Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 September 4
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < September 3 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | September 5 > |
| 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 4
[edit]Review of User:Shellyricanati/sandbox
[edit]Hi, I have just submitted a page to reviewed but it was submitted with the wrong title. How do I correct the title? Thanks, Shelly My article is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/User:Shellyricanati/sandbox -- Shellyricanati (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I moved this to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Free Ride Games. I then reviewed it, and decliend it. It needs a total rewrite, as it stands it is pure advertising. DES (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I do not understand why this article submission was declined.Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/William E. Ingram, Jr. The sources that are used are official government sources. There are many articles about General Officers just like this one, citing almost identical official government sources.
Why are these government sources not creditable enough? Okanos (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okanos (talk • contribs) 13:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Qick question:
I am trying to edit a page on Justin Matthew, who is one of the emerging movers and shakers regarding changes in Internet entertainment.
there have been edits done that removed a large part of the article, but also added additional references, which are probably not all 'good'.
then the page was reviewed, the major changes, including taking down the picture in the infobox, seem to have been done before the review.
Is it possible to protect a page through the review process from edits other than author and reviewer, so I can get it right once, then leave it to the dogs to shred.... ;-) ?
the changes had not been commented on the talk page at all either.
... I did also get no notification by the reviewer at all, does the system not do that automatically?
Mike
Mike (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- The submisison was created by User:Jmhhacker who was duly notified on User talk:Jmhhacker of the review. Are you the same person as User:Jmhhacker?
- The only edit made since your last edit to the draft was purely technical, changing the display size of the picture, and adjusting the AFC template. This was by User:Dcshank who I believe is a frequent AfC reviewer. Prior to that was a series of 8 edits by you, and prior to that was the reviewer declining the draft as it then stood. Prior to the review there were 5 edits. All of them were minor formatting changes, none of them "removed a large part of the article" -- in fact I don't see any edit which removed a single word of text. here is the initial draft, here is the version just before the review, and here is the version curent as I write. Check them out and i don't think you will find any significant changes in wording, much less "edits done that removed a large part of the article". If you had another draft or additional text, it was never saved to be part of this draft. I have looked through every version in the history.
- All that said, it is common for AfC volunteers or other editors to edit drafts waiting at AfC, with the intent of improving them, fixing formatting issues that new editors will not know about, helping articles conform to wikipedia policies and standards, and even adding information they find through their own search for sources. This is perfectly normal. Once you post something to wikipedia, even a draft article, you are giving anyone and everyone permission to edit it in any way that seems good to them, provided that edits are made with the good-faith intent of improving the article or the project ad a whole. If there is a specific edit or group of edits you object to, describe it/them in as much detail here as you can, or better yet link to a diff that shows the changes you object to. (See Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide for more on how to link to a diff.)
- It is not possible to limit editing to you and a single reviewer, and it is against the normal process to limit editing at all. If there is a high amount of vandalism or edit warring there are protective measures that could be taken, but I do not see even one vandal edit here, nor any edit warring.
- As to the article itself, it is currently "written like an advertisement" and if it were moved to the main article space in its current form, it would be deleted promptly. Phrases like " the transformation of YouTube from a mere jokes and funny videos collection into a player in the audiovisual entertainment world." "achieved high award levels within the industry (top producer, Million dollar producer)." "consults struggling companies to regain profitability" and others are pure marketing-PR-speak, and have no place in a wikipedia article. The article need a total rewrite to be acceptable. I haven't reviewed the sources to check on notability, but even assuming there is no problem there, the tone and style must be changed.
- Oh as to the picture, I looked at the commons page where it has been uploaded. The source info listed there is incomplete, and is inconsistent with the claimed license. I have placed a tag noting these facts, and unless the uploader or someone else fixes these problems, the picture will be deleted from commons after a few days.
- I hope this is helpful. If you have further questions or comments feel free to make them here or to post to my talk page. Happy editing. DES (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I did find it, the page had been moved into the sandbox of a jmhhacker account on the 28th and from there back into AfC. Since then there had been two versions: one that had passed through the jmhhacker sandbox and was edited there, and the one that I had posted. Somehow they merged.
No, I am not jmhhacker, that's Justin Matthew's twitter name. Looking at the photo which was not one I have at all, the origin of this account may have been his brother. I won't bother.
Now this response of yours looks much better than the totally out of line one that goes to wikequette assistance. And thanks for the update with the picture, I did get no notification there either... will check into that. The pictures are checked with Justin Matthew, he emailed that he owns them and that I may use them. They are all over the net anyways. I won't do anything with it until I find out what happened there, you might have ways to find out about that jmhhacker account that was there for a short time at least. Why don't you delete all versions of the page that are in the system, I have my original as a subpage of my user page and can rewrite and re-submit later.