia without an independent source to at least give attention to that claim. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Katharina Bregant

Please be patient with my article, i am a newcomer an hav pubkished my article in Geman 2012. Now i have to improve it in english and must link the pictures with wikimedia and the german kinks. Thanks--Bregant1 (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your submission. There is a very long backlog at the moment, so you may need to wait several weeks before someone can look at your article. Meanwhile, you can continue to improve it, adding any additional news/book sources. If you want to link to an article in German Wikipedia, you can do so by adding :de: to the start of the link. For example [[:de:Liste der Träger des Ehrenzeichens des Landes Steiermark|Great Golden Medal of Honour of the province of Styria]] will become Great Golden Medal of Honour of the province of Styria. Sionk (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alain Kirili

Hi, I just submitted a page for creation (Alain Kirili) a couple of minutes ago. I received the note that the page was submitted, but I couldn't see the page any more. I believe the page was not correctly saved and submitted blanc. How can I reinsert the text? Thank you in advance for your help.Annaluka (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you didn't add any text. To add the text, just click 'edit' and start writing BELOW the text that is already there. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 18:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. In the meantime an editor has declined the article because it was blanc. The message I received suggested to click on "edit" like you said and to remove all the text above in the box, which I did before I clicked on "save". How do I resubmit the page? I hope I did the right thing this time. Annaluka (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved via IRC: I've submitted Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Alain Kirili for review, which was a copy of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alain Kirili. You can submit drafts for review by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top, but there's no reason to submit both copies of the draft for review. Huon (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I truly appreciate your help. I will know better what to do next time.Annaluka (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SoCalSpit re. recent RedCloud and LIghtningCloud page creations

Greetings,

I recently created two web pages for a notable musician/group/album (decade of record experience, recent recognition by prominent awards body, etc): Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/LightningCloud and Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/RedCloud (MC).

I saved the page and submitted for review, then received a message that told me it might take several weeks before the page was posted pending review.

My question: is it possible to post the page to the internet before review? Then have the record stricken, if denied?

I ask because, like many of your users, I desire the information to see light of day ASAP.

The artist/musician/album fits several categories under the "notability" requirement. These articles also link nicely into other existing Wikipedia entries. Also, I am a credentialed academic that has written encyclopedic entries for print publication, so the narrative--though brief and not yet perfect--is still competitive with substantial quality of the entries I have used as reference on Wikipedia. I hope that they will see the light of day, soon.

Is there any other way to get these articles to "press" (that is, posted to the internet for general reference)? Or, is enduring a few weeks for the review acceptance the only course of action for now?

Many thanks!SoCalSpit (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RedCloud and LightningCloud may well be notable, but the current drafts suffer some significant problems that would probably lead to their swift demise in the main articlespace. For example, both drafts are very short on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news reports or reviews in reputable music magazines. For example, a news source would be much better at establishing that APCMA is a notable award than the website of the organization bestowing the award. You quote the LA Weekly's music critic (who would be reliable and independent), but don't cite a source for that statement - so our readers cannot verify that the music critic indeed said so.

Technically, users with an account can create articles directly in the mainspace and need not bother with the AfC review process at all, but if these drafts were turned into articles proper, they would likely be up for deletion in very short order. Since you appear to be a rather inexperienced user, I'd strongly suggest you go through the review process and get some feedback from the reviewers. Of course you can also address the issues I pointed out above while you wait for the review proper.

One final general remark: RedCloud doesn't seem to be notable independent of LightningCloud; it might be better to merge the drafts into a single one about the band. Huon (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Grog Americain

The problem here is that there are only two reliable sources for this article. Me and my experience and real interviews, and the label on the bottles. I have interviewed across South Texas and Northeastern Mexico, and no one who fits your definition of "reliable" exists, besides those two sources. Too much time has gone by. I am reliable. I am a professional research scholar, familiar with the requirements of refereed scholarly publication. I have brought decades of experience to this article. The suggested places to look all turn up nothing. Nothing matches the search criteria or keywords. The only thing that arises is references to a mixed drink that has nothing to do with this rum. So, tell me where to go when there are only these two reliable sources in existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resplendant Quetzal (talk • contribs) 17:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately your own experience and unpublished interviews aren't suitable sources for Wikipedia, however much of an expert you are. This sort of thing is what Wikipedia calls original research. Wikipedia needs to base its content on reliably published sources, to enable others to verify the content (if need be). It sounds like this article will be unable to progress. Sionk (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References (Sean Bell)

Hi, I had resubmitted my article with the reference: London, Jack (2006). "Baseball's best Groundball pitchers", p. 18. Street & Smith's Baseball 2006. ISBN 070992371273

But, it was declined and when I went to check up on the article, it did not appear, how can it appear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1remains (talk • contribs) 22:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Each <ref> tag must be followed by a closing </ref> tag; the content between those tags becomes the text of the footnote. You didn't have a </ref> tag; thus everything after the <ref> tag was interpreted as part of one big footnote. I fixed that and also added the {{reflist}} template that displays the footnotes' text in the "references" section. The code generating the footnote itself (ie the <ref>...</ref>) should not be placed in the references section but in the article proper, right after the statement the footnote is meant to support. See also WP:Referencing for beginners. Huon (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Grog Americain

Your rationale for rejecting this article is idiotic. By your criteria, almost all articles and books by field anthropologists, archaeologists, and sociologists would have to be rejected, because there were no sources to support their totally new, previously undiscovered knowledge.

In field anthropology, we on occasion find totally new (to us) people, cultures, and places. By definition, it is impossible to cite sources to back up our discoveries, because we are the discoverers! Our work in the field is unique (I will avoid the silly redundancy "totally unique"), and because we follow a set of methodological rules regarding the reporting of unique discoveries, our work is accepted as the best, and only, research in that specific area. You really need to learn something about research methodology and sourcing from us. Right now, your sourcing requirements are just stupid. And lead to continuing ignorance. Is that your goal--continue the ignorance? Pack of fools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resplendant Quetzal (talk • contribs) 23:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the "particularly popular", "legendary" drink was not the subject of news coverage? And despite your familiarity with the requirements of refereed scholarly publication you haven't published a peer-reviewed scholarly paper about your discovery? Then unfortunately we must conclude that Grog Americain, despite your claims, isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Besides, there are issues of verifiability: If I claimed to also be a field anthropologist and changed some of the draft's claims based on my supposed "personal knowledge", how could our readers tell that I'm wrong and you're right?

You may also want to have a look at WP:CIVIL and WP:No personal attacks. I don't expect that you calling other editors a "pack of fools" will make us see the error of our ways. Huon (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why

Why was the submission rejected? On what grounds do you disagree with the item? I understand it may seem fanciful, but that doesn't mean the item isn't correct to the best of my knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaceman09 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The submission was rejected becaus claims of "special powers" would require extraordinary evidence; it's much more likely that the draft is a hoax. To back up the draft's claims you should cite reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspapers. Huon (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]