Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 July 14

= July 14 =

How to can I a member of German national football team?

How to can I send a complements for German National Football team? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheikh Mamun Morshed (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia is not a web forum and we don't communicate with the subjects of articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 05:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

06:11:29, 14 July 2014 review of submission by Asastikar
Hello, Have created an article for SHREEM Group of Companies on Saturday using Sandbox and have had submitted for a review; however, I am not clear as to why it has not been accepted. Please help me understand what is missing and or where have I gone wrong. Thank you. Asastikar (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The reviewer has left a succinct comment on the draft. Have you visited the draft and read it? If not, please do. There are links for you to follow. If you have and are still unclear please come back here and ask for additional help. Fiddle   Faddle  07:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

08:29:32, 14 July 2014 review of submission by Sarah Woodward
I would like a re-review of my declined article on Briggs Marine, or at least advice on how this article will be fit for publishing. It is concerning me that though my article has been declined, similar articles on which I based Briggs Marine are published on Wikipedia - for example Offshore Marine Management, Bibby Line, West Marine and Atlantic Marine to name a few. I would be grateful of any advice you can give me. Kind regards. Sarah Woodward (talk) 08:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have accepted this article draft and it is now located at Briggs Marine. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

09:43:56, 14 July 2014 review of submission by Cristina Voinea Andreea
I submitted for revision my article almost two weeks ago and I still have no answer. Also, it was denied the first time and I tried to better it. I think that I followed all the rules and that the subject is relevant for the people who are working in the plastic surgery sector.

Cristina Voinea Andreea (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You've said a couple things that I'd like to address. First, "I think you should adapt your rules from country to country". This Wikipedia operates for English-speaking people of any country worldwide. Rules do vary between different languages, however, so you might try Romanian-language Wikipedia. Second, "the subject is relevant for the people who are working in the plastic surgery sector". Again, this is also not a consideration. Our guideline WP:PROF discusses the notability of all academics from any field, nationality, and time period, separate from general notability. (We don't have a guideline for specific for the notability of medical doctors.) Each and every submission has to qualify for notability under one of our notability guidelines. Finally, your submission lacks independent sources on which to establish a claim of notability. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

15:02:12, 14 July 2014 review of submission by Olamikhx
Olamikhx (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It is my opinion that a successful law firm should hire a Wikipedia editor for a task like this, because copying text wholesale from other websites while failing to provide independent and reliable sources is a waste of a secretary's time. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

16:07:19, 14 July 2014 review of submission by Tommy Praytor
I need help, I am not referencing correctly and I need someone to help me through so I can get my page up. Thomas Praytor is a stock car athlete who is ranked #8th in overall points in the ARCA Series. He is listed on other Wikipedia pages and we would like to make one for him to state who he is and what he is doing. This is my first time making a Wiki page and would love to master the skill.

Thank you

Tommy Praytor (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your username evinces a conflict of interest. Your submission was copied from other websites and most of your cited sources were not independent of the subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and editors need to approach it that way. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise or conduct public relations and Wikipedians are discouraged from doing so. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

19:08:45, 14 July 2014 review of submission by Kamichailo
Kamichailo (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC) I received this meesage and do not know what to do: This sandbox is in the Draft namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the User sandbox template.

Do I need to do something before my article can be published?
 * I've removed that template, as it's only needed in user sandboxes. However, moving Draft:TearScience to TearScience is inappropriate, and will be reverted. Also, most of your draft is copied from parts of the TearScience website and is written promotionally. Finally, your draft resembles a link farm; please read our guidance on external links. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

20:48:43, 14 July 2014 review of submission by Irinaalbescu
I am wondering how long it takes for a DRAFT to be reviewed?

Irinaalbescu (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not long, at all. Please read WP:ANYBIO and WP:42. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

21:50:27, 14 July 2014 review of draft by 50.190.107.28
50.190.107.28 (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

22:42:17, 14 July 2014 review of submission by Relativityman
I am not requesting a re-review. I am asking for help in re-writing my scientific article in a suitable style for an encyclopedia. The subject is a sensible alternative theory of relativity. A copy of my ideas for the lead section follows:

Relativity in physics concerns Nature's changes to the sizes of the physics 'dimensions' (mass, length, time) in relativistic situations via the laws of physics, and the causes of those changes.

Natural Relativity (NR) (ref to Physics Essays paper, here) is a system of relativity factors based on the change in mass E=mc2 when energy is applied in relativistic situations. NR rejects the possibilities of gravity or speed being causes of relativistic changes, but, applied energy is assumed to be the common cause of changes in mass. It is an important facet of NR. For the most part, NR deals with unrestricted motion, whereas in Einstein’s SR (ref to Einstein's paper, here), all motion is restricted to a postulated constant speed of light.

Relativity factors are measures of the change in size of each of the three 'dimensions' for two types of relativistic situations.  Relativity factors are derived only from, and are therefore fully compatible with, the fundamental laws of physics, principles of relativity, and obvious physics facts, hence the chosen name. Only one NR relativity factor differs from those derived by Einstein in 1905, but that difference is extremely important.

The two types of relativistic situations are those where there is (with no dissipation of energy) (a) a positional displacement of a material object involving a resisting/assisting force (such as gravity), with no resulting motion (the gravity case), or (b) a change in relative speed of a material object due to acceleration by externally applied energy (the speed case).

NR contains a test for confirmation of supposed universal constants, i.e. application of true relativity factors to the ‘dimensions’ of a candidate must produce no change to its value in both types of relativistic situations. Not surprisingly, confirmed universal constants have the same set of relativistic ‘dimensions’, but h and c fail the test, where h is the Planck factor and c is the speed of light. Even G failed the test (but is correctable)! When the fault was corrected, the Planck units and the subsequent geometrized (natural?) dimensions vanish. They all violated the principle of relativity, anyway. The one NR relativity factor differing from those derived by Einstein in 1905 was that for the change in length of moving objects (the speed case). Einstein’s calculations predicted a contraction in length, but NR predicts a small increase in length so that properties of matter are the same everywhere in the same physical conditions.

Relativity factors are also derived in the speed case for the factors of proportionality h and c in physics equations, as they have values that are dependent on the speed. Relativityman (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Relativityman (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * First, this task doesn't hold the importance for the community that it does for you. Second, if you want volunteer editors to write for you, try the reward board. For the cost of a barnstar (which is imaginary) you might get the help you need. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

23:24:38, 14 July 2014 review of submission by Trueinfo00
I have received the declining message and would like to know the detailed reason and how to improve it to meet the Wikipedia's expectation. Please advise me. Trueinfo00 (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That notice does suggest that you visit Draft:MOL-Instincts to see the detail. If you have already done this and need specific answers, do, please, come back and ask. Fiddle   Faddle  13:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)