Help desk
< June 1	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 3 >

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.

June 2

Review of Draft:John Sutton Lutz

Hello. I've completed my draft of [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/JohnSuttonLutz] and am not sure how to activate it? Could you please advise. I'm clearly doing something incorrectly. KeithKeith Thor Carlson (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DoneYou hadn't finished the <ref> with a </ref>, so nothing after the broken reference worked, including your many attempts to submit. It's been fixed now. Rankersbo (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Yun Mu Kwan (karate)

I submitted an article called Yun Mu Kwan the other day from my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Swmirsky/sandbox and received a message as follows:

"This sandbox is in the Draft namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template."

I don't understand what it is telling me to do. Can someone assist? Thanks.

Swmirsky (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC) swmirsky[reply]

Done. You just need to remove the template at the top of the draft. JSFarman (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe

In relation to the Article, I am the trademark holder and designer of Hottorque. Are you refering to the copright material as in from it being from Business Wire.

The stated comments in the business wire article are in true fact, as our company being the first to create a social media application with a Iphone App integration for the Automotive industry also we were the first Australian Tech Company to be a sponsor in a NASCAR sprintcup event.

So what do you suggest we create our own Article based on all the facts rather than the Business wire article

Also I would like to know how do we get this Article to main stream wiki?

Regards Laz Till CEO Hottorque.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by HtorqueMarketing (talk • contribs) 05:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the truth of the material was questioned. You can't use copyright material on wikipedia, even if you wrote it yourself. You must either compose new wording or formally and legally licence the material to wikipedia so the material can be reproduced and altered as any editor and reader sees fit. It's usually better to go down the re-write route as material composed for press releases tend to be too promotionally worded to work as an encyclopaedia article. Rankersbo (talk) 10:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question

under what accounting entry is the battery use for wall clock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.52.15.57 (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This help desk is only for editors seeking advice on their draft articles. For general questions, please go to Wikipedia:Reference desk. Voceditenore (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Incrediblehappenings01/sandbox

please why was my article decline? please get back to me.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incrediblehappenings01 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incrediblehappenings01, the decline notice and comment at the top of your draft explains why it was declined. Please read them and the linked pages you were given there. Voceditenore (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Directorate of Cooperation of Security and Defence

Hello everyone,

I've submitted an article 1 month ago, which still unvalidate... You can find it here (in the talk page) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Directorate_of_Cooperation_of_Security_and_Defence

Thanks in advance for any help,

--MelDCSD (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be assured that someone will review it. The delay is not on purpose, you know. Everyone who reviews articles does so when they can and when they want, and volunteers to do so. Hurrying volunteers is often counter-productive. Sometimes one wishes to review an article but finds one hasn't the expertise in the relevant area, so one passes on. Time is immaterial to Wikipedia, though. An article goes live when it is ready. No-one ever dies because of the lack of an article. Fiddle Faddle 17:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it is a very close translation of the French WP article . Obviously, this is a good way to start an article here about a French organisation, but our practice differ somewhat from the practices there. I will review the article in a few hours, and tell you about the needed changes. (You are in my o[pinion very right to complain about the delay; it is the fault of our having insufficient good reviewers, and we must not be complacent about it) DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses, I just wanted to be sure my draft was still in the actuality, take all the time you need to valid it dear volunteer, I wait your advices for the needed changes :)--MelDCSD (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Deanpowers/sandbox

Hello, I submitted an article on the "Quick Zope CMS"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deanpowers/sandbox

It was rejected for copyright violations because the content was taken from:

https://github.com/Zojax/QuickZopeCMS.

However, I was the author of the Github content since I am the CEO of Zojax (http://www.zojax.com).

Please tell me how to get this article approved.

Regards,

Dean Powers CEO, Zojax Group LLC

Deanpowers (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deanpowers, I'm afraid it doesn't matter if you are the author or not. It was previously published on a page clearly marked © 2014 GitHub, Inc. Likewise the pages at zojax.com are marked © 2012 Zojax Group, LLC. If you own the copyright and want to donate the material for use of Wikipedia, the instructions are WP:Donating copyright material—you must follow them to the letter. However, it would be a complete waste of your time. Even if the text were copyright free, the draft is unacceptable on multiple levels as a blatant advertisement, e.g.

QuickZopeCMS is a good choice for medium to large projects, providing an intuitive interface for managing the following types of content
QuickZopeCMS is a powerful and flexible python web content management system and framework.
It's built on Zope technologies to be very robust and flexible with pluggability in mind
Contact: info@zojax.com

Before continuing any further with this, I strongly suggest you read WP:NOTADVERTISING, Wikipedia:Golden Rule, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Voceditenore (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carlos Dews

Hello. I'm looking for help with my Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carlos Dews article. I have discussed it with the reviewer who declined it (Fiddle Faddle) and he sent me here. Our discussion is at User_talk:Timtrent#Carlos Dews. I need more help understanding why the listing of chapters/articles that show Dews's Carson McCullers expertise is too much. I have looked at the links Fiddle Faddle suggested as indices, and I don't see that they would showcase the McCullers well. Where else can I look for a listing without having everything Dews wrote show up?

