Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 July 31

= July 31 =

01:17:14, 31 July 2015 review of submission by The trail music
The trail music (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Basically my application were declined on my user name, also not being reliable with sources, all my reliable sources are within the project i have created with evidential pictures and also radio slots that support the forum.

03:24:02, 31 July 2015 review of submission by Olga Rekovskaya
Hello, I'm writing about our our ISS Art article which was declined again. Following the advice to refer to reliable secondary sources we've added a reference from Forbes.com - an independent and credible resource. However, the submission was declined again. Therefore, I would like to ask: how many resources do you recommend for the article to be approved? What level of resources should this be? Thanks in advance.

Olga Rekovskaya (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, just wanted to follow up on my request. Thanks in advance. Olga Rekovskaya (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Olga Rekovskaya

Request on 07:36:32, 31 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Anubis2013
I don't know what the problem is - I thought I've made footnotes - what exactly is wrong with the article?Anubis2013 (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Anubis2013 (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

11:56:10, 31 July 2015 review of submission by JRR1968
JRR1968 (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I submitted an article for submission which I thought I had entitled Barren Plains, Tennessee. It was created after review by Sulfurboy as just Barren_Plains which is too generic. How do I change it to Barren Plains, Tennessee.JRR1968 (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi JRR1968 Such a title is only used if there are multiple articles about different places with the same name, thus it is not needed in this case. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

13:18:10, 31 July 2015 review of submission by Carvic65
Carvic65 (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Carlos Vicioso, Abelardo Vicioso's son. I've been trying to submit an article about my father's life and contributions to the Dominican Literature, but it's been rejected, in a few occasions. I modified what they required, neutral point of view, less adjectives, etc., and also added more references, important references, but still. Even somebody suggested me to make a shorter article, because he's a Spanish writer, but his works have been translated to several languages, all over the world. So his importance is not questionable. I'm wondering, is this how the world pays to somebody who contributed with his people, to have a better world, instead thousands of evil persons are acknowledged by Wikipedia. Probably that's why the world is like it is... I am a diplomat, assigned to the United Nations in Vienna, still with several occupations, but still take time to try if my father's memory is revived. Isn't my word trustworthy? I could find 34 references concerning to the subject, isn't it enough?

I would appreciate if you could help me with this issue, in order to be fair. To make justice.

By the way, this is my father's article (again): — Preceding comment added by Carvic65 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 31 July 2015‎ (UTC)


 * This isn't the place for a draft article. Provide a link to where the draft is, but first of all please read the feedback which you've already been given. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I see that you have submitted for review a number of different versions of your draft, including in your sandbox. Perhaps you haven't seen that one version was approved and published at Abelardo Vicioso.  It needs improvemement, and in particular you need to get the references correctly formatted, see WP:Referencing for beginners. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Request on 15:49:25, 31 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by JAS1127
I have been working on this Nephrocheck Test wikipedia entry for months. Revising and revising only to continue to get rejected. After this last rejection, it is apparent to me that the reviewer doesn't understand the subject matter or they wouldn't have requested the revisions that they did. When I told why this test was important, I was told it was too biased. When I downplayed its importance and added references showing why this is a scientific breakthrough I was told that I didn't play it up enough. I am getting mixed messages and feel like giving up on this even though I have spent countless hours trying to turn it into something that will communicate to others the importance of this diagnostic test. Is it possible to post it on Wikipedia with a disclaimer (as I have seen on other entries) that it needs additional information or needs to be edited? I don't know what that additional info would be, nor who would be qualified to provide it because the nephrologists that are using this test are very busy. Anyway, what can I do to get this entry posted live? Ready to give up.

JAS1127 (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi JAS1127 you could get some topic-specific advice at WikiProject Medicine, that's where the editors with experience of writing about medical topics can be found (many of them are actually medical professionals). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

18:48:25, 31 July 2015 review of submission by Jmthf
Hello, thank you for your very quick feedback. I am wondering if my page was rejected because the information about my subject does not contain acceptable references or if my subject's "notability" needs more explanation, if his place in investigative journalism isn't clear enough - I would have thought that overseeing several Pulitzer Prize finalists and winners would be notable, as well as writing 4 critically acclaimed books. I may be answering my own question - do I need to provide references for all of this? Thank you.

