Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tag: Reverted
Tag: Reverted
Line 566: Line 566:
I don't really understand the intricacies of templates. I tried putting the same template on my latest draft as on my last two, but there's a note that says <span style="color:red;">"Missing taxonomy template"</span> <small>yes in big red letters that suggest some sort of error</small> I hit the "fix" link, and it takes me to [[Template:Taxonomy/Syncuari]] which I can't edit, and I'm pretty sure that edit requests that just say change this page to fix it somehow are not allowed. Advice is welcome.
I don't really understand the intricacies of templates. I tried putting the same template on my latest draft as on my last two, but there's a note that says <span style="color:red;">"Missing taxonomy template"</span> <small>yes in big red letters that suggest some sort of error</small> I hit the "fix" link, and it takes me to [[Template:Taxonomy/Syncuari]] which I can't edit, and I'm pretty sure that edit requests that just say change this page to fix it somehow are not allowed. Advice is welcome.


Oh, also I typoed the title (fat fingers and all that) can someone change it to [[Draft:Syncuaria]] please
Also I typoed the title (fat fingers and all that) can someone change it to [[Draft:Syncuaria]] please


[[Special:Contributions/74.73.230.232|74.73.230.232]] ([[User talk:74.73.230.232|talk]]) 00:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/74.73.230.232|74.73.230.232]] ([[User talk:74.73.230.232|talk]]) 00:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:22, 9 February 2021

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		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 2

05:16:28, 2 February 2021 review of submission by Akhilnair1101


Was not aware that Wikipedia had an issue with all sources originating from a single source. I went back and added more information and also found information from different sources (news websites). I am not affiliated with the Heatwave radio and I have no intentions in marketing for them.

Akhilnair1101 (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:04:51, 2 February 2021 review of draft by Ufilm


Ufilm (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ufilm, what help and advice would you like? Fiddle Faddle 10:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:57:57, 2 February 2021 review of submission by Niranjanvivek


Niranjanvivek (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Niranjanvivek, You resubmitted it with no substantive changes or no changes at all. What did you expect to happen? Fiddle Faddle 09:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:09:42, 2 February 2021 review of submission by אור פ

this draft has been re-submitted after a consensus regarding its contents has been reached with User:Scope creep and User:chicdat and following their advice to do it.

אור פ (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

אור פ, You had made an edit which hid the content. I have unhidden it. The draft is not currently submitted. You need to inspect it to see if what I have done meets your needs, then submit it Fiddle Faddle 09:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the subject is notable due to the detoxify procedure which is recognised internationally and has references on at least 3 continents, by a cursory search. Personally I can't see what is wrong the tone of the article. I did send a message to User:chicdat to investigate it, but he never replied, probably not in. But I do think sufficiently notable to pass Afd and it is sufficiently referenced. scope_creepTalk 10:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, might I suggest you submit by proxy and accept it? Fiddle Faddle 10:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't editing that day. He's improved things a lot. Yes, I support accepting it. Can we get someone uninvolved to do it? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Scope creep and Timtrent (almost did {{u|Fiddle Faddle}}). 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chicdat, I get notifications either way! Fiddle Faddle 11:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, by your alt account, Fiddle Faddle. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you hit the resubmit button so it can be progressed, @אור פ: scope_creepTalk 11:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
i hit the resubmit button, thank you User:scope_creepאור פ (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
אור פ, Accepted Fiddle Faddle 11:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TimtrentScope creepchicdat Thank you all!!! אור פ (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You're welcome. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
אור פ, Easy to do. Keep working to this standard and you will achieve many more articles. Might there be a WP:DYK available from this article? If so then now is the time. Fiddle Faddle 12:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:18:45, 2 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Tudjazka



Tudjazka (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tudjazka Your draft has zero content, did you have a question? Theroadislong (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:26:13, 2 February 2021 review of submission by SteveBrown01


SteveBrown01 (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hello;

Below is 1 company page. I reviewed their references.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zephyr_Surgical_Implants

There is another company with similar independent references.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigicon_Innovative_Urological_Solutions

Products and company names were mentioned in 3 scientific articles in Nature magazine. (Independent.) When we look at the Zephyr page, the same things appear there.

It is being taken off the air continuously. Can you help with the creation of this page?

SteveBrowm01 Please see other stuff exists as to why this is a poor argument. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about.
Who is "we"? Accounts are for individuals only. If you are associated with the company, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to do with the company. But it is a title with the same independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveBrown01 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, who is "we"? With 6 million plus articles, it's hard to weed out every inappropriate one. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:51:38, 2 February 2021 review of submission by 82.28.77.161


we have added to the bio and added press relating to Liv 82.28.77.161 (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do not cite ourselves. Get rid of every single citation to Wikipedia. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 15:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:20:55, 2 February 2021 review of submission by Barouy13

Hello, last time I resubmitted this page for review I received very helpful feedback in terms of getting this page draft approved. I followed all recommended advice (including and would appreciate if someone could take review the page draft once again. Thank you!

