Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 October 3

= October 3 =

04:51, 3 October 2023 review of submission by Basava Vinay Vp Writer
Because I am a writer to spread good message to the society Basava Vinay Vp Writer (talk) 04:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Basava Vinay Vp Writer: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. If you want to tell the world about yourself, open up a blog or join some social media platform. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

06:30, 3 October 2023 review of submission by Origagari
Hi Greenman how are you? I respect your comment, but this is not a promotional entry. The person concerned only operates in Turkey, but I made an entry in English. This is not for promotional purposes. He is also the brother of the previous finance minister. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nureddin_Nebati) Can you help with publication at this point? Good work. Origagari (talk) 06:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Origagari: there is nothing of encyclopaedic value in this draft, and it all seems to come from you or the subject or some other non-independent party, as opposed to being a summary of reliable published sources. Therefore, I'd say it very much is WP:YESPROMO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

06:31, 3 October 2023 review of submission by Nook768
A ton of other people using wikipedia made SCP things but mine was deleted? I just dont get it. It was also considered Vandilisim. It was a fictionol SCP character. Please tell me and explain why it was deleted and none other SCP things were deleted Nook768 (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @nook768:
 * A ton of other people using wikipedia made SCP things but mine was deleted?
 * eh?? what?? where??
 * and if you want to write scps, go to the scp wiki. ltb d l (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

09:57, 3 October 2023 review of submission by Iohannz
Hello! Could you please explain why my article submission was declined? Iohannz (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The reviewer left you a message on the draft as to why it was declined(not only the box at the top, but a message directly underneath it). Please review it carefully.  Do you have more specfic questions about it?
 * Please detail your relationship with Gengiuri; you must have one since you took an image of her. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The photo was needed for a website development I took part Iohannz (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really answer my question, but if you have an association with her, you need to declare a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

13:13, 3 October 2023 review of submission by ASKanetkar
For sharing better information on sample cooler ASKanetkar (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @ASKanetkar absolutely not. That is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Read WP:NOT.  Qcne  (talk)  13:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

