Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Hi there. You might not understand what Wikipedia means by "notable". Please have a read of Wikipedia:Notability (people) which sets out the criteria for living people to pass the Wikipedia notability threshold. In essence: you needed to show significant coverage in third-party reliable secondary sources that were independent of Cayden.
In any case, your article draft has been rejected and therefore won't be considered further.
Hope that helps, Qcne(talk) 09:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
05:27, 16 July 2023 review of submission by Brek1234567
My article was declined because of a lack of inline citations, but I have cited sources on it, and i've read the guide on inline citations and don't understand the difference between what I did and what I am expected to do. I could really use some help...
Hello, sections such as Personal Life and Elazari's birth date lack inline citations. In addition, there are stray sentences that does not seem to be supported by any inline citations. Greenman may be referring to those sections. Catalk to me! 12:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
11:35, 16 July 2023 review of submission by IndiaWriter2
I want to publish this article in wikipedia. But I cannot do that, always there is a problem to publish the article. The article always been rejected. Please guide me. Thank You IndiaWriter2 (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nepali Prerit: the draft is completely unreferenced with no evidence of notability, and also written in a non-neutral manner. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a promotional or soapboxing platform. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
16:07, 16 July 2023 review of submission by 107.77.198.34
Is there any ref of the development of PWND that I would know of? Cause so far, I found one around Vanossgaming and he did played the game before it got shut down. 107.77.198.34 (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're asking, but just to say that this draft has been rejected and will not be considered again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found a ref about an exclusive skin for Vanoss in the game and I’m trying to find some sites and sources about the development of Skydance’s game PWND. 107.77.198.34 (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't sound, based on that description, like something that would have much of an impact on notability, and in any case one source isn't enough. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I’m trying to find more sources but there’s not enough I can find. I was hopping to get some advice from this since it told me to. 107.77.198.34 (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, now I get your original question – you're asking if we have any sources for this draft? No, we don't, and that's not really how it works; the onus is on the article author(s) to come up with the necessary sources. That said, I suppose you can always ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I’ll ask them for help. 64.56.17.172 (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
16:38, 16 July 2023 review of submission by Black Dragon024
i am assuming the draft was declined because the person is not famous enough for a wiki so there would be no point in continuing to editing and expanding the draft right? Black Dragon024 (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Dragon024: it was declined because there is no evidence that the person in question is notable, as the sources are pretty much useless. This is kind of similar to your "not famous enough", although 'fame' isn't really something we deal in here at Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
21:03, 16 July 2023 review of submission by DoctorJaswantPatil
I am writing about me. Not about any company, you will give me any suggestion that this article of mine can be posted in Wikipedia DoctorJaswantPatil (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your article has been rejected, so it will not be considered further. Writing autobiographies are strongly discouraged, and if you are worthy of an article one will be made by someone else eventually. Karnataka (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
21:29, 16 July 2023 review of submission by Readerx nk
To enable proper editing of pages and more future contributions to wikipedia Readerx nk (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. This does not prevent you from editing existing articles or creating drafts about different topics, but please learn more about Wikipedia first, perhaps by reading Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
July 17
00:05, 17 July 2023 review of submission by 2A02:6B62:D835:0:8053:29E4:70DD:9422
Thanks for reviewing the submission. Reasons for Wikipedia dealing it as is are understood. A redraft edited down to even more encyclopaedic content and even more neutral content will be attempted. However this won't get round the problem that I am indeed the film's director! No clumsy attempt at self promotion being made here, and any of us connected with the film will encounter the same issue of not being seen as impartial - so we decided might as well be the director doing it... I was at pains to try to ensure neutrality (obviously not enough yet) and to make only the baldest reference to myself at the end (you do advise though to make clear any connection?).
1) Should we take it that this article will never likely achieve Wiki publication if written by me - in any version?
2) Can you perhaps indicate if the citations looked to be of suitable number, valid and viewed as reliable sources?
3) Would it be better to try and somehow find an external submitter/editor to present this for Wiki inclusion?
4) I would hope the draft did at least make clear this is essentially a very genuine archival and history driven project, not a commercial endeavour seeking to generate revenue, and that the event itself most certainly has significant historical importance in UK/European LGBT+ history and is as yet underdocumented. That is the primary reason for trying to submit to Wiki.
Would be extremely grateful for any advice. Submitting valid usable content to Wikipedia is not at all an easy task - neither should it be.