Barouy13 (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barouy13 Rejected drafts usually cannot be resubmitted, but since it was rejected in October, you could probably submit a fresh draft(such as "JumpCloud (2)". However, most of what remains in the draft is routine business transactions, which does not establish notability. See WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:12:28, 2 February 2021 review of submission by Nomorewriting


I'm wondering why after I've provided at least 20 non-press release articles they have been deemed, insufficient, not noteworthy or insignificant. It's a little odd to me considering my uncle has a wikipedia page that he wrote himself. Is it because he's obviously a man? I've found multiple articles stating that women who contribute to wikipedia or try to create wikipedia pages about other women are usually given the same response - your information, subject, person is insignificant. If they manage to get an edit through it's almost always edited back.

https://suegardner.org/2011/02/19/nine-reasons-why-women-dont-edit-wikipedia-in-their-own-words/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/ https://www.fastcompany.com/3041871/more-like-dude-ipedia-study-shows-wikipedias-sexist-bias#:~:text=But%20whether%20you're%20sensitive,across%20Wikipedia's%20millions%20of%20articles.

Now is that because they really are insignificant? Or are they insignificant to wikipedia because they lack a penis? Every draft I've submitted has been reviewed by a man and deemed insignificant and since I've provided a number of reliable resources in which the subject of my wikipedia article is the subject of the source, I'm thinking these rejections are based on my subject's gender. I'm wondering if the rejections I got weren't because I had "insufficient evidence and therefore my subject was insignificant" or "The evidence would be sufficient and your subject significant if only you both had penises". I had to change my username just to not be harassed during feedback sessions.

There are many wikipedia pages with outright wrong information just because the male contributors of this site deem it correct. Does wikipedia really care about being accurate? Or do you care about spinning facts to your misogynist agenda? I'll probably get a lot of shit for this question or completely ignored, but just know this is the stuff of class action lawsuits. And women are not shutting up.

Nomorewriting (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomorewriting Please review No legal threats. I'm curious as to how you know the gender of the person on the other end of the computer.
Yes, there are articles with incorrect information. It isn't because "male contributors of this site deem it correct", it is because this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, and as such it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. Feel free to pitch in and point out this incorrect information.
The sources you have offered are not in depth coverage of the subject. Sources need to be more than brief mentions or basic announcements. I get that it is frustrating to have something you worked hard on declined, but there is no conspiracy here. We don't know your gender unless you tell us. 331dot (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also please read WP:NPA, Nomorewriting. Lobbing personal attacks and accusing people of misogyny because they felt your draft didn't meet our General Notability Guideline, is a disproportionate response, and personal attacks are not tolerated. No idea what the deal is with the article about your uncle, but it is possible he created it without submitting it for community scrutiny. There are a lot of poorly-written, promotional, self-serving articles at Wikipedia. The existence of those articles doesn't suggest that they were approved any more than trash on the street suggests that littering is approved. And no, he shouldn't have written that article about himself, because it's unethical. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My name was obviously female and so was my subject's name. It's called common sense. And what I said was a warning, not a threat. I never said "I am going to sue" I said this sexism is going to get you sued. There's a difference. I could tell the reviewers were men by their username and the way they spoke to me, just like they could tell I was female by my username. In case you didn't read my comment all the way through, I mentioned having to change my username because it was too female. Tell yourself what you want, but your dismissal of my comment tells me you're probably a man too.
I'd like to add that I never called anyone out specifically, so your claim that I personally attacked anyone is completely unfounded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomorewriting (talk • contribs) 23:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to spend much time on this, but just to clarify, suggesting that an editor declined the draft because the subject lacks a penis, would qualify in my opinion as a personal attack, whether you mentioned them by name or not. Moving to more fruitful areas, the draft was declined because the reviewer felt that you did not demonstrate that the subject meets our General Notability Guideline. If you want to argue that the draft does meet the criteria, then feel free to do so. Which of the sources in the article are all three: independent, reliable, and speak about the subject in great detail? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, alrighty then. You just proved my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomorewriting (talk • contribs) 00:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 3

01:24:09, 3 February 2021 review of draft by Elizasnook3


Hi there! I have an article being published about Caroline Blazovsky and it's been denied due to "unreliable sources" -- I am curious as to what makes something reliable or not. These are articles/references are from well known magazines and news outlets.

It is also mentioning that needs to read from a neutral point of view and I believe it is. Any notes would be much appreciated.

Thanks!


