Jump to content

User talk:JOHJOL5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ingenuity was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, JOHJOL5! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mcmatter was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now starting to feel like Jeremy Clarkson I.e. no matter what I do the authorities are no going to approve my inclusion.

You have again refused my entry and yet you approve this one? I have almost verbatim used similar wording and layout. If you can kindly tell me where my post is going wrong when the 2 posts are similar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mica_Gallery JOHJOL5 (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First off not every article goes through the AFC process and some do get past the New Page patrols. I agree with you, the MIca Gallery article is insufficient as well therefore I have nominated it for removal. Each article must stand on it's own to merits not what may or may not exist elsewhere, see Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS . McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Mcmatter were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
once everything not directly related to the actual gallery is removed, you have nothing. We need to see things written ABOUT the gallery not the community in proper sources or it is NOT notable enough for inclusion.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Calling a gallery "a must-see destination", "a beautiful space", "a true gem", "a fantastic place" and so forth is blatantly promotional; I have therefore deleted the draft you constructed. -- Hoary (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for considering the entry. Can you please reinstate the draft and I will remove all the adjectives amd what as you say appears to be blatant promotion. Thank you. JOHJOL5 (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- but on the understanding that you'll take a hard look at this, with my "and so forth" (above) in mind. -- Hoary (talk) 12:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I'll be pleased to make the amendments next week. JOHJOL5 (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Hoary was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
I deleted this as blatant advertising. Its creator then appealed for its restoration, whereupon the promotional verbiage would be taken out. I restored the draft. Although removing the most conspicuously promotional content would take mere minutes, hours have since passed -- and yet no change has so far been made.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Hoary (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adjectives and sentences that appeared to be promotional have now been removed. If any other changes need to be made then please let me know. Thanks. JOHJOL5 (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

[edit]

Information icon Hello, JOHJOL5. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Draft:The Rutland Gallery, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration although I feel that no matter what is done to this entry you will continue to refuse its inclusion. I have to say that this baffles me when I compare it with existing entries of a similar nature.
As for your reference to an entry in The Sunday Times newspaper... I never realised that this was part of the criteria for approval?
As a side note the gallery is hosting a charity event this Thursday evening where up to 150 visitors will be viewing just some of the permanent collection. I look forward to letting them know that Wikipedia dont feel that The Rutland Gallery (in the county of Rutland) don't warrant entry!!
Finally, I have donated financially to Wikipedia previously. I NEVER did this to try and buy favour. Please rest assured however that I will be making no further contributions.
N.B. I will be making to further edits to the article as it warrants inclusion in it's current form. JOHJOL5 (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of that answers my COI query. Please respond to that. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
No sign of notability, cites only two hyperlocal publications. I should probably be rejecting this, but let's give it one more chance in case the Sunday Times has written about it at length recently. Note: the author should disclose their COI before resubmitting.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said I'm not spending any more time on this. I will be making no further comments/edits. JOHJOL5 (talk) 08:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete the article JOHJOL5 (talk) 08:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JOHJOL5&oldid=1245062082"