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
Deyrel (talk | contribs)
32 edits
Line 558: Line 558:
{{Lafc|username=Deyrel|ts=04:00:33, 6 January 2022|declined=Draft:Godomiscient}}
{{Lafc|username=Deyrel|ts=04:00:33, 6 January 2022|declined=Draft:Godomiscient}}
there is evidence godomiscient is at work as we speak. apple, google, and elon musk all have mind reading technology and have created a digital multiverse aka a simulation inside of computer, however we still have to contend with the matter at hand. where does it all come from, i named at birth edward lyons, have stumbled across the nacsent of the myth of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elyon . these coincidences are not coincidences they are the universe formulation a direction. there is a massive bitcoin mining operation that i accidentally caused, i also help unveil the final mysteries of how our universe works.
there is evidence godomiscient is at work as we speak. apple, google, and elon musk all have mind reading technology and have created a digital multiverse aka a simulation inside of computer, however we still have to contend with the matter at hand. where does it all come from, i named at birth edward lyons, have stumbled across the nacsent of the myth of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elyon . these coincidences are not coincidences they are the universe formulation a direction. there is a massive bitcoin mining operation that i accidentally caused, i also help unveil the final mysteries of how our universe works.
the differentiation btween https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Godomiscient is that God can die and was possible killed in a previous universe. however the energy and requirments for anything to exist at all cannot be killed, ie Godomiscient. at these facilities google apple and elon musks company they are undertaking the task of creating a new digital super intelligence aka a god to rule over us. which can be killed. but the presense of energy in the first place is indicitive of the will of existence to exist at all. and this is what we will refer to as "Godomiscient".
the differentiation btween https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Godomiscient is that God can die and was possible killed in a previous universe. however the energy and requirments for anything to exist at all cannot be killed, ie Godomiscient. at these facilities google apple and elon musks company they are undertaking the task of creating a new digital super intelligence aka a god to rule over us. which can be killed. but the presense of energy in the first place is indicitive of the will of existence to exist at all. and this is what we will refer to as "Godomiscient".Thank you for your time. do not deny this being published . articles about god to require citation or reference are what will be the worst of occasions for the effort i, Deyrel, have layed forth.

Thank you for your time. do not deny this being published . articles about god to require citation or reference are what will be the worst of occasions for the effort i, Deyrel, have layed forth.
HERE IS JUST THE TIP OF THE TIP OF THE TIP OF THE TIP OF THE TIP OF THE TOP OF THE ICEBERG ~ you Hoary. PUBLISH MY ARTICLE ON Godomiscient
ive highlighted here some keywords to show you what im talking about is what he is saying. everything ive told you is highly classified.

According to Musk, a dense and true metauniverse can only be built with brain implants.

“In the long run, an advanced Neuralink can completely immerse you in virtual reality“, he said.



https://newsbeezer.com/bulgariaeng/elon-musk-the-metaverse-is-stupid-my-chips-are-getting-stronger/


Much love and Blessings to you.
Much love and Blessings to you.

Revision as of 05:41, 6 January 2022

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


December 31

07:46:46, 31 December 2021 review of submission by JaredMars


JaredMars (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft fails to provide any references to independent, reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this film. Without such coverage, an acceptable Wikipedia article is impossible to write. Cullen328 (talk) 07:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:34:09, 31 December 2021 review of draft by Tullia Rossato


My submission was declined because of references regarding unreliable sources. I need help understanding which of the sources I used are identified as unreliable, and if the editor, when writing his response, was saying that all of the references didn't show significant coverage or just that some didn't.

Tullia Rossato (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tullia Rossato, none of your sources are independent of the subject. You need to find reliable sources that have no connection to the subject. The Vail Daily while it looks independent is actually a profile by a connected source (alum was a big hint, editors note to article makes it obvious) Slywriter (talk)

Request on 10:04:19, 31 December 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Keijusiivet


Hello, My submission of draft was declined due to reference. Although the second message was very unclear of why the references I added were not sufficient. The first reference was a book by legitimate publication house with ISBN registration. The second reference which was article conducted by academic personnel, was used as reference of the same Wikipedia article in German version (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jigme_Tenpe_Wangchug) and Bengalisch version (https://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27%E0%A6%9C%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%97%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%B8-%E0%A6%AE%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%A6-%E0%A6%AC%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%B8%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%A4%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A8-%E0%A6%AA%E0%A6%BE%27%E0%A6%87-%E0%A6%A6%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%82-%E0%A6%AB%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AF%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%97). Could someone please give some detailed feedback of why my references aren't sufficient enough?

Keijusiivet (talk) 10:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:57:53, 31 December 2021 review of submission by Laboratorynews

It is a company details page, along with the Social Activities what Redcliffe Labs is doing...There is No promotional content Laboratorynews (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laboratorynews Wikipedia does not have "company details pages", not a single one. That is considered promotional here, you don't have to be soliciting or selling something. Wikipedia has articles. Those articles, when about a company, must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company(and not based on any materials put out by the company, such as interviews, press releases, or announcements), showing how the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Your draft is exclusively sourced to annoucements, which are not significant, independent coverage.
If you have an association with this company, you must read about conflict of interest and paid editing. Declaring a paid relationship with a subject you are editing about is a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory. 331dot (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As your draft was rejected, it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:09:56, 31 December 2021 review of submission by AhmadJawadbth


AhmadJawadbth (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AhmadJawadbth You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not a place to post your resume. This is an encyclopedia, not social media. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:59:17, 31 December 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by SirWumpus


The reviewer's response 

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage...

