Help desk
< September 19	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 21 >

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.

September 20

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Revenue Based Financing Re-review

Hello,

I was hoping I could get some feedback on the recent updates to my revenue based financing page. This is a key up and coming topic in the financing world and I'd like to make sure it gets published soon. I've added the new sources requested by the individual who initially declined my submission, and now I seem to be at the back of the review queue. Is there anything I can do to accelerate?

Thanks! nick Nmacey (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's nothing you can do to accelerate the next review. There's a massive backlog of unreviewed submissions, and many of them are re-submissions. Please be patient. Besides, Wikipedia is not a newspaper; there's no need to have the article up now instead of in two weeks (or two months).

In the meantime you might want to improve the references. Quite a few of your sources seem to be blogs or company websites without any indication of editorial oversight or a reputation for fact-checking; such sources are not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Huon (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Umberto Colombo

I submitted a new article, came back submission declined, I would like to address the editor's concerns and resubmit... but I can't find them (duh). Where do I look? --Winterskunk (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer's concern is part of the decline message on the draft: "Thanks for your efforts but the article needs additional sources to establish verification." Wikipedia articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the article's subject, both to establish the subject's notability and to allow our readers to verify the article's content. For all I can tell, the draft's lone source doesn't even confirm all the awards it's cited for, and it says nothing else about Colombo (such as why he was honored in the first place). My suggestion would be to look for newspaper coverage or maybe for scholarly papers discussing Colombo's work. Huon (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

elaine webb

ho do i get hold of user manual for janome sewing machine model jb 1410 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.146.86.240 (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for help on articles submitted through the Articles for Creation process. You may have more success trying the reference desk or searching the web instead. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Clay Mathile

I have been working on submitting an article, Articles for creation/Clay Mathile, since May. The process is defeating me. My latest attempt is awaiting review. My question is, why are things that I have addressed and tested in the sandbox showing up in red under my submission as though they are still wrong. When tested in the sandbox those items appeared to have been correctly addressed. (Peachyjust (talk) 09:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC))peachyjust(Peachyjust (talk) 09:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The errors you are seeing is because the web references don't have a title associated with them. I've fixed up a couple to give you an idea of what's needed. One of the problems I see at the moment is a lot of references, such as the Mathile Family Foundation and the Mathile Institute are primary sources, and some of them are dead links. However, that is not necessarily a reason to decline an article. Fundamentally, we decline articles because the subject cannot be verified as being notable.

In particular, I think these comments are incorrect : "article needs to be wikified before accepting" - it doesn't. "There are significant sections of this article which are unreferenced." Doesn't matter - as long as there enough references to verify the subject is notable, it can be passed.

My gut feeling, however, is that the book reference, the Ohio Northern University reference and the Forbes article, are sufficient to sustain notability. I also assume that being a former CEO of a major company (I used to feed my cats Iams regularly, though like 8 out of 10 I switched to Whiskas) suggests more references are likely to be available.

I am passing the article now, though be warned it will have lots of cleanup tags. (If anyone disagrees, feel free to send it to AfD and pass me a trout in the process.) --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Five low-hanging fruits for reviewers (and a feature suggestion)

I was perusing for fun the list of pending articles; if someone is looking for quickies, enjoy. Mostly it's declined articles that have been resubmitted verbatim or with minor changes unrelated to the decline, which is easily checked from the compressed history; surely they could be automatically re-declined on the same grounds?

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wabi Collection - one-paragraph spam with its own homepage as source, declined on 3 september as unsourced: author basically added the word "Canadian" and resubmitted the same unsourced paragraph,[1] now that's encyclopedic.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Koyakatsi - non-notable upcoming film, declined on 5 September: author basically deleted his extensive plot section then resubmitted the same non-notable stuff,[2] so now that's okay.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Taming The Restless Mind - non-notable self-help book submitted by its own author, rejected in August but relentlessy resubmitted: since rejection, all he added[3] are rubbish sources: worldcat.org, alibris.com, books.google.com, etc. (In addition to the previous great sources like Goodreads.) "In Taming The Restless Mind many winning tricks are highlighted to help readers", and I suppose #1 is to never take no for an answer?

A bit different:

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amethyst Lady of Gothicness - unsourced autobio of a non-notable self-confessed "Unsigned Artist": it's been padded with extensive copy-pastes from wiki articles such as Asperger syndrome and Dysgraphia, creating a serious-looking but unrelated "References" section.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bolano (disambiguation) - much quicker and easier to process than an article. (Yes, that's my baby.)

(Oh, I also encountered the lame hoax Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jacques Boules de Fer and tagged it as such, prompting its decline. "France´s largest collection of white flags", still.)

Last but not least, a feature suggestion: I was thinking maybe it could help your backlog if proposed disambiguation pages were listed at "Category:Pending AfC submissions" under "D" instead of "P" with all the others? (Or listed also into a special subcategory?) Because it'd be an easy source of low-hanging fruits... 62.147.24.55 (talk) 11:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should have been discussed on the reviewer page rather than here, but from previous discussions I don't think there's anything stopping you from putting {{db-g11}} (for example) on an article sitting in AfC if you believe it is totally unsalvageable and the submitter gives every impression of being more interested on self-promotion than building an encyclopaedia. However, if somebody is making a genuine effort to learn Wikipedia policies and just keeps getting confused or not quite understanding how to get an article passed, leave them be. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nassim Haramein

It has come to public attention that Wikipedia is participating in the suppression of this scientist's work and proposals to the scientific community and world. If this is indeed the policy and practice of Wikipedia, I must begin my protest by stating here my observations of the situation.

The work presented by Nassim Haramein comes into direct conflict with the Standard Model of the atomic/subatomic scale and the work of thousands of physicists over recent decades. It calls into question the validity of an entire sector of our global scientific focus and budget. In other words it threatens many important persons livelihood and would call for an immediate restructuring of many departments within the research institutions of the world. I get it. And so does anyone who can view such events with detachment and understanding.

The socioeconomic deterioration occurring globally offers an impetus for all persons involved to choose differently than our predecessors in this regard. Rather than the predicted decade or two of resistance while others secretly flesh out the supporting proof to integrate the unification theory that will arise from Nassim's work into mainstream thought and perspective, why not embrace it immediately? We do not have time to behave like children when the state of our world is as it is.

Wikipedia is an incredible presence in today's world. Your influence on public opinion is significant. My only question to you is: from where and whom does the pressure to suppress this body of work come? Whom do you serve? And how should we go about dismantling any such agency that deems itself capable of determining the direction of our future technology and capacity? For it is these very agencies that are in place to hold society to the path. The individuals within them are no more capable of preventing the herd from running over the cliff than anybody else.

Truth is the only option that offers promise. The continuation of Deception will only hold us to the rut we are in. We NEED this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.171.66 (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nassim Haramein 2. Wikipedia's standard is verifiability, not truth. That draft cites not a single reliable source that is independent of Haramein, which raises problems of both verifiability and notability. In fact, an article on Haramein once existed and was deleted because of the lack of reliable secondary sources. In summary, Wikipedia isn't part of a vast conspiracy to keep Haramein from achieving success; in order to become the subject of a Wikipedia article he must already be notable. Huon (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Overseas Research Scholarship

I created an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Overseas Research Scholarship almost a week ago, but the grey box saying "Article not currently submitted for review." is still there. Am I supposed to delete the box manually? I thought a bot was supposed to tidy it up.

Thanks

A bot is supposed to tidy it up; apparently the current backlog is too great for the bot to catch up. You can delete that box manually or you can just ignore it; that box doesn't keep your draft from being reviewed. Huon (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]