User talk:Miroslav.uzice87

This is Miroslav.uzice87's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: EWLA (November 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gene93k was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). 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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:EWLA and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:EWLA, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

• Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Miroslav.uzice87! Having an article 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! • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was not to put other pages in danger. Now I fill extremely bad for mentioning them, I just wanted to point out some things that bothered me, and who knows how many there are pages like that. Being personally responsible for delition of pages that existed for so long, and they are probably good is not something that I'm feeling proud. Contrary it feels really bad!

They weren't good. They did not meet our standards of notability, which we've had for years now. They were probably created to promote the companies, which we do not allow. If you're here to help the encyclopedia (and not to promote a clothing company), you should not feel bad but content that you've pointed out problematic articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say two more things. 1. How can anyone know that some reference on Wikipedia is not suitable, when there are probably thousands of links that are broken (they have changed or dessapierd)? Those links are probably good when page was created but afterwords where deleted-changed. 2. If article resource is in a book that is not published online, how that can be put as cite and how anyone can trust that source if it is not visible for the one that reads article?

There are probably so much misleading information on Wikipedia that's impossible to track. I wish that the process was much easier, but it seems really hard...

1. We have guidelines on determining the reliability of sources, that are generally in line with what would be expected in a university. Professionally-published sources, usually books or newspapers, are quite stable and are often thoroughly archived. The Internet Archive backs up plenty of web pages as well.

2. If the book is professionally-published, then almost anyone should be able to buy it or ask for it through a Interlibrary loan.

Also, we're generally more accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica. "Wikipedia's not accurate" is not an uncommon cry of "sour grapes" from users whose interests are not so much the encyclopedia's improvement as making known their own ideas or products. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Miroslav.uzice87 was:

References do not show significant coverage

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to the submission and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Miroslav.uzice87 (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gene93k. I just want to know how is that this article is declined when similar articles already exist on Wikipedia ssuch ashttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend_World_Wide or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.S._Fashion wich are brands with similar activities as Ewla company. I belive that there are inaf referencies on Ewla page, but maybe I am just mising the point, and that is that some articles will be published, and some will not. Its pure luck.

I have tagged both of those for deletion. Someone else failing to follow our policies and slipping by with their mistake several years ago does not justify new problematic articles.

If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything, here are the steps you should follow:

1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.

2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.

3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

4) Summarize those sources left after step 3, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer. Make sure this summary is just bare statement of facts, phrased in a way that even someone who hates the subject can agree with.

5) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.

6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.

7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

8) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are conflating number of references with writing being in a neutral point of view (NPOV). As article can be written about a suitably notable company - with appropriate references - and be promotionally worded. Until someone steps in it, no one knows that it is dog crap. Editors who are pointed to it or stumble upon it can decide to propose a deletion of the whole thing, or else, out of goodness of their hearts, improve the article by deletion the promotional language. Sometimes there is not enough worth saving. David notMD (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:EWLA has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:EWLA. Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Miroslav.uzice87, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Denim11 (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Miroslav.uzice87! You created a thread called I belive that having an article published is a pure luck. at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: EWLA (November 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SamHolt6 was:

This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Remains overly promotional, practically akin to a brochure. Note that this fails WP:PROMO.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:EWLA and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:EWLA, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SamHolt6 (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:EWLA concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:EWLA, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:EWLA

Hello, Miroslav.uzice87. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "EWLA".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CptViraj (📧) 05:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]