I contest the finding. I supplied three independent 3rd party publications in which the article subject in question appears. I have hard copies of all three and have provided photo evidence of them and the pages on which the references to subject are made below.

  • Obfuscted C And Other Mysteries by Don Libes start of ch 39 pg 392. - subject is top of the chapter

(https://www.amazon.ca/Obfuscated-Other-Mysteries-Don-Libes/dp/0471578053/ref=sr_1_1)

Part of the issue might be I failed to use (didn't figure out) wiki markup in a way I could at least tie the history text to the publications cited and that they were placed separate from the references, so they might just appear as random references in an initial review.

Also not sure this 4th one falls under the publication guidelines, though it was the impetus for everything that followed over the years, the IOCCC's publishing of subject as a contest winner.

There is a French article https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony%27s_Editor created independently back in 2010, without my knowledge for a long time, with a far less detailed history of the subject, which is fair since all the publications listed above were only found in N.America in English and that contributor never contacted me for background.

I created this English version in part so that the French version might one day be updated.

I tried to write as neutral and general as possible.

Photo evidence follows:

SirWumpus (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SirWumpus Please do not upload pictures of your sources to Wikimedia Commons (or Wikipedia). Copyright-wise, these pictures will be a derivate work of the works in the picture, which means that we can only have them if whatever is in the picture is compatibly licensed or Public domain. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:34:09, 31 December 2021 review of submission by Damnits


how do i move this to userspace?

Damnits (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Damnits. See Wikipedia:User pages and Wikipedia:Moving a page. The first field of the move dialog box lets you choose the space "User" from the dropdown. In the second field, use your username followed by a slash and the name you want to use for the userspace draft, perhaps "Damnits/Rodoljub Vulović" or "Damnits/sandbox". --Worldbruce (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:15:17, 31 December 2021 review of submission by TjS1979


Hi - thank you Lightbluerain for responding so quickly to my draft of the "Dents and Shells (Richard Buckner Album)" Page! I had carefully read the guidelines on reliable sources, and all information in the page was assembled from three reviews (all of them cited) and the liner notes of the album. If you could please let me know which pieces of information are considered unreliable I will remove them, or if something in there requires an additional citation I will cite it. I really appreciate your assistance. Thank you.

TjS1979 (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 1

02:58:37, 1 January 2022 review of draft by Aventineavenue


My initial request to add a page for The Rising Pints (band) was rejected due to inadequate citation so added a different one that should be acceptable. I want to make sure that my request is resubmitted for review. Thanks!

Aventineavenue (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aventineavenue. Draft:The Rising Pints is not currently submitted for review. To submit it, click the blue Resubmit button within the large pink box at the top of the draft.
Before you do that, however, add more and better sources. The AllMusic review is a start, but at under 100 words is mighty short. The review in Avenues likely won't count when evaluating notability because it seems to be authored by a linguistics professor rather than a professional music critic, and the publication is of limited interest and circulation, with no clear reputation for accuracy and fact checking. (For a start, did they misspelled the reviewer's first name?) Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of their topic. The draft cites at most one, and that's being charitable about depth. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:19:52, 1 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Lane Hastings


Hello, I tried to include a bio of the woman who invented the Boppy pillow for babies but was told she wasn't important enough for inclusion. I gave up but my blood boiled. How can the inventor of the world's most beloved baby pillow not be important enough to mention? Furthermore, the rejection came from someone ostensibly on the project to foster women. If someone could help me get this published--plus I need help connecting the references to the text. Thanks for your help. Lane Hastings


Lane Hastings (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lane Hastings You must offer signficant coverage of Susan Henderson that is found in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about her, and not based on any materials put out by her or her associates(like interviews, press releases, basic announcements, a company website, etc.). The sources you offered include a press release, an interview with the company marketing director(her associate), a piece about the company that does not mention Henderson at all, and another interview. It is also possible that the pillow merits an article but not its inventor(who could be discussed in an article about the pillow she invented), see WP:BLP1E. 331dot (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:01:10, 1 January 2022 review of submission by Misskinski

Hello! I decided to create a page for an artist on a label I enjoy, Stones Throw. I included a multitude of references (24). Many of her male counterparts on the label have their own pages, with far fewer references (7-8), yet I have recieved a rejection with the following words:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people).

Most of the articles are about the artist herself, and definitely not passing mentions, either from her record label or music and lifestyle publications. Kindly let me know what I would need to fix?

Thank you!

Misskinski (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misskinski I answered you at the Teahouse, please only use one method of seeking assistance at a time, to avoid duplication of effort. 331dot (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:31:40, 1 January 2022 review of draft by Lamona


Draft has been greatly updated. Please review.