Finding someone to submit it for you would simply transfer the COI to that person. Articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject, who take note of coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources and choose on their own to write about it. You don't have to have a commercial purpose or be generating revenue to be promoting something.
Wikipedia is not the first place to write about a topic, it is the last. We don't lead, we follow, in terms of covering a topic. This film needs to be documented elsewhere first, so that we have sources to summarize. 331dot (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
00:58, 17 July 2023 review of submission by Jjcoste2
I am about to edit a rejected page.
There will be multiple edits. Should I do each one separately, or do the whole page and then submit it? Does each edit become a post? Is posting different than publishing? Jjcoste2 (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jjcoste2: this draft has been only declined, not rejected, so you're welcome to edit it further. Whether you do all your edits in one go or in stages doesn't matter, although you may find the former easier and safer; just remember to leave edit notes with each edit, so that you and others can later see what has been done.
Each time you click on the 'publish changes' button, it saves the latest version of the draft, with each intermediate version remaining accessible in the edit history. 'Publishing' in this context simply means saving the draft, and making your changes available to others looking at that draft. This is different from publishing the article into the actual encyclopaedia (when it becomes available for public consumption and indexing by search engines, etc.), which is what happens once your draft has been accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you DoubleGrazing. So, if I edit the draft (30+edits) in one go, would I need to number each edit or just describe each in a sentence? Jjcoste2 (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also: Since I am attempting to do these edits in "visual", when I click on the edit button I do not see a box for leaving notes as I do if I see the draft in "source". Where would I put the notes in the "visual" mode? Jjcoste2 (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does something like this work?
Reared in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Snyder was encouraged as a young child to pursue art. Additionally, he was inspired by his Central High School art instructor Frederick Gill’s enthusiastic love for spontaneity. {edit #1, removed (1) -removing all references that are not exclusively for Dan Snyder artist } Opting Jjcoste2 (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have competed an edit, but when I hit the publish button I get this message:
Something went wrong
⧼No stashed content found for 1140753667/e08e44c8-1f5a-11ee-8c71-b04f13be4f10⧽
Hi there, noting that there's a gap of articles on women in science, particularly Australian women, I've pulled together this draft on an Australian behavioural scientist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Jemma_B_King
Have worked hard at providing reliable sources, but as it's my first go of a BLP in the science/academia category, so would really appreciate it if someone could point out any further improvements I could make.
Hi @MatthewDalhousie: we don't provide 'pre-reviews'; the draft has been submitted and will be reviewed properly when a reviewer happens to pick it up. It will come down to whether the sources cited are sufficient to establish WP:GNG notability, given that there doesn't seem to be anything to make this person WP:NPROF notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying the process @DoubleGrazing - haven't done the official submission approach before. Yes, I believe the subject has General Notability given the number of secondary sources, from general news article etc. Thanks for setting that out. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
08:22:19, 17 July 2023 review of draft by Lkitrossky
Hi! I followed remarks by the reviewer and add sources for biographic facts and also reviews of the book recently published by Masha Karp.
The reviewer is not well now and recommended to ask help. Is the draft good enough now to release it into the main space? What to improve further?
The positive reviews include Wall Street Journal and NY University library. Thanks a lot,
Lkitrossky We don't really do pre-review reviews here. If you would like a review, please submit it again. If you are confident that your draft would survive a hypothetical Articles for Deletion discussion and you have no conflict of interest with the topic, you are free to place the draft in the mainspace yourself, though it is not recommended unless you have experience in having other drafts accepted. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason was left by the reviewer at the top of the draft. Do you have more specific questions about it? Your draft is completely unsourced. Any article about you must summarize what independent reliable sources choose to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please note that writing about yourself is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
16:31:46, 17 July 2023 review of draft by TempusCommunications
Hello. I submitted an article for creation, but I could not figure out how to change the page name from Tempus Communications (the account name) to Tempus (the desired page name). Please let me know how to ensure if the page is approved, it appears as just "Tempus"? Thank you!
@TempusCommunications: firstly, you have been blocked, so unless you manage to resolve that, you won't be editing any further.
Secondly, you have an obvious conflict of interest (COI), which you must disclose if you manage to get yourself unblocked.