Elizasnook3 (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, well, first, in order to be deemed notable at Wikipedia, the draft writer has to demonstrate that the subject has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Significant coverage means in depth writing about the subject. Reliable sources typically means major mainstream publications with clear editorial policies and established reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. Independent means that the sources should not rely on participation by the subject, or rely on information provided by the subject or entwined entities. So looking at some of the sources in the article, Forbes magazine is a reliable source, but much of the content that appears on Forbes.com is written by contributors, who are often not reliable sources--oftentimes, they are bloggers. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which reflects the many discussions that were held about this. Forbes even disclaims responsibility for contributor content.
PR websites typically rely on content submitted by primary sources, and thus, probably exercise little editorial control over the content. Do they fact-check? Doubtful. And since they get their information from sources entwined with a subject, that doesn't make them independent of the subject. US Patent Office would be fine for proving that a patent exists, but contributes nothing toward the notability of the subject. Blogs and other faceless websites don't qualify as reliable, because anyone can start a blog or website and publish whatever they want--there is no presumption of accuracy. See WP:UGC. Interviews don't help to establish notability either, even if published in reliable sources, because they are dependent on the subject's participation. So to establish notability, you need to show that multiple mainstream, known sources wrote about Blazovsky in great detail, independently. Hope that helps to explain things. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:43:54, 3 February 2021 review of submission by JaneK153

My article was rejected due to issues with references. What exactly was the referencing issue and how can I correct this to ensure the article is approved.

JaneK153 (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:42:07, 3 February 2021 review of submission by Akhilnair1101

Hi,

I apologize for not being aware that Wikipedia did not accept pages with all information coming from a single source, therefore I did more research and improved the quality of this page and added more sources. Please reconsider and publish this page, thank you very much for your time!

Akhilnair1101 (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akhilnair1101 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further at this time. Announcements of routine business(such as the opening of a radio station) do not establish notability, especially when it mostly consists of an interview. Multiple independent reliable sources with significant, in depth coverage of the subject are needed. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Akhilnair1101, I'm not going to dispute the rejection by Theroadislong. Nor am I going to dispute the effective feedback received from 331dot. What I would suggest in the interim (if you can find enough good sources and if you can make the information neutral language) is that you add a couple sentences about the radio station to the existing article about UBCO and media on campus. Bkissin (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:16:54, 3 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Mahant Dr Yogi Vilasnath



Mahant Dr Yogi Vilasnath (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:10:02, 3 February 2021 review of submission by 1amtarunkumar


1amtarunkumar (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1amtarunkumar You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please review conflict of interest and paid editing. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves; we are only interested in what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say with significant coverage about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:22:47, 3 February 2021 review of draft by Paa Kwasi


Paa Kwasi (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting a help because I know you can help me review/edit my Biography!

Paa Kwasi Please review the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. You would only merit an article if you can show with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that you meet Wikipedia's definition of a notable musician. Ideally, you should not be the one to write about you. 331dot (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:29:53, 3 February 2021 review of submission by Lmselby


Kindly help me to know the exact reasons for rejection.Thank you Lmselby (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lmselby You were told the exact reason- the piece is just blatant advertising. It is also completely unsourced; a Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.
If you work for this company, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:01:30, 3 February 2021 review of draft by Srapley81


This the first wiki article I've ever written, so I'm struggling to know whether what I've produced is acceptable, or what changes I need to make. Can you give me some indication? I've added more references to support the information on the page.

Srapley81 (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Srapley81 Most of the draft is sourced to only one source; most reviewers look for at least three independent reliable sources with significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added more references to address this, does the satisfy your comment :331dot? Thanks for your help!

That might help, but you may wish to ask the last reviewer before resubmitting. 331dot (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added two more sources and will be happy to accept if you re-submit. Theroadislong (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:06:48, 3 February 2021 review of submission by Lovemyfamilybut?


Hello, could you please tell me how RealtyShares is not notable? There are hundreds of articles published about it online. It was a company dealing in hundreds of millions of USD. Fundrise and RealtyShares are much alike. What can be done to make this successful? Please advise.

Lovemyfamilybut? (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lovemyfamilybut? Please review the Wikipedia definition of a notable company or organization. The sources you have offered describe routine business transactions(like the raising of capital, filing of bankruptcy, etc.); that does not establish notability. What is needed are independent reliable sources that have in depth, non-routine coverage of the company. For example, Ford Motor Company and Microsoft merit articles because many sources independent of those companies have studied and written about them; they don't merit articles because they release new products or open a new factory or acquire competitors. 331dot (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Then what about Fundrise?
Lovemyfamilybut? Pings do not work to notify the user unless you sign the post with four tildes(~~~~). What about it? As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. See other stuff exists. That other inappropriate content exists does not mean yours can too. If you are interested in helping us out, feel free to identify these other problematic articles for attention. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:16:18, 3 February 2021 review of submission by Sky445


Hello team, I tried my best to provide reliable sources for this artist. I noticed that for some reasons some reliable sources have removed the pages pertaining to Salim. Is it possible to reconsider the rejection?

