User talk:Ngbutterworth

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 if 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 [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! (chat)   techatology  01:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Beatie Wolfe (August 17)
 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 if 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 [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Re-writing of article
It still reads a little promotional though... I'm going to edit it some, but I'll warn you that this might end up decimating a lot of the article. In my experience it's usually better to go with the "less is more" stuff when it comes to using reviews and whatnot to source articles. I've gotten my hands slapped a few times for overquoting reviews, so I usually just use them as a basic source when listing accomplishments for individual people instead of giving lengthy review sections. It's kind of tricky and more than a little irritating when it comes to writing articles about people. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to be on the safe side, I took a closer look at the sources on the page. There looked to be enough that would be considered reliable enough by the more strict RS editors, but it's always good to doublecheck. Overall they still look good, although there were a few that would probably be considered somewhat unreliable under closer scrutiny. The one I'm concerned about is Pinch Magazine, as they don't give a lot of information on their editorial process or say whether or not they have an editorial board. Some of the others do list an editorial board, which would make them more of a reliable source when it comes down to it. I also noted that the Berklee College of Music is a WP:PRIMARY source as it's a notification of an event they're holding. The links to the performances on the various venues (BBC, etc) would also be considered primary sources as well, but I kept them just to sort of give an example of where she's performed. In any case, primary sources are good to back up some things, but can't be used to show notability. I removed some of the sources such as the link to the Moshi wikia, since those are almost always frowned upon as sources in general. I probably should've been more specific when I initially wrote in the comments, but at that point I was more worried about the non-NPOV tone than anything else. I don't feel comfortable accepting it since I did such extensive editing on it, but hopefully it'll catch the eye of one of the other editors. I feel pretty positive about its chances of getting accepted by the next editor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Beatie Wolfe was accepted
 Beatie Wolfe, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Cheers, camerontregantalk 11:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Ngbutterworth, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Kelleigh Greenberg-Jephcott have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Translation. See also Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)