Thirdly, and in answer (sort of) to you question, I would have moved this draft to Draft:Tempus (company), but there already exists a draft at that name. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you are able to approve the draft page, please approve it. I have done lot of research to write about this organisation of Prerna Parivar Welfare Foundation. Mb.mts (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the draft and declined it. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why you have declined the page Mb.mts (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mb.mts, did you read the note that @Drmies left on the draft? This is still a promotional piece, and lacks secondary sources to prove notability. It needs a complete rewrite, and proper sourcingQcne(talk) 18:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mb.mts: it was declined for the reason given in the decline notice; to wit, apparent lack of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mb.mts I previously informed you that the draft needed a fundamental rewriting, to summarize what independent reliable sources choose to say about your organization and what makes it notable- not merely document its activities and existence. You may be too close to your organization to do this. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
18:25:49, 17 July 2023 review of draft by 2603:8080:1001:1AA8:9170:BADD:46A2:A21
Hello! I am new to wikipedia and am wondering if there are any formatting errors in this draft that I can address as this is waiting for review. Thank you for your time!
How do I use sources if I am just sharing an opinion Jomamma67 (talk) 03:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jomamma67 If you are just sharing an opinion then it doesn't belong as a Wikipedia article. That isn't what Wikipedia is for.Naraht (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
04:30, 18 July 2023 review of submission by 115.64.27.34
They are asking for projects and awards to be referenced. Do I need to reference every single one - so each award to the AIA for example or the Inde 115.64.27.34 (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Every claim in an article needs to be referenced. Catalk to me! 05:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
06:01, 18 July 2023 review of submission by Showkath
Hi I need hlp wit this article, about a tamil poet in India. i have tried many drafts with citations and reliable references. Not getting accepted. i dont know what im not getting right here.
please help.
You offer no sources with significant coverage of this person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional or more broadly a notable person. We need sources that discuss the person in depth and describe what they see as important/significant/influential about this person. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
08:29, 18 July 2023 review of submission by Yaolongchao
I hope this email finds you well. I am reaching out to inquire about the process of successfully submitting a Wikipedia article for TeraBox, a cloud storage service. We have made several attempts to create an English-language Wikipedia page for TeraBox, but unfortunately, it has not been approved thus far. The reason provided was that the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
We understand the importance of demonstrating notability and have taken various measures to support our submission. We have included references from reputable sources such as our official website, English-language publications, third-party media reviews, and PR press releases. These references wrote about TeraBox's features. References as below:
Given these efforts, we would greatly appreciate your guidance on how we can enhance our submission to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. We are committed to providing accurate and reliable information about TeraBox to the Wikipedia community and its readers.
If there are any specific requirements or suggestions you can provide to help us improve the content or references in our submission, we would be more than happy to address them accordingly. We are open to any constructive feedback that can help us meet the necessary criteria for inclusion.
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter, and we look forward to your guidance and support in successfully submitting the TeraBox Wikipedia article. Please let us know if there is any additional information or documentation that would be helpful for our submission.
(I'm not an administrator, but I'll respond while waiting for one...)
@Yaolongchao: the sources you mention are simply insufficient for establishing notability per WP:GNG. We need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. With the possible exception of the TechRadar piece, none of the sources cited meets this standard. In any case, this draft has been rejected, and will not therefore be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that your draft article was rejected which means it will not be considered further: there is nothing you can do.
The sources you provided in your draft were inappropriate: "reputable sources such as our official website... and PR press releases" these do not count towards notability. Any references should have been created by reliable secondary publications that were independent of TeraBox: so cannot be interviews, reviews from app stores, PR pieces, or from your own website.
- Reliable: Strong, reliable sources that are published by reputable institutions, that offer analysis or interpretation.
- Independent: Independent of the subject, for example not self-published or from the subject's own website.
- Show significant coverage: Been discussed in detail in the sources you find. The sources should provide in-depth information or analysis about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
- From multiple places: Be from at least three separate reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss your subject.
TeraBox cannot have a Wikipedia article if the above cannot be met. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for any type of self-promotion or advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: not an advertising platform, directory, or a way to promote a subject.