Jmthf (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You have it in one. Yes. I have left a comment not he draft which may help you. Fiddle   Faddle  05:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

21:03:58, 31 July 2015 review of submission by Kim Lord at banhoek conservancy
Kim Lord at banhoek conservancy (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

HOW TO INSERT A gOOGLE MAP INTO THE ARTICLE?Kim Lord at banhoek conservancy (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * One cannot. Fiddle   Faddle  05:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * @Kim Lord at banhoek conservancy Google maps cannot be used here due to their copyright restrictions, however you can post a request at the Map workshop for a map to me made for the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

21:32:34, 31 July 2015 review of submission by Lifegami
To Whom This May Concern:

It was to my understanding that rejected wikipedia submissions were not made public. Today, Adam Marelli (The subject of a recent rejected article submission to Wikipedia) received a solicitation of work on his professional Facebook Page from someone who claimed to have seen his rejected Wiki article submission. The person who solicited Adam's page goes by the name of Tamsin Kendra. This was a very unethical and potentially damaging move on the part of Ms. Kendra.

The reason I am writing this to the help desk is to find out, first, who could have access to view Adam Marelli's article submission after it had been rejected? I know Wikipedia has many qualified and trusted editors that are able to view and apply reviews to article submissions (before and after they are rejected). That being said, is Ms. Tamsin Kendra one of these trusted editors?

If so, is there anything that Wikipedia can do to keep Ms. Tamsin Kendra from viewing Wikipedia article submissions related to Adam Marelli (specifically if they're rejected) or from soliciting work from Adam Marelli and making references to private matters on his public social media accounts?

If she is not a trusted editor for Wikipedia, is there anyway that she would be able to access Adam's Rejected Article submission?

I'm not sure if the circumstances surrounding this matter are legal or not, but, to me, it is certainly unethical and, in my opinion, not in accordance with Wikipedia values and standards of integrity.

What can Wikipedia (Administrators, bureaucrats, decision-makers, etc.) recommend to help resolve this matter? We enjoy celebrating the Wikipedia community and would like to see trust restored.

Lifegami (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Your understanding is flawed. Any and all submissions of every sort on Wikipedia are 100% public. Any person may view any page at all.
 * If you have a dispute with someone on Facebook, please keep that dispute to Facebook or to a real life interaction with that person.
 * You need to be aware that Wikipedia takes even the hint of a legal threat very seriously. Please see WP:NOLEGALTHREATS
 * Because I perceive that you have issued either a legal threat, or a set of words preparatory to issuing a legal threat, it is necessary to take further action. I am about to take that action, and will notify you on your own talk page of the discussion venue. Please do not make further posts here, on this page, until the matter is resolved. Fiddle   Faddle  05:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no legal threat there Tim. Lifegami, everything anyone on Wikipedia does is public. Chillum 05:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There appears to be the intent to utter a legal threat. The words "I'm not sure if the circumstances surrounding this matter are legal or not" indicate that the editor is so minded. Since we may not ignore the matter I have raised it at WP:ANI to allow others better qualified than am I to make the call.


 * The implied threat is not against Wikipedia, it is against Tamsin Kendra. If the OP decides to sue that person (who appears to be soliciting payment for getting an article accepted), we should wish him success - though frankly, I doubt she has committed any crime. Maproom (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is about the scam where authors of declined drafts are approached by people claiming to be "senior editors" who demand payment to get the draft approved. it seems the rather long-winded circumlocution and legalese language of your initial post here lead to misunderstanding. Had you said in plainer language, something like: "Someone claiming to be a "trusted editor" approached me with an offer to approve the draft for payment" we would have immediately understood. The legal department of the Wikimedia Foundation (owners of Wikipedia) is aware of the issue.
 * To summarize; everything on Wikipedia (with very few specific exceptions) is fully accessible to anyone. Anyone claiming to be a "trusted editor" and asking for payment to get a declined draft approved is a scammer attempting extortion. There are a variety of venues on Wikipedia where anyone can get completely free advice and assistance with any aspect of writing an article here - one of them being this page. Except for the brief period of the annual fundraising campaign "advertisements", you will never be asked for money and certainly never in exchange for any work done.  Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)