Lamona (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC) I got the Opera folks involved and there are now 38 references, and the article has more information about his music. Please send this one out to the world! Thank you, Lamona (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:36:29, 1 January 2022 review of submission by Cdasbd


Cdasbd (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC) I think my article contained all the necessary information and had enough reference links even I deserve a Wikipedia page, but would you please tell me why it was rejected?[reply]

Cdasbd Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. As the reviewer noted, your sources were neither independent or reliable. 331dot (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:13:54, 1 January 2022 review of draft by I like groups and topology


I don't understand why some of the pages I tried to create were declined, such as Draft:Nicolas Bergeron and Draft:Tsachik Gelander. It seems to me they offer at least as much coverage as many other, already existing pages of mathematicians, such as: Uzi Vishne, Shahar Mozes, Boaz Barak and many others. I like groups and topology (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2

05:41:56, 2 January 2022 review of submission by IPN23

Hi, When I checked Category:Indian news websites there are many small websites with less rankings not at all notable like B4blaze is there. So I tried creating article for B4blaze which have very good Indian ranking and as I'm a software engineer I know, For that ranking they need minimum 1 million page views per day. And I researched about B4blaze they have news in 3 different languages also they have a Over-the-top media service too and got many awards etc. Also they have many news and notable achievements published in many national medias. If we check social media accounts there also we can see the badge for public figure.eg: https://www.facebook.com/B4Blaze/ , https://www.facebook.com/B4blazeMalayalam/ If the notability is not getting in article maybe because, Im not a very active Wiki user who know all the technicality of placing the notability facts on top. Actually I create articles from my local area only, so I will never ever contribute without researching on topic. If anything is missing please help me to complete my article.

IPN23 (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:00:58, 2 January 2022 review of submission by Softidia


Softidia (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Softidia, you're probably asking about User:Softidia/sandbox/Softidia, which is about a company named Softidia (though it says almost nothing about this). You've been told: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Do you need an explanation of any part of this? (Note that a number of the terms are linked to explanatory web pages.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:36:00, 2 January 2022 review of draft by ThinkerCastillo


ThinkerCastillo (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkerCastillo You don't ask a question. You have resubmitted your draft and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:44:09, 2 January 2022 review of submission by Bertverse

I edited an article entitled "Pixelfed" to be posted but it was rejected just now. I was curious with the mistakes that occur in the article. thank you.

Bertverse (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bertverse, Draft:Pixelfed has not been rejected. It has been declined. This means that you're free to improve it. You've been asked for significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Please, here, specify three of these. -- Hoary (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:11:58, 2 January 2022 review of submission by Nushat786


Nushat786 (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:51:50, 2 January 2022 review of draft by Singodwalagroup


I published a encyclopedia entry on Apna Godam, which is a leading agritech company in India. But the submission is declined 2 times. Please help. Singodwalagroup (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Singodwalagroup The sources you have offered do not establish that this company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Basic profiles, interviews, the company website, and annoucements of routine business activities like the raising of capital or commencement of operations are all unacceptable for establishing notability. "Startups" rarely merit articles; companies must already be established and have a reputation sufficient for independent reliable sources to take note of them on their own, not based on any materials put out by the company.
If you are associated with this company, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 3

07:21:04, 3 January 2022 review of submission by MP180

Please man, its a 21st present for a mate and its an accurate and humourous depiction on his life up to this point MP180 (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MP180 Sorry, that's not what Wikipedia is for. There are other websites out there that are for such a purpose. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:48:35, 3 January 2022 review of submission by Bttdcbd


Bttdcbd (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bttdcbd, Wikipedia does not care what a subject has to say about themself. You must find and use independent secondary reliable sources.Slywriter (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:49:31, 3 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Kojo Shaddy


I realized my draft article has been deleted and I want to ask if I can retrieve it since it is now ready for editing.

Kindly help me retrieve it.

Thank you.

Kojo Shaddy (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kojo Shaddy: please ask at WP:REFUND/G13 to have the draft restored. Courtesy ping Liz Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kojo Shaddy (talk • contribs) 17:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:50:34, 3 January 2022 review of submission by Hansiwelangoda1994

i Rakitha is well known musician in srilanka and i thought of creating a page for him.he was the most youngest musician who entralled lot of young hearts.so please i appeal this page to be reconstructed Hansiwelangoda1994 (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:03:24, 3 January 2022 review of submission by Hansiwelangoda1994

please help me i need to publish this


Hansiwelangoda1994 (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hansiwelangoda1994, that will not be happening without reliable sources. No amount of editing can confer notability on a subject. Also, given your urgency, please see WP:COI and note that any relationship with subject of the article must be disclosed.Slywriter (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:30:33, 3 January 2022 review of submission by Ypoyq


I am confused why the article is being rejected Ypoyq (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ypoyq, The article will be deleted in the next few minutes as a cut and paste copyright violation. Please see WP:FIRSTARTICLE for tips, most importantly you must summarize the source in your own words.Slywriter (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:21:34, 3 January 2022 review of submission by Stefan Welebny


Hello,

my article about Bob Zabek has been rejected multiple times. I believe, there is something wrong with that. While I understand, that WikiPedia is a place for secondary, not primary research, I do not understand, why the other criteria regarding the quality of sources are applied so rigid.