Hope that helps, Qcne(talk) 08:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should also mention, @Yaolongchao, that your use of the word We implies your user account might be shared by multiple people? Please be aware that this is against the Wikipedia Terms of Service, see: Wikipedia:NOSHARING. Qcne(talk) 08:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
09:43:56, 18 July 2023 review of draft by StrongALPHA
You don't ask a question, but you have submitted the draft. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I just an overall review of what I can to do in order to get it approved, what can you suggest, the good and bad aspects of the article? StrongALPHA (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@StrongALPHA: please be patient; you will get feedback when the draft is reviewed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
10:26, 18 July 2023 review of submission by Mahendra Rasiklal Luniya
I need help in publishing the page, there are claims which are leading to this article being rejected. I want to know how I can improve this and get the article live. Mahendra Rasiklal Luniya (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahendra Rasiklal Luniya: you shouldn't be writing about yourself, see WP:AUTOBIO. In any case, we're not interested in what you have to say about yourself, but what reliable and independent secondary sources have said. If you wish to tell the world about yourself, try the likes of LinkedIn. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Request on 12:37:24, 18 July 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Erica2687
Hi! I would like to have my draft article "Jeff Fynn-Paul" reviewed again. It was rejected once, some months ago, but I have since re-edited it based on the suggestions of the reviewer, and have been waiting for it to be reviewed ever since, for over a month. I would greatly appreciate some tips on how to make sure it gets checked and hopefully submitted soon.
Hi @Erica2687: your draft was only declined, not rejected, so you're welcome to resubmit it for another review. There is no way of expediting this, however, as drafts are not reviewed in any particular order. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Large parts of the draft are not referenced. Every single claim about a living person should be cited to a reliable publised source, and most of them to a sources wholly independent of the subject. ColinFine (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
19:35, 18 July 2023 review of submission by Zakariahossain27
how could i create a biography in wikipedia Zakariahossain27 (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
19:39, 18 July 2023 review of submission by Ceejtheday
Hi! Wiki newbie here. Am I to understand correctly that my client cannot have a Wikipedia entry because she hasn't had any publications publish an article about her, specifically? If she did provide one, would the article become eligible? Thank you for the clarification.
Ceejtheday (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The personal life section is completely unsourced. If information cannot be cited to a sources, it cannot be on Wikipedia. Any article about your client must primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about her, showing how she meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. There needs to be independent sources that chose on their own to give your client significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
21:26, 18 July 2023 review of submission by Muqadas Delawarzai
This is the first Wikipedia about Pamir Kakar and he don't have other links that include Pamir Kakar name. Muqadas Delawarzai (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a subject is not written about in independent reliable sources, that subject does not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
July 19
editing a declined draft
I have competed an edit for my draft Dan Snyder (artist), but when I hit the publish button I get this message:
Something went wrong
⧼No stashed content found for 1140753667/e08e44c8-1f5a-11ee-8c71-b04f13be4f10⧽
My article was not verified. please help me Kumudpantt (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kumudpantt: you need to be more specific, what sort of help do you want? Your draft was declined for lack of apparent notability. Also, if you haven't yet read WP:AUTOBIO for all the reasons why you shouldn't be writing about yourself, please do so now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
11:56, 19 July 2023 review of submission by Anavean
Hi, thank you for your comments...you mentioned that the article is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, but Armeconombank is one of the largest banks in Armenia, and since the article has its Armenian version, we want to have it in English as well. Please help us. What should I do even when all the reliable sources are noted? Anavean (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Anavean: if the company doesn't meet our notability standard, the draft cannot be accepted. Neither being "one of the largest banks in Armenia", nor having an article in the Armenian language version of Wikipedia, matters in the slightest.
BTW, who is "we" and "us"? Wikipedia user accounts are strictly for one person's use only.
And what is your relationship with this bank? I will post a message on your user talk page with instructions for managing a conflict of interest. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
11:57, 19 July 2023 review of submission by PawanSaunya
The draft has been declined twice. The first time it was noted that the majority of references were from the company's own site, which we then changed to make sure that they came from a range of independent sources.
However the second time it was declined it has still said there is an issue with the references, although I cannot tell what this is. The editor said that it reads more like an advertisement, and we wanted to know which bits in particular sound promotional and can be changed.
Wikipedia is not a place to document the existence of a company and tell what it does. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Interviews, press releases, brief mentions, announcements of the routine business activities of the company, and other primary sources do not establish notability. Most of the sources you offer seem to be interviews or product announcements. I gather the claim to notability is that the company has a unique business strategy(manufacturing speakers out of recycled materials); if so, the article should only summarize independent reliable sources that describe this. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
13:34, 19 July 2023 review of submission by V.B.Speranza
The draft was rejected, meaning that it won't be considered further. As noted on the draft, "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." If something has fundamentally changed since the rejection, the first step is to attempt to appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
15:04, 19 July 2023 review of submission by Obelista
Hi, How best to add authority verifications for scientists such as ORCID and other recognized authorities that are external to Wikipedia? Thanks, Obelista (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
editing a draft Dan Snyder (artist)
July 19th I submitted:
I have competed an edit for my draft Dan Snyder (artist), but when I hit the publish button I get this message:
Something went wrong
⧼No stashed content found for 1140753667/e08e44c8-1f5a-11ee-8c71-b04f13be4f10⧽
How can I proceed?
