Help desk
< February 14	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 16 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

February 15

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bone Fish Ltd

I'd like some help with the article I'm creating based on facts about Bone Fish Ltd. The reviewer says my articl sounds more like an advert - please could someone tell me which particular parts sound like promotional material. That would be very helpful.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliebee29 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 15 February 2012

Please read WP:REFB how to cite correctly. Now following a few examples which has to be cited:

"Bone Fish Ltd was the first ever white label dating platform provider available on the internet"

"The company maintains one of the strongest online affiliate programmes"

"has helped transform the dating sector into a multi-million-pound-a-year industry."

"Bone Fish Ltd offers 24 hour customer service" - which company isn't offering such a service?

The full "Methodology" section is somehow useless/advertising in my eyes...

The main problem is really that you don't added any inline references and that you included mostly press releases and directories and forums which are all primary sources or not reliable. Regards, mabdul 11:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Creation

Good Morning,

I have submitted this article for approval seven times now..

On the last request, it was denied do to lack of sources. I have spoke to a couple of reps in the "live chat help" and they said the sources were fine but the content was as advertisement. I have sense re-worded and took out a LOT of content. So, what is it needing now?

Thank you, -Adam

I apologize, I forgot to add the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Knight_Rifles

Thank you, -Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.147.132.66 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 15 February 2012‎

OK, let me explain the valid the newest decline reason:

Ref #1: primary source

Ref #2: a good ref (not really sure)

Ref #3: also a good ref (as it seems)

Ref #4: dead end

Ref #5: primary source

Ref #6: primary source

So far this isn't really enough: e.g. the full section 'The Knight Story' has a) only one ref and do this ref also support: "It began in a shop of a gunsmith known for miles around as a master craftsman, an inventor and a huntsman who had stalked the field for decades."? Regards, mabdul 14:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking....I'll comment here in just a minute. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 15:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advertish content removed, a source or two added, and the article created. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 15:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Linux DM Multipath

I need help understanding what it is I'm lacking concerning references in my submission. I was dinged for "Lacks independent references" and "WP:NOTMANUAL", and have since added more references and taken out content that might be construed as a manual, and yet on my second submission the reviewer stated "Issues not adequately addressed from last decline". Using other entries as a guide [Device_Mapper], I'm not sure what is lacking or is to much like a manual for my entry. If this material is not suitable for Wikipedia, would it be suitable for WikiBooks? If so, what steps I do I take to move it over to WikiBooks? I have started a page there, but can't figure out how to submit it to be reviewed. Here is that link -- http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User_talk:3itrekker. Thank you for your help. I really hope that something about Linux DM Multipath can be found on either Wikipedia or WikiBooks very soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3itrekker (talk • contribs) 14:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up and created the article. Good job :) Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 16:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Ali_Asghar_Khan_(Pakistani_politician)

I had submitted an article Ali Aghar Khan (pakistani Politician) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Ali_Asghar_Khan_(Pakistani_politician) now there are four banners (messages) as its my first article please let me know what does it mean. Has this article been approved ?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnskhan (talk • contribs) 18:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the confusion, but it has not. Honestly, I have no idea what happened, but your submssion looks good so I'm going to accept it and clean it up. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 18:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need help understanding how to correct the article. I don't understand the objection of the reviewer

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Pro-Vas_Occlusion

I have now recieved the same objection of "irrelevance" twice. I thought I had addressed the issues sufficiently for those who needed the relevance of effective contraception explained. However, the article was rejected again for irrelevance.

I hope that no one would argure that contraception is not a relevant topic. The specific relevance of this new approach to vasectomy is based on the fact that existing methods of vasectomy have been shown to be sub-optimal.

To me its obvious that the topic is of relevance... I just don't get why someone would think it isn't.

Please clarify what the reviewers are looking for from me and I will be happy to add the necessary content, etc. to resolve their concern.

Regards, Dave Kawika (talk)dbattlesKawika (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

It's not that the topic is irrelevant, but you're trying to prove the wrong thing here. That there is a need for "effective contraception" is not what you need to explain. Your first paragraph and five references really aren't needed - notability isn't achieved by showing that there's a problem, and that your product is the solution, but that the product has been covered in reliable source. In fact, your submission would actually benefit if you removed the "background" and much of the "Significance of Pro-Vas Occlusion" section just focused on the Pro-Vas technique. Wikipedia doesn't care if you have the greatest product out there, or the worst one as long as its covered by reliable, independent sources. That's why Someguy1221 made the comment he did. You've been focusing on why Pro-Vas Occlusion is needed. That's not relevant. Just show us that it has been covered in the media etc; that's relevance to us.

You've got some good sources in there, but you need more independent ones. Take this one for example. It's exactly what you need (discussion of the company/product)... except that it's a press release. Hope this helps a bit. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 19:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old Stone Chimney entry

I made edits to the entry yesterday, and am uncertain if it's in the pipeline for a new review before going live. I'm new to this, but hope to do more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisjpbflo (talk • contribs) 19:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed in the queue. :) It should be reviewed within a day or two, and if declined you can always resubmit - take as much time doing so as you wish. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 19:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

neutered dog

Can a neutered dog get a female dog pregnant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.26.136 (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not if properly done. See Neutering, and note that our reference desk is probably a better place to ask these types of questions. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 20:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]