I am a composer myself and - like crowds of other musicians - I acknowledge the musical quality and relevance of the guitarist Bob Zabek.

I hope somebody could review the article, who has a profound musical background, takes the time to study the references and links and does not stubborn stick to rules which lead to low quality decisions.

Kind regards

Stefan Welebny


Stefan Welebny (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Welebny Wikipedia has a strict policy about how living people are written about, see WP:BLP. Every statement about a living person must be sourced to an independent reliable source. Those sources must show that this composer meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable composer. Your draft was declined multiple times and then rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, because the sources offered were not appropriate. If you would like to tell the world about this person, you may want to try social media or a website with less stringent requirements. That, or wait for independent sources to write about him. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:31:00, 3 January 2022 review of submission by Penninx


Penninx (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I created a page (Draft:List of Roman villas in the Netherlands) without specific references. All other pages (about 7) in the same category (Lists of Roman villas in other countries) also have no specific references. Why do i need more references then the other pages in the same Category?

Please read other stuff exists. Other poor articles existing does not mean that additional poor articles are permitted. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:44:32, 3 January 2022 review of submission by Araz Ali7


Araz Ali7 (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


January 4

00:03:34, 4 January 2022 review of submission by Amysisson


This is in regards to a draft page for the Peggy Lane book series. (I tried to follow the instructions but the link is not showing. Here it is again:

Draft:Peggy_Lane_Theater_Stories — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amysisson (talk • contribs) 00:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for such a quick review! I am puzzled as to why this draft was not approved -- only because I modeled this after this page:

Rick Brant

This is a boys' series by the same publisher. My reviewer suggested that the easiest way to show a series is notable is to find published reviews. However, I don't believe there are links to published reviews on the Rick Brant page.

A minor point (and I defer to your expertise on this!): the Grosset & Dunlap page lists the various series they published. I added Peggy Lane to that list just before beginning my draft article. It seems to me that it's notable to describe any of the series they published since they were a major publisher and their various series are extensively studied within popular culture academia.

More importantly, however, I'm concerned because girls/women are more overlooked in history, including popular culture history. I believe it's notable that this series existed for girls. I will be looking for reviews, but if I do not find any, one reason may be that girls' books were not reviewed as frequently as boys' books during the 1960s. I feel that to not note this series' existence, when the Rick Brant page does not seem to have much more in the way of reviews than this series does, may be perpetuating the imbalance.

Thank you for your consideration! Amysisson (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amysisson The boys' series you mention has similar problems as to your draft, it is lacking in independent reliable sources that demonstrate notability, and has been marked as such. Please see other stuff exists; volunteers do their best to get around to the over six million articles we have to address any issues, but some inevitably get by us- this does not mean that more problematic content should be accepted, compounding the problem. It is possible that both the boys' series and the one you write about here would not merit standalone articles, but some sort of mention on the page of the publisher(I don't know, just speculating). For any draft to pass the AFC process, it must do a minimum of summarizing at least three independent reliable sources(which with books is usually independent/unsolicited reviews). 331dot (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

00:25:15, 4 January 2022 review of submission by Araz Ali7


Araz Ali7 (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02:14:16, 4 January 2022 review of draft by Frank6677


Frank6677 (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wouldnt it be much much much better to offer to fix the article instead of immediately throwing all sorts of threats????? hours doing research on this article and you want to force us to do hours more work learning the article creation process ?????????????? good gawd

Frank6677 I take "we" to mean that you are associated with MetroFire Boston. If so, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing. Yes, if you are creating and submitting a draft, you need to do the work to get it to standards. The draft does not need to be a complete, finished article, but you must summarize what at least three independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. I don't see where you have been threatened, but Wikipedia is not a place for organizations to tell the world about themselves. Your draft has a lot of technical information that I doubt was from an independent source.. Writing an article is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, and it is usually recommended to first gain experience by editing existing articles and using the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02:30:51, 4 January 2022 review of submission by GbessayESMomoh


GbessayESMomoh (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC) I need short direction on how to enhance my Wikipedia account and submit article.[reply]

GbessayWSMomoh New users cannot directly create articles, but you may use Articles for creation to create and submit a draft for review. Writing an article is the hardest thing to attempt to do here, and it is highly recommended that you use the new user tutorial and spend much time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia works and what is expected of article content. 331dot (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:27:37, 4 January 2022 review of submission by Princesalvadordali


HI im disabled and im finding it hard to publish a page about my documentary ,why is it rejected ?

im not sure what im doing maybe a small mistake on my behalf, sorry , i am disabled and i am finding theis difficult.

i want to publish a wiki about my tv show; and create a biography on me Rhysasasurous Rex perhaps u could explain what i doing incorrectly pleased

Princesalvadordali (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi im disabled and id like to make a wiki page about my asperational disability show

could you please explain what i need to do to not be rejected?

Princesalvadordali (talk) 06:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Princesalvadordali I wish you good luck with your show and overcoming disability, but Wikipedia is not a place for you to tell the world about your show and yourself. Wikipedia is interested in what published independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about you and or your show, not what you want to say about it. This would be things like news reports. You may use social media to tell the world about yourself and your show. Writing about yourself on Wikipedia is not encouraged, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:49:41, 4 January 2022 review of draft by Australianpeter


Hi, sorry for the possibly dumb questions below but this is my first attempt at adding an article.

