Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 July 30

= July 30 =

01:09:37, 30 July 2014 review of draft by Meka16
When will my article be reviewed? it has been waiting for three weeks and now it says it will be another 3 weeks - I started at 730 articles ahead of me now it say 1736 - what can I do to move this along?

Meka16 (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Please stop hitting resubmit. Each time you do a new date and time stamp are left behind which probably delays the review since the article appears to be in the queue less time than it has been. It is in the queue and will be reviewed as soon as a volunteer who feels they have the necessary skill reviews it. Fiddle   Faddle  07:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * AFAIK that's not actually how it works - the earliest pending submit template date is used, later ones are ignored. If you manually remove such extra templates (instead of letting the cleanup script take care of it) you must take care to keep the oldest one and delete the rest, otherwise the submission date will be changed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The article The Dark Horse (2014 film) already exists! -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  01:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

11:10:19, 30 July 2014 review of submission by AntDC
Hiya, just making sure the article I submitted hasn't been declined, as I submitted it almost 3 weeks ago now. I understand that because of how backlogged the article drafts are at the moment and that this can sometimes take some time. I was wondering if in the mean time while I wait there were any ways I could possibly improve the article? Cheers. Anthony Collier 11:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntDC (talk • contribs)


 * Hi AntDC, I would suggest you find sources (indpendent if possible) to verify the bulk of your article. Your draft may otherwise be declined for being improperly sourced. Announcements on Twitter aren't suitable sources either. Sionk (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

11:57:09, 30 July 2014 review of submission by Prof John Peacock
I have created a wikipedia page with biographical details of an important scientist. I have a photograph that I wanted to add, but I am sufficiently new that I apparently lack such privileges. Is it possible to email the photo to someone with privileges so that they can add it?

Prof John Peacock (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If you own the copyright to the photograph (for example because you are the photographer), and you wish to freely license it, you could upload it directly at Wikimedia Commons. This might require you to create an account or log into your existing account there, but it does not require any other privileges. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

12:36:36, 30 July 2014 review of submission by The Banner
I am new at this part of Wikipedia, so I am not sure if I have submitted the draft correctly. But the idea is to have the draft reviewed for the first time. In fact, for now, just a check of the necessary steps for a correct submission.

The Banner talk 12:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It was unsubmitted (and remains so) but I have placed a template at the head which will allow you to submit it yourself. Fiddle   Faddle  17:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So my doubt was correct. Thank you very much for tagging it, now submitted. The Banner talk 17:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

17:57:46, 30 July 2014 review of submission by TheRealMrQuality
TheRealMrQuality (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Employer Tax Carve Out The Washington DC offices of US Senator Susan Collins of Maine and US Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri would like to know how they can assist in making the Employer Tax Carve Out Wikipedia Page that has been provided to Wikipedia a public part of the Wikipedia website. At this point the Employer Tax Carve Out Wikipedia Page has been rejected twice, both times for "being to long", "reading like an essay", and "containing to much original research." We would like to remind Wikipedia editors that the subject of economics, particularly for those within the economics community, and particularly when dealing with a concept like the Employer Tax Carve Out that has the support of many members of the US Congress and in a way that has the chance of dramatically changing US tax policy and therefore tax policy world-wide, requires a very high degree of precision and depth. While the economics and tax policy communities are relatively small, and while much of Wikipedia involves pop culture subjects that do not require much precision and depth, Wikipedia is an important source even within the political, economics, and tax policy communities. While the Employer Tax Carve Out is a relatively new concept, having only first become part of public discussion in 2003 and having only first become a bi-partisan bill in the US Senate in 2010, many believe that the Employer Tax Carve Out is one of the most, if not the most, important tax concept of the 21st century! With such an important concept, the political policy, economics, and tax policy communities require a very deep level of detail and explanation. Because the Employer Tax Carve Out is such a relatively new concept and because these communities request such detail, much of the ETCO Wikipedia page will be required to cite many primary sources and much about the ETCO and elaborations of ETCOs will need to be explained in theory, much like a research paper or essay respectively. If the ETCO Wikipedia page is not written in this manor, a lack of understanding of the ETCO will likely be the result, as is the case with nearly all relatively new, complex but important concepts as well as bills in the US Congress. However, clearly the Employer Tax Carve Out is the type of subject that is typically seen in an encyclopedia. Moreover, several reliable sources both in the print and TV media are cited within the current ETCO Wikipedia page that discuss and/or refer to the Employer Tax Carve Out. We would hope that Wikipedia editors would acknowledge the relative newness and complexity of ETCOs and elaborations of ETCOs, along with the traditional function of encyclopedias and Wikipedia in adding to human understanding! Please let us know if there is anything that we can do to assist Wikipedia editors, although we hope this will suffice. Thank you very much for all your work!


 * Draft:Employer Tax Carve Out seems to be the draft. Have you paid attention to the comments of our highly experienced reviewers? We know what makes a Wikipedia article. You do not, but your tone is patronising and unlikely to endear you to the community. Take the medicine, do the work. No-one else is going to write your article for you. Harsh as this message may be to receive, having the draft accepted and then deleted for the major faults described to you is harsher.  Fiddle   Faddle  18:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have left you a substantial comment on the draft showing you what you need to do. Fiddle   Faddle  18:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

19:08:49, 30 July 2014 review of submission by AxelForrester
AxelForrester (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to know why my article  "Kent Murdock Lloyd" was declined. He was a person of note, a cabinet member in the Reagan Administration. This is verifiable. Does it need to be longer?


 * Did you visit the draft to see the reason for declining?
 * It is not that it is short. Brevity is a virtue. It is that there is nothing to say why the gentleman is notable, and there are no references. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS
 * It also doesn't really look like an article. Compare it with other short articles and notice the differences. Fiddle   Faddle  20:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them"; the last part of this is not correct. An article about someone who is a tenured full professor at a major university could be a single sentence stating that, backed solely by a reference to that university's staff list (which is not an independent source). Per WP:ACADEMIC, such a person would be notable by Wikipedia's standards, and such a reference would be sufficient, even in the complete absence of independent sources.


 * It's not clear to me whether being a "deputy under secretary" would confer notability quite so easily, even if it were referenced (which right now it is not). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

20:33:50, 30 July 2014 review of submission by Susanpeabody490
Susanpeabody490 (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You keep rejecting my article about Ambivalent Love Addicts as a copyright infringement, but I do own he copyright. Everyone on the web accepts me as the creator of this concept except the people who stole it. Here is an example of authentification.

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/general/general-relationship-discussion/443604-ambivalent-love-addicts-does-sound-like-your-ex


 * This is always an area that causes folk new to Wikipedia some perplexity. Please see Donating copyrighted materials for the way to approach this. By rejecting the draft we are protecting the copyright owner. We have no idea until you prove it that this may turn out to be you. That is good, though seems infuriating. Fiddle   Faddle  20:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * By the way, whatever is at User:Susanpeabody490/sandbox is not an article. Please do not resubmit this unless and until it is an article. You are taking a place in the queue that belongs to someone else. I am declining it. Fiddle   Faddle  20:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)