As requested, to help with clarity, I will start reworking the page to remove the inlines in the article and the references. While waiting (nearly six weeks) for a review of the article, I kept clicking "Edit" to add more and more to 'improve' the article. I guess I went way overboard.

Any help is appreciated -- thank you! Oldbeeg (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please never be concerned about doing too much. Doing too much is great! Doing too little, that is not so good. I'm glad you came here. Opinions other than mine are always useful. I may be incorrect, it has happened before, and I learn from that each time. We're doing something about the 6 week queue. There is currently a backlog clearance drive on. That is how we met. Fiddle Faddle 16:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The hours spent on research "doing too much" is not so great when that's apparently what got my article declined. I'm sure there're notability references in there, they're apparently hidden amongst the excess. <sad face> I need to figure out how much is excess. Oldbeeg (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing is to ensure that you retain the references that have significant coverage about Dews, independent of him and in reliable sources. Then what you do is to consider the facts you assert in the article and make sure each of them is so referenced. Ignore the list of work for the present. It is the last thing you need to attend to. Read my comment in detail at the head of the article.

Please may we have other eyes on this? I have reviewed it as well as I am able, but, if I am not helping our new friend it needs others to look and offer help, too. Fiddle Faddle 23:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here

hello please why does my recent submission has been declined?Raissa Damergi (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, Regards, Raissa

@Raissa Damerg: Your submission is at User:Raissa Damergi/sandbox and has been declined by MatthewVanitas because there are no references at all. The box at the top declining the article gives you lots of information about how to rectify this, and tells you with clarity why it has been declined However, I would encourage you to work in other articles and let this one wither on the vine. There is no evidence that this autobiography is of a notable person in our sense however much those who love you find you notable. Autobiographies hurt folk the most when they write them and submit them. Please consider this before proceeding.

If you proceed please be very aware that the article will never be accepted without strong references from significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Fiddle Faddle 23:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elementary Cycles

Hello

My article for submission has been rejected for publication for notability reasons. The article was motivated by the fact that among the interpretations of quantum mechanics the voice Elementary Cycles was one of the few without a dedicated article.

I have provided a list of published peer reviewed papers related to this interpretation. I think that it is sufficiently notable as, for instance, it has been awarded in the FQXi contest in 2011, voted by a large general public.

How can I improve the article?

N4tur4le (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The comment added by the reviewer linked to a WikiProject Physics discussion about your article. It received two comments: a brief comment linking you to WP:OR (without the link, of course) and a concurring comment. So, at this point, it looks like editors had two complaints about your submission:

It counted as WP:OR, which is Wikipedia shorthand for a link to the policy No original research, which itself means that the two editors thought that your submission was about something—in your case, an interpretation in the field of physics—which does not seem to be confirmed by any extant reliable, published sources.
It also did not meet WP:GNG, which is the "official" reason adopted by the Articles for Creation reviewer. You evidently understand it; however, I believe that what the reviewer meant to say was that your submission is characterized by very long stretches devoid of any citations to reliable sources.

Hope this helps! APerson (talk!) 00:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear APerson

thank you for the advice. The article is definitively not about an WP:OR. All the information reported are extracted from many peer-review papers (15 only from D. Dolce) published in well-regarded scientific journals such as Science, Europhys.Lett., Ann. Phys. and Found.Phys. The idea and the mathematics at the base of this interpretation of quantum mechanics is supported by works of famous physicists such as the Nobel laureate G. 't Hooft, prof. R. Penrose, and has it origin from de Broglie, Einstein, Feynman, etc. The main citations are reported in the introduction of the article. I will explicitly report them, and add further peer-reviewed citations, in every section of the article, hoping to meet the editor requirements for non original researches. A more accurate evaluation of the editors will certainly reveal that this is not an Original Research. The notability is proven, e.g., by the fact that this interpretations has been awarded by in an important scientific contest (FQXi essay contest 2011).

I will add citations in the article and resubmit it for review.

Thank you.

N4tur4le (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Como Brothers Band

19:54:00, June 8, 2014 request for review by Bco66209

Bco66209 (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Marissa SmithBco66209 (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC) Dear Wikipedia Help Desk, Please restore and create this page. This band is notable according to the Criteria for musicians and ensembles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles[reply]

According to the Criteria for musicians and ensembles A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:

The Como Brothers Band has met the below notable criteria: 9 ) Has won or placed in a major music competition

    Fulfilled  -  Won Ernie Ball Battle of the Band 2012

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warped_Tour_2012#Ernie_Ball_Battle_of_the_Bands_16_Winners

10) Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications).