I've made a bunch of updates to the citations within the article - I thought I'd limited myself to reputable sources (I didn't include references from things like our local newspapers or blogs but limited to sources like nationally-recognized news sources and magazines, press releases from sources where awards etc were bestowed and sources of truth for Australian music information (like APRA AMCOS and the Australian Music Centre). I had thought that being the recipient of an APRA Art Music award for composition would have been sufficient to indicate that Sally Greenaway was suitable for inclusion in the list of Australian women composers.

I hope this is more along the lines of what is expected, and if note please let me know what other information I can provide.

Australian female composers are pretty niche and not often covered in the press (and this is reflected in some of the other existing pages) but I hope there's enough information there now.

Please don't copy your draft contents here, instead, provide a link to the draft so other's can easely follow it. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:53:45, 4 January 2022 review of draft by MichaelPWhite


Hi. We're seeking support to get the Hyliion page published please, which has been a working draft since October 2020. The latest feedback flagged a lack of reliable sources, which doesn't make sense since this is a listed company. Sources used in the article include independently published pieces across Bloomberg, Yahoo, Forbes, Business Wire, an academic source, a Gov source, and various respected trade outlets. Please can you help provide further direction to get this page live?

As we have a conflict of interest, we are keen to work with the Wikipedia community to get changes approved in a compliant way.

MichaelPWhite (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelPWhite As noted by the reviewer, the draft just lists and cites the routine business transactions of this company, like acquisitions and product related announcements. Wikipedia articles about companies 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. The key here is "significant coverage"; the coverage must go beyond the mere reporting of the company's activities, such as describing the influence and history of the company(if others have written about it, not the company itself).
And who is "we"? From reading your user page I gather you may be a paid editor, but I'm not clear on if you represent this company. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Thanks for your quick response. I am an official representative of Hyliion, although the first draft of the page was started organically by social media followers. So we've been keen to try and support getting the page live. We've taken your feedback onboard and will see what we can do. (MichaelPWhite (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]

10:21:12, 4 January 2022 review of submission by 78.60.128.32

I think my Wikipedia page is good. It doesn’t contain anything offensive and it would be very nice to have a Wikipedia page. Thank you! 78.60.128.32 (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something, and is not a place for people to tell about themselves. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources say about you, not what you say about yourself. Please read the autobiography policy. If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:57:57, 4 January 2022 review of submission by Anjumanea


This is first page created to publish anjuman e ashrafiya charitable trust details in public to help needy and poor. Anjumanea (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anjumanea Wikipedia is not a place to tell about good causes. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own, and not based on any materials put out by the organization, to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:57:33, 4 January 2022 review of submission by Kelvin Gates


I would like to understand why this article does not meet the requirements, and added relevant information and reliable sources. I have followed the prescribed guidelines and made the article as detailed as possible. Please could you help me identify what else I need to add on this article to get it published. Thank you

Kelvin Gates (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Gates I'm afraid that like many people, you have some misunderstandings as to what Wikipedis is. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something; this is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own- and not based on any materials put out by the company or its associates- to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The "Company aims, value and culture" section is impossible to independently verify and should be removed. The rest of the draft is sourced to other Wikipedia articles(you cannot use Wikipedia articles to source other Wikipedia articles), profile type entries, brief mentions, or basic announcements, none of which establishes notability. Please read Your First Article.
From the writing and the fact that this is the only topic you have edited about, I gather that you have an association with this company. If so, please read conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. To succeed, you need to set aside everything you know about the company and all materials put out by the company(including interviews) and only summarize what others say about the company in independent sources. Most people associated with a company find that very difficult. Even if you succeed in getting a draft accepted, you would not be able to directly edit it afterwards, and would be limited to indirect edit requests. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:09:10, 4 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Qail97


I have the world's highest IQ score (416 IQ), and my name is Kurt Lopez-davis. This is an extremely notable occurrence, but I have no one that is willing to record my name on any websites.

I have created this IQ test and recorded my best thoughts: https://pastebin.com/csMgaHJd https://pastebin.com/Y2vDggXq

  1. 16, #17, #9, and #37 are ground-breaking science/philosophy, and all worthy of a Nobel Prize despite the current lack of evidence.

Qail97 (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as a hoax. Theroadislong (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:57:29, 4 January 2022 review of submission by Flyview


Dear editors at WP, I am signature Flyview, and just recently posted my first project/article called “Flywheel exercise”=”Flywheel training”, which is a form of “Resistance training”(see WP) using the inertia of flywheels instead of weights. Three editors have sent similar critical arguments, concerning copyright violation, and so far rejected my contribution to WP, and I therefore would like to learn more: Editors/signatures Greenman, Caleb Stanford and DGC wrote: Comment: apparentlycopiedfrom elswhere DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC); Comment: Although I cannot find the source, the text is clearly copied from somewhere. Greenman (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC); Comment: Hello, this article text reads like it was copied from somewhere. What was the source? Caleb Stanford (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I claim my text is original, and that no book, scientific article or other body holds the copyright to my text as written here. What is the specific view of these editors? Are they claiming plagiarism? This should be easy to check and resolve.