Sky445 (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sky445 I'm sorry, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further at this time. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:43:33, 3 February 2021 review of draft by JuddTheDearJohn


JuddTheDearJohn (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I just need help that this could be accepted. Like which sentences and sources, I could use for this. Since I'm in my last chance and would be potentially deleted.

JuddTheDearJohn The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further at this time and that no amount of editing can change that at this time. 331dot (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:21:22, 3 February 2021 review of submission by Esmaeili.nooshin

Hi, I have submitted my page for review many times and it was rejected. I recently made all the edits and resubmitted the new page. I am still waiting (almost 2 months) to hear from the permission team for some pictures to be published in the article as well as the approval of the article. I appreciate your help. ~~ Esmaeili.nooshin (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Esmaeili.nooshin, you resubmitted the draft and it had been declined by Devonian Wombat 16 days ago for being read like an advertisement. Please have a look at ADMASK. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:49:55, 3 February 2021 review of submission by Syent713


Syent713 (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No references at all, what is your question?Naraht (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


February 4

00:36:24, 4 February 2021 review of submission by Esmaeili.nooshin

Hi I submitted my page on Sunday Jan 24th. I am not sure what you mean by 16 days ago. I have checked my article almost everyday since then and the yellow box was there mentioning that it is under review. That is why I send you the note. I am not sure when and why it is declined again. I have ben waiting to get permission for the pictures for the last 2 months and no answer. I also revised the page so it its more like an article and I added valid references and resources. I am not sure anymore what I need to do for my article to be accepted. Now I am not even able to see it in my contributions folder as it is redirected and deleted. I need help on where the article is and how to proceed and publish my article. Thanks ~~ Esmaeili.nooshin (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Esmaeili.nooshin: As far as I can tell, this appears to be what happened:
I am not an admin and therefore cannot see the deleted revisions. Maybe Orangemike or one of the admin folks over here can have a look at the (deleted) edits and tell you further. For other reviewers: Tge images resided on Wikimedia Commons. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

00:45:23, 4 February 2021 review of draft by ICOMATIK

{{SAFESUBST:00:45:23, 4 February 2021 review of submission by ICOMATIK

FIRST TELL US WHY YOU ARE REQUESTING HELP ON THE LINE BELOW THIS LINE. Take as many lines as you need. -->}}

ICOMATIK (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ICOMATIK: You dind't ask a question. I can see that your draft was sucessfully submitted for review today. Please wait until a reviewer gets to your draft (we have a large backlog). You will be notified on your user talk page when the review is complete. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

00:47:34, 4 February 2021 review of submission by ICOMATIK

THIS IS A MAZE! This same article has just been published on the Portuguese and French Wikipedias. Please, dear colleagues, publish the article in English as soon as possible

ICOMATIK (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01:24:53, 4 February 2021 review of draft by Sportmor


Hi there. I'm trying to create a page for the ESPN+ TV show Peyton's Places. I don't understand all this code stuff. I wish it was more user friendly. Anyway it was denied for not good enough sources, but the sources were literally ESPN+; where the show is. Can someone please help me get this? It's not a real long page. Thanks.

Sportmor (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 01:36:03, 4 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Harley.quintana


Hello,

I recently wanted to submit a page titled Draft:Raise3D into Wikipedia. When I originally submitted it, it was declined because it was too product-focused. Just so you understand my logic, at the time I thought that if I simply stated facts about the products the article would be neutral. After using TeaHouse I learned that that was not the case because it sounded like a product catalogue. So I made the necessary adjustments, removed most of the information, and resubmitted my draft.

However, it has been rejected again. This time I was told that my sources are not up to Wikipedia's rules for sources. I am a little confused about that. Before submitting my draft the first time, I had used a Wikipdia-generated page that was similar as a guide for what type of sources would be acceptable. My sources are the same as what is featured on this Wikipedia page:Ultimaker Then can someone explain why my caused my latest submission to be rejected?