    Fulfilled by having music played worldwide on the below Networks

1)Movie - Wingman Inc. (performer: "Can I Be Matched With You?", "You Are My World", "What They Say")

2)E! Network 2013 Keeping Up with the Kardashians (TV Series) (performer - 1 episode)

                  Episode -  We're Having a Baby! (2013) (performer: "Can I Be Matched With You?"

3)Oxygen Channels 2013 Best Ink (TV Series) (performer - 1 episode)

                Episode - A Family Affair (2013) "Your Love")

4) MTV’s 2012-2013 The Real World (TV Series) (performer - 2 episodes)

           Episode - Bondage, Butts and Burlesque (2013) ... (performer: "You Are My World")
          Episode - Clean Break (2012) ... (performer: "You Are My World", "Can I Be Matched With You?")

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm6398859/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1 http://www.mtv.com/artists/the-como-brothers-band-1/

I need help in correctly referencing The Como Brothers Band winning in two categories in The 2014 Artist in Music Awards (Composer of the Year and Album of the Year) http://www.allindiemagazine.net/2014/02/a-successful-3rd-annual-artists-in.html . Other artists that have Wikipedia pages reference these awards (see Katie Cole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Cole

Thank you in advance for your help.

I am also providing the link to the original page deletion. It seems that the original cause for deletion was not notability but stated here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_129#The_Como_Brothers_Band

I feel that I am struggling against negative feelings about bands and music here. Please help

Marissa Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bco66209 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While this may prove notability, your article still needs to be sourced by reliable sources. IMDB and Wikipedia cannot be used as sources (see WP:UGC). Moreover, the competition does not seem very "major", so it may still fail the notability criteria. Darylgolden^(talk) 23:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bco66209 (talk · contribs)
- Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    I have included the verifiable reliable sources/references for notable performances. 
Should I remove the reference to IMDB and the descriptions about the Ernie Ball Battle and the Artist in Music Awards.

Thank you, Bco66209 (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Marissa SmithBco66209 (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian boxer Irish Eddie Carroll /Danny Doran Canadian hall of fame boxer

Hi,I have wrote this article of Canadian boxer Eddie Carroll,My Wikipedia user is Dannyboy 492 .I am trying to have this boxer's name added to the names of Canadian boxers in Canada . Canada's top JR lightweight for the Crown 1934,and Canad's top welterweight for the Canadian Championships..1935 Inducted to the Canadian boxing hall of fame[ Ottawa Ontario Canada] May 17 /1974. I need someone who can help Me enter His Name Thank You...Danny.[[[User:Dannyboy492|Dannyboy492]] (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)][reply]

@Dannyboy492: This process is for new articles and your submission is not an article. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Senior Peer Counseling

My submission, "Senior Peer Counseling", was rejected because the editor said it read like an essay instead of an encyclopedia article. What is the difference? I do not understand how to correct my submission. Please help. Thank you!

Recordsmgr (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)Bob Milbourn Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Senior Peer Counseling[reply]

@Recordsmgr: Not one of my more helpful reviews. My apologies. I suspect I managed to suffer from premature pressing of the submit button. The difference between an essay and an encyclopaedia article is a subjective "I know it when I see it one" and this does not help you at all. "Essay" is really a shorthand for "Needs to be substantially more concise, and the tone needs to be inspected to ensure it is neutral, flat, and factual." In addition essays are almost always light on referencing. My approach with this article would be to look at each sentence and ask myself "Does this sentence add value to the article?" and "Is this fact asserted i this sentence referenced properly from significant independent coverage in WP:RS?" A negative answer is your cue to cut. Finally I would ask "Is the tone now that of an encyclopaedia?" Our job is to be interesting but wholly neutral, factual but not bullet pointed, and always to be referenced in WP:RS. Fiddle Faddle 23:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:INTEGRIS

I just created a page for INTEGRIS Health that was rejected. I was hoping someone could tell me why it was rejected. INTEGRIS is the largest hospital system in Oklahoma and many of its individual centers have pages, so I'm confused as to why the organization itself wouldn't be substantial. I was hoping to create this page to unite the other pages of INTEGRIS and create a more comprehensive series of articles about INTEGRIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhitleyOConnor (talk • contribs) 22:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WhitleyOConnor: It seems that it was not declined previously. I have now reviewed it, was unable to accept it, and have left you full details at the head of the article. I can;t see any other articles in your contribution history, and I am unsure why you consider that it had been declined previously. I hope you enjoy the extra research you need to do to get the article accepted. Fiddle Faddle 23:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent I must have been confused. Someone sent me a message saying they saw that my article was rejected at the Articles for Creation before I posted this thread. I'm not sure why/how that happened. However, I have added a number of outside sources to bulk up the reference section as well as replacing some references from the entity the article is about to better legitimize the article. Thank you for the suggestions!

WhitleyOConnor (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WhitleyOConnor: While awaiting your reviewer, please do the thing you missed: removal of inline URLs. I try very hard not to re-revioew an article. It is far better to have new eyes upon it, but it will not be accepted with the inline URLs in it. I will leave anything else to the next reviewer. Fiddle Faddle 17:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]