I used some 50 (out of 200 written on this specific subject), mainly scientific, published references to support the text that I shaped to be suitable and understood by both interested trainees and scientists, and trying to fit an encyclopedia. I have previously written 50 peer-reviewed papers on muscle physiology, biomechanics, elite sports, rehabilitation, orthopedic surgery and space medicine; which has been my hobby for most of my academic career (see PubMed; search: Berg HE). In order to get some acquaintance to WP editing (including the tedious text formatting) I helped editing the item “Strength training” (that is currently warned to lack scientific/medical referencing). This was a nice experience and I have added some cornerstone references to this wide field of physical exercise. I am more than willing to adapt to the rules and language of WP, which I think is a wonderful idea and website!

Best Regards/signature Flyview

Flyview (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FlyView, It is clearly a cut and paste copyright violation. The fact none of us can find the original source does not change the facts that the article has clear artifacts of being lifted from some place else, possibly multiple places. Without you admitting and correcting that issue, the article will remain rejected.Slywriter (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Flyview- just another edit to ping.Slywriter (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:27:46, 4 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Babroseker


I'm unsure as to what else to add/edit to the submission for acceptance. I'm not looking to advertise anything, but rather factually state the existence and purpose of the organization as it is referenced on other Wikipedia pages. I've provided external links and references to information stated in the entry.

Help.

Regards, Bruce

Babroseker (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Babroseker "State the existence and purpose of the organization" is the definition of promotion. You don't have to be selling something or soliciting customers. Wikipedia articles are not for merely telling about the subject- and mere existence does not qualify a topic for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion. An organization merits a Wikipedia article if it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about it(and not based on any materials put out by the organization, its staff, or associates), showing how the organization meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. An article needs to summarize those independent sources. Primary sources like government documents or anything from the organization do not establish notability. Please read Your First Article. If no independent sources give this organization coverage, beyond the mere reporting of its activities, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time.
If you are associated with this organization, please read conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures(any paid relationship with a topic must be disclosed, per the Terms of Use). You don't have to be paid in money to be a paid editor. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:33:56, 4 January 2022 review of draft by DKingWorldwide


I need help in terms of this comment below for my wiki draft for artist Kim Donghyuk: Comment: evaluated activities since 2014 (which was when the article was cut to redirect), activities here are mainly within the band and/or with other band members. imo, does not satisfy individual musician bio yet. – robertsky (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

My question is: Although he does not have a solo yet, he has been a featured singer in a couple of songs, as follow: "Secret" (Bobby Feat. DK & Katie) 2017 Love and Fall “Ur SOUL Ur BodY” (Bobby feat. DK) 2021 Lucky Man

Aside from that, Kim Donghyuk has actually produced and written a song for the group as shown at this line below: On February 6, 2020, iKON released their third EP, iDecide, which included five tracks with Dive as the lead single.[15] Kim Dong-hyuk debuted as songwriter and record producer of “Flower” ((너란 바람 따라; neolan balam ttala; lit.

There are additional activities that he is now involved in: Starting Dec 2021, Kim Dong-hyuk is actively hosting 2 radio programs, iKON Day at Station Z 89.1 and iKON's Zero Zone Diary, with the latter, is focusing on educating and advancing sustainability.

We understand that this might not be considered as individual musician activities, however, maybe there are any categories that he can be included in? Please advise. Also is there anything that I should take off to fit the requirement? Please help. Thank you so much.

DKingWorldwide (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DKingWorldwide Who is "we"? This account should only be operated by a single person. If your username is that of a group, you will need to change it at Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS.
If this musician has started a solo career, there needs to be significant coverage in independent reliable sources of his solo career, and he must meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician by himself(not as part of a group). If he is more notable for his non-music work(the radio program work), he might meet the broader definition of a notable person, but, again, there must be significant coverage in independent reliable sources of him with regards to his individual work. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:33:04, 4 January 2022 review of submission by ZX2006XZ


So, the new trailer came out today, a new poster.

https://youtube.com/0U0L4uT0btQ

Does this still mean that I have to wait till the movie comes out on January 28? ZX2006XZ (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:42:39, 4 January 2022 review of submission by Mastetchi


"not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." is not a valid reason to keep article in draft space. Take it to WP:AfD for broader review and discussion. Mastetchi (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mastetchi (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mastetchi, when I see David founded Gokhshtein Media, a unique and revolutionary portal for all things cryptocurrency, I wonder why the draft hasn't been deleted as blatantly promotional. Incidentally, it's oddly chummy of the draft to refer to the man not as "Gokhshtein" but as "David". -- Hoary (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:55:42, 4 January 2022 review of draft by Ilbibliothecario


I'm having trouble submitting this article as I'm not sure how to create footnotes. I have cited the source material but don't know how to properly format it as a citation. The entire bio can be referenced from the magazine articles attached to this entry.

Ilbibliothecario (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequently accepted by Rusalkii. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 5

02:45:36, 5 January 2022 review of submission by Sunshinesunshine24


Hi there, I by mistake submit the Therapeutic Privilege draft for review by mistake. Is it possible to please cancel this request?