Harley.quintana (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harley.quintana Please see other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. In the case of Ultimaker(I've fixed the link, the whole web address is not necessary), it too seems to have a notability issue and I have tagged it as such. Other inappropriate articles existing does not mean that yours can too.
Your draft just briefly tells about the company. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Press releases, product reviews, announcements of routine business transactions, staff interviews, and other primary sources do not establish notability. For example, Ford Motor Company merits a Wikipedia article not because they announce new car models every so often, or open/close a factory, but because independent sources have chosen to study and write about Ford and its effects on manufacturing and business. As noted by the reviewer, please see WP:ORGDEPTH for more information. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:20:58, 4 February 2021 review of draft by Barbaro Reyes Cho


I don’t have any creation experience so I need help to improve my draft.--Barbaro Reyes Cho (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barbaro Reyes Cho (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:02:34, 4 February 2021 review of draft by Hong12kong


Hi, I created a draft page titled "Gulliver's Voyage to Phantomimia," and it was rejected on December 25, 2020. I subsequently revised the page, adding more citations: a total of FOUR reviews of this particular English transcreation, in addition to two (Finnish) sources for its Finnish original and two English sources for the importance of Volter Kilpi as a writer. In 1992 Kilpi's magnum opus Alastalon salissa ("In the Alastalo Parlor") was voted the greatest Finnish novel ever; as his Wikipedia page in English also shows, Kilpi is widely considered one of the greatest writers in the Finnish language. I really can't see why this article was rejected--it seems to me to meet Wikipedia's requirements! It seems as if the editor who rejected it didn't bother to read any of the sources I cited, or even English Wikipedia's Volter Kilpi page. And I'm not sure what I can do to get this page approved--help! Hong12kong (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:07:31, 4 February 2021 review of submission by Virjournal

After working on the feedback given by the responding editor, I had resubmitted the page but there's no further feedback given post that. Whom can I reach out to get this page published? Virjournal (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Virjournal You have resubmitted the draft and it is pending. As noted in the submission notice, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,069 pending submissions waiting for review." So you will need to be patient; there isn't really anything you can do to speed it up as volunteers conduct reviews, doing what they can when they can. You can continue to work on it while waiting; I might suggest that the entire awards section be removed, unless the various awards have articles about the award themselves(such as the Academy Awards). Any person or organization can give out an "award"; it means, frankly, little unless that award is extensively covered by reliable sources. The article reads as a resume and not as an encyclopedia article with prose. The article should not just list the person's accomplishments, it should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:44:48, 4 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Cijjil1310


Why the article keeps getting rejected saying that another already exists? But I cant find the article on wikipedia.

Cijjil1310 (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a duplicate of this Draft:Abhishek Raveendran declined submission. Theroadislong (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) IMDB is never a reliable source. This keeps getting decliend because it is sustantically identical to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Abhishek_Raveendran. I don't have an opinion about which one as the bigger acceptance chances, but with IMDB and Blogspot as the main sources, I am afraid this isn't going to be accepted. We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler Incident. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:05:45, 4 February 2021 review of draft by Mviraa


How many citations are generally sufficient to make the new article to be successfully published? Thank you

Mviraa (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined for the reasons explained on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:00:36, 4 February 2021 review of draft by Elisadesapinto


My last submission was declined because of Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Since the information comes from the same article, I added an inline citation at the beginning and end of the paraphagh, and deleted some information that was poorly referenced. Because all information there comes from the references list, do I need to add the same inline in every sentence or should this be considered good for being published?

All the help possible will be much appreciated. Thank you!

Elisadesapinto (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elisadesapinto. An inline citation at the end of a paragraph (if all the information in the paragraph came from the same source) is usually sufficient citation density. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:00:40, 4 February 2021 review of submission by Guitarfan21

Hi everyone, I'm stuck on my re-submission and asking for help to avoid creating a lot more "back and forth" for your editors: The feedback for my first draft said it read more like an advertisement and the tone was not neutral. It mentioned one particular sentence, so I corrected it, then noticed a few other places I thought might be deemed similar, and corrected those as well.

Question #1) I'm having trouble understanding if my second draft is still deemed "not neutral tone" or "an advertisement"? Please help! (when writing, I tried to follow basic guidelines I saw in WIKI articles--remain as factual as possible, link to other WIKI pages for clarification of terms, use substantial/reliable 3rd party references, and avoid excessive other external links--my only other external link was to the company website at the end, which I'd be happy to remove).

Question #2) I also saw feedback asking if I have an undisclosed financial stake. Perhaps I approached the COI declaration incorrectly (or my initial declaration wasn't saved properly? user error?). I recently began working for the company I'm writing about and thought they should have a public page. I am not an independent contractor being paid to write the page, nor did they ask me to write it, so the COI category I chose was: I'm "writing about a subject I'm close to" because I didn't want it to look like I was a hired editor/hourly worker being told to write this, or that it wasn't my own writing/research.

Any advice? I'm happy to make additional adjustments; just not sure what they should be. THANKS! Guitarfan2116:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Guitarfan21 (talk) Guitarfan21 (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:08:59, 4 February 2021 review of draft by Kmindspark


I am wondering if sites under purdue.edu are considered reliable by wikipedia.

