Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 July 22

= July 22 =

01:59:01, 22 July 2016 review of submission by Mikednjusa
Mikednjusa (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I am very confused. I put in an entry and was told it does not sound neutral enough along with some other items. I understand this type of writing is not my strength so I need some pointers on writing in a neutral tone. I went to the Teahouse as suggested and cannot find a way to contact anyone listed. I went to the IRC chat and got some very judgmental people who were talking down to me so I left. How can I reach out to someone for some pointers on how to clean up my entry? Thanks. Mikednjusa (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)mikednjusa
 * I see that most of the original draft has been deleted because it was copyright violation, and that the use of Wikipedia as a reference has been deleted. I don't know anything about the conversation that you had on IRC chat.  Language that is taken from a web site that has a specific agenda is usually non-neutral as well as being copyright violation.  One possibility would be to Google on 'Attachment-Based Parental Alienation' and see what reliable sources you can find.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

04:03:12, 22 July 2016 review of submission by 122.177.134.129
Hello, I really need assistance to publish with my clients WiKi Page.

122.177.134.129 (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to Draft:GeeksforGeeks? Draft:Dinabandhu sahoo? Draft:Nurturing Green? Something else? If you are editing a page about a client, you need to formally disclose your connection. Only one of the three topics above is notable, which no amount of editing can overcome. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Worldbruce has been kind and civil. I will be civil but less than kind.  First, if you ask for help about a page, it helps to provide us with a link to the page.  We can't even infer what page that is from your editing history, because this was the only edit made from your IP address.  Second, many editors do not want to help an editor who is working for a client.  While conflict of interest editors, including paid editors, are not excluded, they are discouraged and subject to strict disclosure rules, and Wikipedia is meant to be a volunteer project, and paid editors cannot expect friendly treatment.  Third, it would be useful for you to register an account.  That is especially true if you are required to make the paid editing disclosure, because it is difficult to make the disclosure from a shifting IP address.  Fourth, Wikipedia doesn't have pages for clients; it has encyclopedic articles about notable topics.  Fifth, it appears, since you aren't even able to ask for help usefully, that your client has wasted their money in paying you to do a job that you don't know how to do.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

14:26:45, 22 July 2016 review of submission by Jenna647
I'm not sure why my questions were deleted.

1. Are we able to reference specific passages from a PDF/webstie? Eg. the vision of an organization? 2. Are reports from notable organizations like the World Health Organization and the Centre for Disease Control not acceptable references? 3. Are we not allowed to reference government department articles (e.g. Public Health Agency of Canada)? 4. I can't seem to located specific instructions for referencing a PDF...have already looked here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Linking_to_PDF_files 5. Would it be helpful to shorten the article - less room for error?

Jenna647 (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * None of the references in the article is correctly cited, but I had a look at the first five anyway. The first and fifth are to the subject's own web site, and so not independent. The second and fourth do not mention the subject. The third mentions it only to cite its web site, it contains no "significant discussion" of the subject. I'm not saying you can't cite those sources, just that they do nothing to establish the subject's notability. Maproom (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

19:23:56, 22 July 2016 review of submission by MrFarenheitsMom
Since my article was first rejected (with an encouragement from the reviewer to re-submit), a number of quite reputable sources have published news articles that mention the subject by name and discusses its most recent endeavors. I have included most of these sources in hopes of establishing more notoriety (a good deal of work went into this article that has been resting in limbo for weeks), but the drawback is now there's an item with 6 citations (see the bottom). I don't see how this would necessarily hurt the quality of the article substantially, but it does look a little unusual I guess. Thoughts?

MrFarenheitsMom (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)