User talk:Lightgreendarkgreen

Your submission at Articles for creation: Masternode (March 10)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Heliosxeros was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Masternode and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Masternode, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and save.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Masternode Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Heliosxeros&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Masternode reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

EROS message 05:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply
Hi, I've found a bit of time, so more guidance.
 * You need to provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to an organisation or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the a company or organisation claims or interviewing affiliated people. Most of your text was completely unsourced, and the few refs were closely associated with the topic. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls
 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced or self-sourced claims presented as fact include: Increase the privacy of transactions... Enable users to instantly send funds to one another... Some serve the role of a treasury... have been compared to savings accounts... they play an important role... get rewarded for their efforts &mdash;and that's just from "Overview".
 * there shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections. That's particularly the case when they are links to affiliated sites.
 * Copyright I've already dealt with. We often restore deleted text on request, but for legal reasons we don't do so for copyright violations.

Also read Your first article. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)