Kmindspark (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kmindspark It's difficult to answer without knowing what it is sourcing, but you can read about what reliable sources are atWP:RS, and ask questions about sources at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:58:13, 4 February 2021 review of submission by Jonathantourangeau


Jonathantourangeau (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:09:00, 4 February 2021 review of submission by 2A02:CB80:402B:3B47:1:1:5DD1:8ABB


2A02:CB80:402B:3B47:1:1:5DD1:8ABB (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:06:50, 4 February 2021 review of draft by 2A00:23C4:BA1E:7701:9E3:1ABE:3380:526E


I'm having problems submitting an article , it's telling me to add references, what and how do i do that ? 2A00:23C4:BA1E:7701:9E3:1ABE:3380:526E (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To merit an article, a subject must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Wikipedia is not for merely telling about something. Successfully writing a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia; please read Your first article. If you create an account you can use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


February 5

02:15:53, 5 February 2021 review of draft by Innocentuzoma


Innocentuzoma (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:25:40, 5 February 2021 review of submission by Nycnjc

I would like to better understand the rejection. I thought that academics, professors, were under a slightly different burden for "notability." That if their work has been cited that is sufficient and it doesn't have to be them personally who has been the subject of publication? Can you clarify? This person's work has thousands of citations on Google Scholar. His research formed the basis for understanding of how antidepressants impact sexual functioning. His work seems worthy of "notability."

Nycnjc (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nycnjc: The feedback given with the initial decline is that the article draft is sourced completely to Cunningham's works. You need to find coverage about him in independent third party sources to show that he's notable. The closest notability guideline for doctors that also publish research papers would be Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria. I'm not sure Cunningham meets this. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:29:53, 5 February 2021 review of submission by MorrieMarr

Hello there. I would like to know how to submit my draft. I couldn't see the submit button above. I also couldn't add submit code on top of the source editor. MorrieMarr (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only contribution on Wikipedia so far? Where are you creating the draft? Theroadislong (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:14:57, 5 February 2021 review of submission by 117.216.133.118

the person's work is covered by multiple independent sources (references 27 to 36), which are NOT passing mentions, the person holds a highest-level appointed position at a specialized agency of United Nations (ITU, references 2 and 3), the person was a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor, University of Cambridge (reference 12), the person's academic work has made a significant impact on eye gaze tracking https://scholar.google.co.in/citations?view_op=search_authors&hl=en&mauthors=label:eye_gaze_tracking 117.216.133.118 (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at references 27 to 34 and they basically all appear to be the same article, with some changes here and there. That suggests to me that they are press releases, which would not be independent. But even if they are not press releases, it would be a stretch of the imagination to suggest that ten articles that all originated from the same place would qualify as "multiple". If someone were to go through that draft and start pulling out duplicate references, I wonder how much shorter the reference list would be... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:40:42, 5 February 2021 review of submission by Bevelgearsinc


I am writing to inquire about why my article has not been approved. Everything I have published comes from first-hand experience with the parties I am publishing about.

For example, I updated Robert Carlock's birthday and hometown on his page at the request of Carlock, whom I know personally. If you need proof of accuracy, I am happy to privately provide his driver's license for authentication.

The same is true of Meredith Scardino, whom I know personally and is a high-profile showrunner with a major TV series upcoming. She should have her own Wikipedia page as she is referenced in many other pages. All of the personal information I have published about her is also a first-hand account (from her) and can be privately verified with government documents, etc.

Please help me find a solution here. Robert, in particular, has been working on correcting his birth date on Wikipedia for years as his birthday is in September and he frequently receives birthday gifts in January because Wikipedia lists the wrong date.

Thank you.

Bevelgearsinc (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


February 6

00:12:24, 6 February 2021 review of submission by Hamodyhb1


Hamodyhb1 (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


00:43:22, 6 February 2021 review of draft by Barbaro Reyes Cho

--Barbaro Reyes Cho (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barbaro Reyes Cho (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01:28:42, 6 February 2021 review of draft by 49.147.251.145


How can I remove the redirect option? I made an article for the Filipino singer, Klarisse de Guzman, but it redirects to The Voice of the Philippines where she competed.