A member interfaced with me and now I have lost my edit and my ability to see and use the visual editor.
Can I retrieve the Visual Editor ? Jjcoste2 (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
July 20
11:00, 20 July 2023 review of submission by 89.216.142.177
Well, since you ask so nicely... my advice is to drop this subject and find something else to write about. This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
12:36, 20 July 2023 review of submission by 31.146.234.210
I would like to link this draft article to already existing German version. 31.146.234.210 (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The interlanguage links can only be added once the draft has been accepted, as they link published articles only. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My recent submission for a new page was rejected for using Ancestry.com as a reference for census data. However, when I go to the National Archives page titled "Search Census Records Online and Other Resources" at https://www.archives.gov/research/census/online-resources, it refers me to Ancestry.com, FamilySearch.org or Fold3.com. And for UK records at https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/census-records/#4-where-to-access-and-how-to-search-the-censuses it says that the on-line versions of their data is provided by Ancestry.com and Findmypast.co.uk. These sites provide scanned copies of the original documents and I have satisfied myself that, while the transcribed data is not 100% correct, it is accurate enough for providing a presentation of where the surname Flew existed in history. I have also researched the original documents and realize that the transcription contains flaws (no pun intended). However, I have limited my data to Flew records only with some few exceptions where I know that they names were wrongly transcribed because the were in fact my ancestors.
If I cannot use the Census' recommended data source, what source is acceptable?
@Gflew: there may indeed be some reliable data on Ancestry.com, but that doesn't get around the fact that it is a primary source, and largely user-generated, and as such not considered reliable (see WP:ANCESTRY). The other sources cited in your draft, incidentally, aren't much better.
You can find information about what constitutes a reliable source at WP:RS, and can check specific sources at WP:RSP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my total confusion. After reading the definition of secondary source, it would appear to me that the Census data presented by Ancestry.com is at least one step removed from the event of the taking and analyzing of the data by the US government. And it contains both interpretation in the transcription of the data to digital format as well as analysis in the process. And the transcribed data is subject to scrutiny by others. I have, in fact, reported corrections to data based on my knowledge of my family history. And at Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#Ancestry.com you state that Ancestry data is Sometimes acceptable as an external link or reliable source. It states that "Official documents...from reliable sources [in this case, the US Census] can be used provided the restrictions discussed in WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY are obeyed". Specifically, point 3 under Primary sources referring to "descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source" is applicable to my analysis and presentation of the data. So while your policy may be that Ancestry.com is generally considered unreliable, you recognize that there are specific areas where the data is reliable. If you are not familiar with the catalog of census data in Ancestry.com, perhaps you should consult someone who is. If you are familiar with it, I would be glad to discuss the efficacy of the transcription of the data by Ancestry vs that of the National Archives. Gflew (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gflew: okay, I will happily leave this for someone else to deal with. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
19:41, 20 July 2023 review of submission by Premalatharaju
I donot understand the reason for decline Premalatharaju (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What specifically about it do you not understand? I will note that you need to place references in line with the information that they support, see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
22:28, 20 July 2023 review of submission by Jjcoste2
Editing on "source", under the category of External Links, I cannot get his website to appear as a link.
Is using a persons website not allowed anymore, or do I have another issue? Jjcoste2 (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
July 21
00:32, 21 July 2023 review of submission by Jjcoste2
I submitted an article draft for Jonathan Blum back in May but am unsure if I have properly submitted it for Wikipedia to review my updated changes and accept my work. If you are reading this, can you please confirm on my end that you can at least see my submission article for Jonathan Blum as I am unsure if anything it being reviewed. Eocorbet (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to know more to improve about myself Why About us got Rejected. Help me to get to know the things in order to improve and live it Singh Pankaj7230 (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Singh Pankaj7230: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media or blogging platform where you can tell the world about yourself. Every topic must meet our notability standards. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then I want to create my Profile So, that I will write some about Mathematics tricks and problem. Then How will I able to do so? Singh Pankaj7230 (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also I want to create my Mathematics Page on Wikipedia. I am new in Wikipedia. So, I want to create Page Singh Pankaj7230 (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Singh Pankaj7230: there are no 'profiles'. You have your user account. You can include some limited content about yourself, and your Wikipedia 'career', on your user page, within the rules of WP:UP. Other than that, we have articles, and in order to create one, you can get all the advice you need at WP:YFA. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I've just sent another of your page creations for speedy deletion. Please don't continue in this manner, or you are likely to get into trouble. If you're not sure how Wikipedia works or what you're doing, you can ask for advice at the Teahouse. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for advice on how I can publish a page about myself, family and working life so far.
