User talk:Rdozzz

Your submission at Articles for creation: Capital Markets Cooperative Research Centre (February 18)

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

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:Capital Markets Cooperative Research Centre and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
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 get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Missvain (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Rdozzz, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! Missvain (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (July 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

This submission appears to be taken from https://au.linkedin.com/pub/katherine-woodthorpe/35/697/374. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly exists under a compatible licence and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

User:Rdozzz/sandbox may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
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 get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Vincent60030 (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi, thanks for message. I've had another look, and I'm satisfied that although there were resemblances to the LinkIn text, it was probably not enough to constitute copyright infringement. Having said that, I think there are issues you need to address before resubmitting.

Your use of bare urls is unhelpful, add a description using <ref>[url description]</ref> see Pamela C. Rasmussen to see what the refs shuld look like (although you don't have to use the fancy templates that are used there.
Paywalled refs, like The Australian and Financial Review are not going to help most readers, better to replace with a free-to-read source
independent verifiable sources should be just that. Sources that are not acceptable include sites affiliated to her, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what shey claims or interviewing her.
it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. The tone is hagiographic, and contains many claims that are unsourced, not stated in the supposed reference, inappropriately sourced or unverifiable. Examples include: an unusual career path for any man or woman... She has been cited in various media as one of Australia’s most influential people in innovation (just repeats another vague unsourced claim,)... ferocious networking skills... successful commercialization... is credited with successfully re-positioning private equity... growing and now successful businesses... assisting Australian technology companies to succeed in the US... — and so on
the article is seriously underlinked , eg China has an article, and some links are unclear eg CRC.
Speaking of which, the article wanders into a discussion of the achievements of CRC rather than her
neutral tone would be greatly appreciated— I don't understand this, surely it's your responsibility to write a neutral article?

I'll restore shortly Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Katherine Woodthorpe (August 11)

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

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:Katherine Woodthorpe and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
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 get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LaMona (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Katherine Woodthorpe concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Katherine Woodthorpe, 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) 01:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Katherine Woodthorpe

Hello, Rdozzz. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Katherine Woodthorpe".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation 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}} 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]