49.147.251.145 (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're confused. Draft:Klarisse de Guzman does not have a redirect. The live space Klarisse de Guzman does. Don't worry about this. If the article is approved, someone will move the draft properly. If you do anything about this, you are likely to create problems, since we need to preserve the draft article's history. Also, it is not recommended that you edit while logged out. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cyphoidbomb, I've looked at the article and its probably in the top 5% of all draft articles that I've seen in WP:AFC and I would approve it in a heartbeat if it weren't for the history of the livespace redirect. The live space Klarisse de Guzman is a redirect created after the article in 2017 was deleted after an RFD, so it will need someone with that ability to handle the history mergers. Can I do request at WP:RFM?Naraht (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sbhpiamonte Please bug me if it hasn't been moved out of draftspace to livespace (also called mainspace or articlespace) in a week... This isn't something you can do yourself, as User:Cyphoidbomb said, it will take some work from people with more permissions that I have.Naraht (talk)Naraht (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:03:52, 6 February 2021 review of submission by Jitender998


Jitender998 (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for promoting or "spreading the word" about sth. or sb. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:59:02, 6 February 2021 review of submission by Daisyloveu


Daisyloveu (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the reliable sources here?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_(dating_app) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMVU == Their source is their website, Apple store, and a free blog?

This is the help desk for draft articles but thank you for bringing it to our attention they have been tagged accordingly. Theroadislong (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:33:12, 6 February 2021 review of draft by Ltdragoon


I submitted an initial Wikipedia article on November 11th, 2020. This was my first attempt at publishing a Wikipedia article. The article is about a Revolutionary War officer, Capt. Baylor Hill. The article was rejected on November 12th, 2020 by Curbon7. As I’ve become more familiar with Wikipedia’s requirements and standards, I understand now why the article was rejected and have continued to work on it. I need to ask Curbon7 a question which does not pertain to why the article was rejected. Can you please tell me how I can contact Curbon7? I'm not sure if a message I sent earlier today to Curbon7 was done correctly. Thank you for your help. Ltdragoon (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Ltdragoon (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ltdragoon You can contact them here User talk:Curbon7. Theroadislong (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ltdragoon As a general comment, you way want to read WP:SFN for the style of references and footnotes that you are using. The references placed in the correct place will automatically generate the [1], [2] etc. And I don't think Curbon7's rejection indicates that there shouldn't be an article about Mayor Hill. (I personally would count being mayor of Norfolk, Virginia as singlehandedly making them notable.) I'll be happy to continue to comment on this if you would like.) Welcome to Wikipedia. (and the list of Mayors on the Norfolk, Virginia page is a mess, if you have more info on them, I'd love to see that improved.Naraht (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ltdragoon, Hello! I'm sorry if you sent me a message before, I'm not very active anymore due to IRL circumstances, so I may have missed it. If you note from my declination, neither reason was because the subject is non-notable; in fact, he is quite notable, a Naraht pointed out. The main issue content-wise with the draft is the wording in parts is unencyclopedic, but this can be easily fixed with some rearranging of the draft to make parts more contextual. Curbon7 (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:48:16, 6 February 2021 review of submission by Organicseodubai


Hai, this is my own article page but i was missed my login details, so i can use again this article, thanks Organicseodubai (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:54:33, 6 February 2021 review of draft by StefanH100


StefanH100 (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have in vain been trying to publish a page about Philip Huzzey and it has been turned down stating IMDB is not a reliable source. Okay so I have shown he has a book published referenced to Amazon and a film referenced to Amazon Prime. Are you tube videos and newspaper clips acceptable references.

Amazon and IMDb confer zero notability as they are not reliable or independent sources, YouTube is no good either, newspaper or magazine articles that discuss the topic in significant detail would be better. Theroadislong (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:30:30, 6 February 2021 review of submission by Lapsindia


Lapsindia (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

just blatant advertising, totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Theroadislong (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:30:58, 6 February 2021 review of submission by RussellRox

I would like to explain that when I saw something like Francis García with nothing at all for so many years to back up the article, I created my account and tried to create this article about Roxanne Russell. I have read so much about Logan Carter and his female persona Roxanne Russell in the books by James T. Sears and Jack Nichols (activist) and elsewhere that I thought for sure, with so much to back up an article about Roxanne Russell, that this would be appreciated and acceptable. Wikipedia should better present performers from a time when drag fame was acquired in more tedious and low key ways (such as Roxanne Russell featured as a model in Harper's Bazaar Italy) than in making an appearance or 2 on RuPaul's Drag Race. I am truly embarrassed and sorry I did this now, and I apologize. --RussellRox (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC) RussellRox (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RussellRox: Hi there, while I know it's frustrating to have a draft declined, you should be aware that you can continue to build it. The challenge you have is to demonstrate that the article meets the General Notability Guideline, which requires that you demonstrate that the subject has received significant coverage (in-depth coverage) in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (i.e. not interviews, not press releases, etc.) If the subject is well-known and considered an important figure in drag, you might also consider dropping a line at WikiProject LGBT studies to see if anyone is interested in helping you find references. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 7

12:23:16, 7 February 2021 review of draft by Matthias3390


Matthias3390 (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't know how to formatting sources?