Sunshinesunshine24 (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:19:57, 5 January 2022 review of draft by 203.1.252.71


Thank you for reviewing the draft. We are working to add more detailed references to establish the standing of the Australasian Radiation Protection Society We're a little bit confused about the requirement for references, with respect to establishing ARPS is a notable society. We note that an equivalent professional association ACPSEM have a wiki page with only 3 references. [1] Like ARPS, ACPSEM is an important professional association in Australasia. ARPS is an Associate Society of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA). The IRPA wiki page clearly lists ARPS as one of 50 associate societies. [2] IRPA have substantial rules to become an Associate Society. [3] IRPA have a detailed code of ethics that ARPS has to uphold <ref>https://irpa.net/docs/IRPA%20Code%20of%20Ethics.pdf<\ref> The detail behind the initial references provided is substantial. We're not really sure that being a member of IRPA is trivial. We understand that IRPA may not be widely known We recognise the need to expand on establishing the standing of ARPS and have added references to reflect the scope of the work we do.

203.1.252.71 (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles(not pages) you have seen are also inappropriate and simply have not been addressed yet. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us.
Your draft just tells about the organization and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization- and not based on any materials put out by the orgnanization like interviews, press releases, basic descrpitions, routine announcements of activities, etc.- showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. I might suggest that you review some other articles on organizations that may be classified as good articles to get an idea of what is being looked for. Please also read Your First Article.
You seem to have an association with this organization, please read about conflict of interest. If you are a paid representative of the organization, you must review the paid editing policy and make a formal declaration, which is a Terms of Use requirement. This is easier to do with an account, but it's not required that you have an account. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australasian_College_of_Physical_Scientists_and_Engineers_in_Medicine
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Radiation_Protection_Association
  3. ^ https://irpa.net/members/54777/%7BC495AC33-3F0E-46A2-AFB6-3E1284FA82D7%7D/How%20to%20Become%20an%20Associate%20Society%20-%20Position%20Statement%20on%20Assistance%20to%20Associate%20Societies%20(April%202016).pdf

03:54:44, 6 January 2022 review of submission by Jaf324

I'm not making an argument to create this article based on "other stuff exists". There are numerous articles about associations that don't seem to meet what is being asked of this draft article. Just trying to clarify the situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Professional_associations_based_in_Australia? I've partially reviewed the list of "good articles". There were no professional associations that I could see. I'm not sure a professional association could qualify for inclusion. What makes the association notable is different to being on "Man vs Food". The goal here is to understand how a professional association can meet the requirements. ARPS is notable for the impact of its activities on professional standards. It provides multiple opportunities for professional development and networking. Members get together, share knowledge and a patient or employee gets lower radiation dose 6 months later because the organisation held a workshop. Demonstrating the intangible is difficult to meet the wiki requirements. However, the following points are not really passing mentions. 1. Reference has been provided to the organisation giving members the opportunity to comment on radiation protection legislation and draft standards without being constrained by COI with the position of their employers. Listing Codes of practice and legislation that have been changed in response doesn't feel useful in an article. 2. An independent, peer reviewed scientific journal found the organisation notable enough to publish discussion of its position paper. 3. The jointly developed peer reviewed international journal on radiation protection is included in journal indexing services. SCOPUS has an independent advisory board that decides which journals to index. That board decided to include the journal jointly developed by the organisation. That's significant, independent recognition of the organisation, while not being a discussion about the organisation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopus Radiation protection is a high profile, contentious, public issue. The article is being drafted by SMEs to improve the encyclopedia by providing information relevant to Australia, New Zealand and Oceanic region. ARPS, like wikipedia, is a volunteer, non-profit, organisation. The organisation is already well known nationally and internationally, it's not selling a product. I'm not paid. I'm a member of the organisation who has volunteered to help draft an article, based on my long term knowledge of the subject matter. Jaf324 (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:14:55, 5 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Davidpink1


Hello I'm messaging after my draft was declined, I'm trying to set up a page for an artist. Any help would be much appreciated.


Davidpink1 (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Davidpink1 Your draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia has articles, not mere pages. Your draft was completely unsourced. A Wikipedia article about an artist must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the artist, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable artist. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:17:14, 5 January 2022 review of submission by Dmarkan


I've changed the text of the article, removed all things that look like advertisement. If there are more changes that has to be made for article to be published, please send me a message. Thanks

Dmarkan (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You requested deletion, so I assume you withdraw your question, but in any case then draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:36:44, 5 January 2022 review of submission by Pleiadesounds

Hello! I would like some help to successfully publish my article about photographer Adam Broomberg. I provided many references which furnished proof about various exhibitions held in museums and galleries but they did not suffice. How can I better choose resources as to back up the claims made on the page, therefore allowing the article to be published? Thank you very much.