13:35, 3 October 2023 review of submission by EditCloud123
Hi,

Could we have the stop taken off this page please so we can work on revisions? EditCloud123 (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @EditCloud123: as this has been rejected, you will need to appeal directly to the rejecting reviewer.
 * Who is "we" in your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You may make revisions, but the draft will not be considered again until you first appeal to rejecting reviewer, or failing that, convince the community here to allow you to resubmit it(but you would need to demonstrate that the rejecting reviewer made a gross error in policy or judgement). 331dot (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @331dot, I have received no appeal. However I take this discussion as an appeal.  Since EditCloud123 has been deceived into believing I have solicited money I do not believe it to be appropriate for me to respond, and recuse myself. May I ask you to act as if the appeal were made to you, please?
 * My rationales are all public on Wikipedia. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thanks 331dot (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, "we" refers to the company, i have declared a conflict of interest. The moderator who rejected it was someone who was asking for money to publish it and going back and forth publishing it to show that he could and then deleting it to demand the money, then put a stop on it when we refused. - i do have emails to show this, but its evidenced where you can see the amount of edits "timtrent" has on it EditCloud123 (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @EditCloud123: that is a very serious charge, hope you're not making it lightly? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @EditCloud123 it is likely you have been contacted by a scam ring who is impersonating @Timtrent. Please see the details of this known scam at WP:SCAM.  Qcne  (talk)  14:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Impersonation doesn't check out here. The moves to mainspace were not done by Timtrent, as EditCloud123 suggested, and they never said the UPE identified as Timtrent in the emails. They have just referred to the amounts of edits by Timtrent. And somehow they make no comment of the confirmed accounts who _are_ the UPE in contact with EditCloud123. If they think they fell for a scam, they should submit evidence about the confirmed UPE accounts. Anything else suggests bad faith. MarioGom (talk) 07:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * TBF, the OP did say explicitly that "The moderator who rejected it was someone who was asking for money", which seems to me like a direct accusation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was a direct accusation. My point is that nothing suggests there is evidence backing this accusation, not even off-wiki impersonation, because the UPE this user is in contact with are using other accounts that are not mentioned here. So my claim is that this accusation was not made in good faith or not with enough transparency. MarioGom (talk) 09:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My question about "we" wasn't querying your COI, which I could see duly disclosed on your user page, but rather whether there is more than one user accessing that user account? Wikipedia accounts are for use by a single individual only. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No the account is only held by myself :)
 * Please can you advise on next steps, is there somewhere i need to submit the evidence or something i can do in the meantime? EditCloud123 (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @EditCloud123 – the next steps are:
 * Email your evidence of payment demands to the investigations team, as already instructed. It is in everyone's interests, not least @Timtrent's, that this issue is looked into without delay.
 * Respond to the query on your talk page, which asks you not to edit until you have acknowledged and answered it.
 * Regarding editing the draft, as 331dot correctly points out you are able to do this, but for now you are unable to resubmit. (We can cross that bridge when we get to it.)
 * -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @EditCloud123 Please submit your evidence at your earliest opportunity. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you personally create and own the copyright to the company logo, and do you really want to make it available to anyone to use for any purpose with attribution? 331dot (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously not, and this would require a permission ticket. It should be deleted. MarioGom (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @EditCloud123 That is an extraordinary charge you are making against me. I refute it totally. Please your send evidence to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org as detailed in WP:SCAM.
 * Never pay money to anybody offering to do anything for you on Wikipedia . 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Speaking as an admin who handles a lot of paid editing cases: whoever is claiming to be Timtrent is almost certainly a scammer and not actually Timtrent. We've seen a major uptick in cases of this sort of impersonation lately, primarily targeting Wikipedians who use real (or real-sounding) names as their usernames. Unless there is extremely convincing evidence submitted by the accuser here, I see no reason to hold Timtrent under any sort of suspicion. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * GeneralNotability Impersonation is part of the lot of a reviewer. This is the first time that I know of that it has happened to me, and I suppose that I should wear the badge with pride. However, being accused in public forum is not something I am enjoying.
 * I have now done all that I am able to do in order to show my bona fides, and put my trust in the underlying processes to sort this nastiness out. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am reminded of the heavily aggressive comments by User talk:Ayumu Chizue, editor of Draft:Connex One, blocked, and investigated at Sockpuppet investigations/Abbasshaikh124. There is a huge sock farm at this investigation. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * False accusations of corruption have been made against a reviewer. Is anyone looking into taking action for the false allegations?  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's actionable. There's the good faith interpretation that the editor just got confused about who's who. Or the more likely explanation that they decided to go after the editor who pushed back against their spam, rather than against the supposed scammer. Either way, I think EditCloud123 should have been blocked since the beginning as a spammer. They used their own account to spam, and also hired others to amplify that spam. We should not allow a spammer to drag us into more complex discussions that just distract us from the fact that there's no place on this project for spammers. MarioGom (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @MarioGom I am content, as the falsely accused party, that this rests here. I doubt EditCloud123 is more than a disposable account. A sense of "vengeance" suggest to me that an admin viewing this might block them, but reality suggests that they might appear again and lead us to more UPE accounts.
 * Thank you Robert McClenon for following this up, IT was unpleasant, then aggravating, and is now history, I think. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

13:47, 3 October 2023 review of submission by Promnewyork
I am requesting assistance because of the reasons given for rejecting my article... "that it is a research essay Promnewyork (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Promnewyork: what assistance do you need? FWIW, I fully concur that this does look, both in terms of structure and content, very much like an essay, dissertation, or scientific paper of some sort, rather than an encyclopaedia article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: Oh, and it has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have edited the work to present it as encyclopedia paper and re-summit for review and publication. Cheers! Promnewyork (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Promnewyork: with respect, you haven't; you may have edited the draft, but you haven't fundamentally changed the nature of it.
 * As this has been rejected, you cannot resubmit it; your only way forward is to appeal directly to the rejecting reviewer, but this would be rather pointless at this time, as the rejection reason still stands. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Clearly NOT acceptable as an encyclopaedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What's the acceptable format for encyclopedia article pls Promnewyork (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Promnewyork: you can find advice and instructions for article creation at WP:YFA.
 * You can also see examples of articles rated as 'good' eg. at Good articles/Language and literature. It's often useful to read some articles before attempting to write one, so you know roughly what you need to aim for. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