Thanks

The main issue here is not formatting of sources, but rather using inline citations. For information on how to cite sources using inline citations, see WP:INTREF3. Let me know if you have any other questions! AviationFreak💬 16:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:40:24, 7 February 2021 review of submission by Nizhal123


sayeed mudavantheri is a popular video editor and sound engineer in qatar and he also a singer in kerala,india he have so many fans in qatar and india, i dont know why your rejected this page, pls approve this page for publishing

Nizhal123 (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 17:47:01, 7 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Nizhal123


my submission was rejected because it says its not sufficient content for wiki, but i sure this man very popular and he have so many fans in Qatar and India

Nizhal123 (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, it was rejected because the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:30:36, 7 February 2021 review of submission by 2603:6080:604:9299:491D:2C8F:F0D:19B


2603:6080:604:9299:491D:2C8F:F0D:19B (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected because it was disruptively resubmitted repeatedly with zero improvement, wasting reviewers time in the process. SK2242 (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 8

05:27:10, 8 February 2021 review of draft by 203.175.69.43


203.175.69.43 (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell could a user accuse me of copying from websites, whereas I didn't!

06:14:33, 8 February 2021 review of submission by Dtt1


Dtt1Talk 06:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:10:25, 8 February 2021 review of draft by Jayjay2020


Can someone check if the draft is ready for draft submission? Thank you. Jayjay2020 (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:28:29, 8 February 2021 review of submission by AMBIKAVIJAY11

AMBIKAVIJAY11 (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AMBIKAVIJAY11 You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:36:58, 8 February 2021 review of submission by Seansrobloxvideosandmore2


how do i make a arcitle which would be publish Seansrobloxvideosandmore2 (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seansrobloxvideosandmore2 Creating a new article is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. What specific trouble are you having? 331dot (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: this probbably refers to Draft:Class 510, which was (re)submitted 4 different times according to the user talk page. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:13:29, 8 February 2021 review of draft by Kokopelli-UK


Dumb question, maybe: I'll be editing this draft for a few days before submitting - How do I save and close it, without hitting the Publish button? --Kokopelli-UK (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kokopelli-UK, there is no problem at all - Publishing a modification and submitting an article for review are two Independent processes. So you can freely modify your draft and publish it. No problem. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kokopelli-UK (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kokopelli-UK "Publish changes" should be interpreted to simply mean "save changes". It does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". It used to say save changes, but it was changed for legal reasons, to emphasize that saved edits are visible to the public(regardless of the page). 331dot (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:02:43, 8 February 2021 review of submission by Mohammadsalimmohammad


Mohammadsalimmohammad (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammadsalimmohammad You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell about themselves. Please review the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:09:18, 8 February 2021 review of submission by Hotel Scootis


Hotel Scootis (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC) did you just ban me from creating articles? i was just trying to see if it woild actually work![reply]

You are not banned from creating articles, and you won't be if you stop such edits. All new users cannot directly create articles, and must use Articles for creation. 331dot (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:19:34, 8 February 2021 review of submission by KennyParis


Hello, my article was rejected and I don't understand why you don't accept the references that I added. There are many real articles, written by notable music medias and journalists talking about their career. I have taken as an example this page, which is live, about a music producer who works with them, and I don't understand what notable articles he has that Picard Brothers don't have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jr_Blender Can you please show me the differences that made this one approved ? I need to understand. Also should I add this ? https://music.apple.com/us/playlist/picard-brothers-songbook/pl.65be3929b0484a08b5cb93b122e8b31b Please let me know. Thank you

KennyParis (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KennyParis, I've got no idea why this draft was rejected; I did a Google News search for "Picard Brothers" and got many hits. I've approved this draft so it's now at Picard Brothers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:04:02, 8 February 2021 review of submission by 69.159.191.178


Your assistance in resolving the issues that make this page unadmissable would be greatly appreciated.

Sources used at theguardian.com, the times of London, The New Yorker and a somewhat biographical book referenced in wikipedia, as well as web sources that are validated by the biographical book.

Much Appreciated, Vickie

69.159.191.178 (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

00:18:05, 9 February 2021 review of draft by 74.73.230.232


I don't really understand the intricacies of templates. I tried putting the same template on my latest draft as on my last two, but there's a note that says "Missing taxonomy template" yes in big red letters that suggest some sort of error I hit the "fix" link, and it takes me to Template:Taxonomy/Syncuari which I can't edit, and I'm pretty sure that edit requests that just say change this page to fix it somehow are not allowed. Advice is welcome.

Also I typoed the title (fat fingers and all that) can someone change it to Draft:Syncuaria please

74.73.230.232 (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1005696766"