User talk:Liasabel

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! LegoKontribsTalkM 01:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!  DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Further advice
I commented on the AfC page about the improvements that are needed--but you are almost there. TYou might want to let me know directly on my user talk page when you think you have improved it enough, and I will review it--I work rather frequently on this sort of bio.

I also took a look at JUCCE. The article before you started on it was somewhat promotional, with an excessive use of jargon, and to a considerable extent you have been continuing along the same line. Consider a sentence like "By successfully combining in-depth technical expertise, or "hard" tools, and consumer marketing knowledge, or "soft" tools, JUCCCE has been able to "activate" concepts in the marketplace as seen through their Smart Grid program, the acceleration of "eco-cities", and green consumer media coverage." There is not actually any factual information--it is entirely buzzwords, plus the judgement that it has been "successful", sourced to the programs own site. And that's merely the first one I looked at. You can, for example, not say "the first" or "some of the first" unless there is a source saying so independent of the organisation. You cannot say "as a result, the organization has developed a track record of facilitating interactive, bilingual, high quality forums that bring together leaders from government, academia and business to discuss clean energy collaboration opportunities" unless there is a reference outside the organisation for each adjective. And I point out the Liu is not an independent source here--she is chair of the association! And energy-green.net is a blog, and apparently based upon press releases, not independent journalism. The article in Diplomat is not independent either--she wrote it herself. (Though I wonder if she wrote the headline calling herself a "Green Goddess".) I urge you to look for real sources, or almost all the entire section  will need to be removed. I could remove it immediately, but I think some of it is fixable, and you could fix it better than I could. You are obviously writing with a WP:Conflict of interest, presumably as a press agent for the organization. You are therefore automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know. The public wants to know what the organisation does as shown by outside sources--if it wants to know how highly it thinks of itself, they'd look at its web site.  DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peggy Liu concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peggy Liu, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

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

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

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

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peggy Liu


Hello Liasabel. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Peggy Liu".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)