Pleiadesounds (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pleiadesounds. Wikipedia has an article about Adam Broomberg and Oliver Chanarin because their collaborative work may be notable - it is supposedly held by half a dozen museums, although the current article cites no sources for those claims. To justify a separate article, Draft:Adam Broomberg, on him alone, you would need to show that his individual work is notable separate from Chanarin. Since their breakup, the draft describes one exhibition at a non-notable gallery and one book Broomberg has published. If you can cite several in-depth reviews of the exhibition/book, you may be able to demonstrate individual notability. Otherwise it is WP:TOOSOON for a separate article. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:16:12, 5 January 2022 review of submission by Speedway Private Eye


Speedway Private Eye (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Please can you tell me why my entry on Bill Holden speedway rider was rejected? Riders in the same team are on your site so was purely adding to the canon. It seems unfair if lesser, non international riders, are featured on your site.

Thank you

Speedway Private Eye, I encourage you to reach out to the reviewer on their talk page to get an explanation of why they rejected.
With that said, there's no question it should have been declined as you are adding a lot of information that does not appear in the sources cited. Stick to the sources or add citations. A short and tight article would be much better as the subject appears notable and that is getting lost in the overly detailed narration.Slywriter (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:49:30, 5 January 2022 review of draft by Cmehra


My Name is Cyrus Mehra and I am creating a Wiki Page for my Father, Dr. Abu Torab Mehra. All the "Link" at the bottom of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cmehra/sandbox?action=edit are the Reliable Sources for the information I have submitted. Please advise on how to proceed. Thanks! Cmehra (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cmehra, Writing about family members is strongly discouraged. The inherent conflict of interest is undeniable and you have no control of the article once it is published. WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:COI for more information.
On the content, you are writing a story, not an encyclopedia article. Encyclopedia articles are boring recitation of facts found in independent reliable sources. Flowery language, descriptions of living rooms are not appropriate.Slywriter (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Slywriter for your reply! So I should have one of his Students enter information about his Life as Dr. of Public Health and his contributions to the Modernization of Iran's health system? Thanks Again. Cyrus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmehra (talk • contribs) 17:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cmehra A student would be worse, as it could be seen as paid editing in addition to a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone, it is for summarizing independent reliable sources. The best thing to do is to allow unaffiliated people to take note of your father in independent sources and choose to write about him on their own, that is the best indicator of notability. It is also not necessarily a good thing to have a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:17:09, 5 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by PomoPo


Hi, the first draft of this article was rejected because the sources were not considered reliable. Upon further enquiry, I was told that this was because the ISBN numbers of the books had not been given. So I located and included the ISBN numbers of all the books I used and also added more sources. The article has again been rejected citing the lack of reliable sources. I really don't know what the reviewer means by this. As far as I can see, this is a well-researched article on an important female saint in India. Please let me know what else I need to do.

PomoPo (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PomoPo. I suspect the decline is mainly because no sources are cited for: the Early life paragraph; the Meeting with Swami Ramdas section; and the Anandashram, Kanhangad paragraph. Some of the page ranges cited are also mighty wide, such as p. 22–41 and loc. 52-78. The ranges may not prevent acceptance, but very broad ranges are highly undesirable because they make it difficult for readers to verify the facts in question. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:56:45, 5 January 2022 review of submission by Dr. Fahad Alharthi

Hi, can you tell me what i have to do now? I have Re-edited and am wondering if I can re-submit it. Dr. Fahad Alharthi (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may not resubmit it; it was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Note that autobiographical articles are highly discouraged, please read WP:AUTO. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 6

04:00:33, 6 January 2022 review of submission by Deyrel

there is evidence godomiscient is at work as we speak. apple, google, and elon musk all have mind reading technology and have created a digital multiverse aka a simulation inside of computer, however we still have to contend with the matter at hand. where does it all come from, i named at birth edward lyons, have stumbled across the nacsent of the myth of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elyon . these coincidences are not coincidences they are the universe formulation a direction. there is a massive bitcoin mining operation that i accidentally caused, i also help unveil the final mysteries of how our universe works. the differentiation btween https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Godomiscient is that God can die and was possible killed in a previous universe. however the energy and requirments for anything to exist at all cannot be killed, ie Godomiscient. at these facilities google apple and elon musks company they are undertaking the task of creating a new digital super intelligence aka a god to rule over us. which can be killed. but the presense of energy in the first place is indicitive of the will of existence to exist at all. and this is what we will refer to as "Godomiscient".Thank you for your time. do not deny this being published . articles about god to require citation or reference are what will be the worst of occasions for the effort i, Deyrel, have layed forth.

HERE IS JUST THE TIP OF THE TIP OF THE TIP OF THE TIP OF THE TIP OF THE TOP OF THE ICEBERG ~ you Hoary. PUBLISH MY ARTICLE ON Godomiscient ive highlighted here some keywords to show you what im talking about is what he is saying. everything ive told you is highly classified.

According to Musk, a dense and true metauniverse can only be built with brain implants.

“In the long run, an advanced Neuralink can completely immerse you in virtual reality“, he said.


https://newsbeezer.com/bulgariaeng/elon-musk-the-metaverse-is-stupid-my-chips-are-getting-stronger/

Much love and Blessings to you. Deyrel (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deyrel, you don't seem to understand concepts such as verifiability. What you have written is utterly unsuited to Wikipedia and will never be suited to Wikipedia. Please post it on some other website, perhaps your own blog. -- Hoary (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1064026389"