17:28, 3 October 2023 review of submission by Hirwa94
I am writing this message to express my disappointment over Wikipedia approval process. Most editors have negative image on Africa and considers everything from there as inferior. This is deeply unfair as our nations also want to be connected.

The article African Centre of Excellence in Data Science is all about a non profit, public university. Why would you mark it as advertising or unreliable references? Hirwa94 (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Hirwa94: it's interesting that straight off the bat you go for some anti-African sentiment and assert that "Most editors have negative image on Africa " etc. – is it not possible that this draft was declined simply because it doesn't meet the relevant standards? In any case, this has been resubmitted and is awaiting review; what, therefore, is your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The article has been reviewed and reviewed to the point one editor told me that it is okay. As for Geographical biases, it exists. You guys put your kindergartens on Wikipedia but you can't stand our universities being on it. And then you call yourselves GLOBAL, DEMOCRATIC. The deserved name is HYPOCRITES.
 * Anyway, the platform is yours. I did my part and if it is not enough, that's it. Hirwa94 (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Hirwa94 Sorry you have had a negative experience with the AfC process. As one of the reviewers who declined the article, I want you to understand my reasons for it: at the time of your submission nearly every source was WP:PRIMARY, which meant the centre did not pass the  WP:NSCHOOL  criteria. This has nothing to do with any kind of geographic bias. I agree that most of the existing school and kindergarten articles on Wikipedia don't meet that criteria and should be removed- we have millions of articles and it is simply that no one has gotten around to nominating them for deletion yet. We're all volunteers. I will note I regularly decline drafts that do not pass  WP:NSCHOOL , which are based all across the globe.
 * Perhaps a solution is to merge the contents of your draft into the [[University of Rwanda]] main article.  Qcne   (talk)  18:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We have no certainty about the race of any user. Your race or nationality is not relevant.  I don't see where someone said that articles about topics in Africa are "inferior".  That isn't true, if it was said to you. 331dot (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

17:54, 3 October 2023 review of submission by Hockima
What needs to be done better ? Hockima (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Nothing, @Hockima, it has been rejected.  Qcne  (talk)  18:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

18:32, 3 October 2023 review of submission by 2A02:CE0:1800:22C9:CD4F:3A91:D444:1112
Requesting kind support to revised my article to be accepted with Wikipedia Policy 2A02:CE0:1800:22C9:CD4F:3A91:D444:1112 (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * IP editor, the draft was rejected in August and you should not have re-submitted it. It has now been rejected again. This is the end of the road, find something else to write about. This will not become an article.  Qcne  (talk)  18:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

18:50, 3 October 2023 review of submission by Shahin hossain007
why my article submission was declined Shahin hossain007 (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Cause it was self-promotion. 24.211.70.219 (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

19:57, 3 October 2023 review of submission by Jordandl18
I'm not really familiar with how to get the Wikipedia page approved and I have provided sources for everything but it still gets declined. Jordandl18 (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The preferred term is Wikipedia article, not "page" which has a broader meaning. Most of your sources are affiliated with the team- an article about this team should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the team, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.  You haven't provided sources for everything- the Legacy section is entirely unsourced. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

21:30, 3 October 2023 review of submission by 2607:FB91:320:725:B9A8:C6BD:CF57:5185
I have a question if I’m citing the sources correctly. 2607:FB91:320:725:B9A8:C6BD:CF57:5185 (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are citing your sources more or less correctly, but you are just not citing good enough sources to have shown that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)