Help desk
< October 22	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 24 >

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

October 23

02:37:58, 23 October 2021 review of draft by 93.183.169.165

93.183.169.165 (talk · contribs)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Add WikiProject tags (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

93.183.169.165 (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't asked a question, but does it involve adding project tags? 331dot (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections and updates

09:08:17, 23 October 2021 review of draft by Fjoan

Fjoan (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Osmia Music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. I request help on this article, because I'm struggling with the "cite your sources using footnotes", to meet the minimum standard for the inline citations. I also add some few more references because those were the reasons why the article was declined for the moment. I read and documented my self in the footnotes and citations section, but I still can't figure it out. I put a lot of work on this article and documented my self for it and I really need straight help to get it done. Appreciate, many love. Joan

Fjoan (talk) 09:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fjoan I'm confused. I see sources in footnotes. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Alright, thank you Timtrent, so should I resubmit it again now ? In your opinion it's ok ? Waiting for your feedback and thank you so much buddy ! Appreciate Fjoan (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fjoan: It is not OK, and after skimming the article and some of the sources I doubt if it will ever be acceptable. Showing notability for producers is difficult. The draft has footnotes, but they are for the wrong things and to the wrong sources. I've commented at greater length on your talk page and on the Draft:Osmia Music. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Worldbruce for your detailed response, really appreciate, you helped me to understand more the process. I'm not friend or have any connection with him at all, I know him only from mass media in our country and decided to write about him for my journalism license and also to create something in online about him. Anyways, I see now the wider picture after your comments and I really appreciate your patience. I will pass this article for the moment then, and keep it in Draft mood till I see more reliable articles from him , something stronger to sustain his work, cause is pretty evident that only 2 or 3 press releases are legit for wiki policies and makes sense all. Again, thank you very much and have an amazing day. Fjoan (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:02:39, 23 October 2021 review of draft by 2006nishan178713

2006nishan178713 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Vartak (Project) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why isn't my article getting reviewed? I believe that it is properly referenced and neutral. My previous article got reviewed in just a day. Any updates from the Afc team would be appreciated. This is my article - Draft:Vartak (Project) Thanks

Partha Basak 13:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2006nishsn178713 As noted on your draft, "This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,894 pending submissions waiting for review." You may have gotten lucky with a prior draft getting a speedy review, but that is not routine. It is not a queue; drafts are reviewed in no particular order by volunteers. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:19:59, 23 October 2021 review of submission by Socratesart

Socratesart (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Erik Reel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to withdraw from this submission due to:

1. Repeated attempts at a shakedown by an agent who is a member of the wikipedia editing community claiming to be able to insure publication of this article for fees with implied threat of preventing its publication otherwise. These activities could only have been perpetuated by someone knowledgeable of the draft submission attempts and thus are inside the wikipedia editing community involved with this article. 2. Repeated false statements by some reviewers regarding status of publishers and venues cited in draft. 3. Insinuations by some commenters/reviewers that have no bearing in reality or fact.

I have no interest in participating in abusive or exploitative processes of this sort and want no further connection with this article or its processing. This is not a request for review of the submission.

Socratesart:talk 21:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Socratesart simply abandon the draft. But recognise that the attempted shakedown is a scam Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Socratesart As stated, what you describe is a scam perpetrated by third parties. Legitimate Wikipedia editors will not demand the payment of any fees for guaranteeing publication. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it was clearly a scam and I sincerely hope you are right about it not being a legitimate Wikipedia editor, but how could they even know about the draft if they were not a Wikipedia editor? I'll have to admit to being a bit disillusioned and confused. Also, how did an earlier [uncorrected] form of the draft get published on Wikitia if there wasn't someone inside Wikipedia involved? This Wikitia thing is a bit unnerving, too, as it published a form of the draft that was not yet ready or intended for publication, and now THAT version is out there in public! ugh Socratesart:talk 23:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I am abandoning the draft. Thank you all.Socratesart:talk 23:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Socratesart: What happened is that they were stalking your contributions history. All edits on Wikipedia are public knowledge, and nothing prevents someone from finding a draft and crossposting its content to Wiktia if they (1) know where to find it, such as through your contributions and (2) are in compliance with Wikipedia's licence. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Much appreciated.Socratesart:talk 17:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Socratesart It is perfectly usual for sites to "scrape" content from Wikipedia. It is allowed under the licensing. The thing to do is to be completely unconcerned about it. If you look when you submit any text here you allow this. As an example I see "By clicking "Reply", you agree to our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL" below the text I am entering now.

This means that we release any control of any text we place here, this message included.

If you decide to pick up the draft you are abandoning again at some future time it will be made available to you even if it is deleted.

I'd genuinely prefer you not to be disenchanted and simply to accept that you have been wise and not fallen for a scam. No-one can prevent any article from being published provided the article itself meets our rules Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your kind words and clarification. Good to know text still available. Was hoping someone would improve it!Socratesart:talk 20:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I like the idea of being completely unconcerned about any text once submitted. We do the best we can, then ta da off it goes ... Thanks.Socratesart:talk 01:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]