Can you support me on this? SDGVE (talk) 08:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SDGVE: you should not be publishing an article about yourself, for the reasons outlined in WP:AUTOBIO. This is an encyclopaedia, not a social media or blogging platform.
In any case, promotion of any sort, incl. self-promotion, is not allowed on Wikipedia.
Last but not least, articles can only be accepted on subjects which are notable in Wikipedia terms. This is usually derived from significant coverage of the subject, in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Your draft cites no sources whatsoever. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
08:42, 21 July 2023 review of submission by Aftab Ashraf at ACE Money Transfer
I published my article on my company, "ACE Money Transfer", which was declined due to references. In a response received from your team, I was guided about having my references/resources aligned with four different categories that I am unable to understand.
Please help me understand the type of resources/references Wikipedia accepts so that I may resubmit my article with fresh resources.
@Aftab Ashraf at ACE Money Transfer: first things first, you must formally disclose your conflict of interest and paid editing status, before anything else. Instructions were posted on your user talk page a few days ago, and despite your subsequent protestations you most certainly do have a conflict which has to be disclosed – please note, this is a hard requirement, and not an 'optional extra'.
As detailed in the decline notice, we need to see significant coverage of your company in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and fully independent of the subject. Note that this excludes routine business reporting (appointment news, M&A, financial results, new locations, etc.), interviews, sponsored content and churnalism of any kind. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DoubleGrazing,
Thank you for your help; now I understand what type of resources I may include.
Regarding the concern of conflict of interest, I had already responded and explained that the article isn't a commercial or paid one. Can you help me how can I properly explain and submit the response to prove that it's entirely unpaid and aimed at only informing public about a company that offers services directly for customers for over 20 years? Aftab Ashraf at ACE Money Transfer (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"informing public about a company" is pretty much our definition of advertising here which is not allowed. If you work for the company then you are deemed to be a paid editor and are required to make the disclosure on your user page. Theroadislong (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aftab Ashraf at ACE Money Transfer: you have repeatedly referred to the subject as "my company" etc., which clearly implies that you have either an employment or ownership relationship, or both, with the company. Whether or not the draft is promotional in nature has nothing to do with this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help; I've gone through the guidelines for disclosure. Here, I want to bring into your notice that I'm not particularly paid anything for the Wikipedia page, and it falls under my core responsibilities. I get monthy compensation for my role with the company that involves other several tasks. So, in that case, will I still need to make the disclosure? Aftab Ashraf at ACE Money Transfer (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
please provide assistance or steps to write biographies of people who are still alive, because this article is in the form of a portfolio with the permission of the person concerned, thank you Asuhendra (talk) 10:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read about conflict of interest as you should make a formal disclosure. Permission from an article subject is not required in order for there to be an article about them. Wikipedia is not a place to post a portfolio or resume. This is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, please see the definition of a notable person. Any article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources say about a person, showing how they meet that definition. Yiur draft was rejected and will not be considered further and will be deleted as blatant promotion. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
16:28, 21 July 2023 review of submission by Yen930407
Hello, because the information on this historical figure is very scarce, it is transmitted by many descendants, and many contents are also very scarce, but this historical figure has made great contributions to the contemporary army and education. I hope you can help to pass it. Yen930407 (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If information is very scarce then it is likely that the topic doesn't warrant an article. It is also pointless and disruptive to re-submit with zero changes. Wikipedia requires the topic to have been covered in-depth by reliable, independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yen930407: we cannot accept articles without comprehensive referencing, because firstly all the information must be verifiable from reliable sources, and secondly we must be able to ascertain that the subject is notable.
Besides, if you cannot find sources to back up this draft, then where is all this information coming from? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
16:32, 21 July 2023 review of submission by 2400:1A00:B012:19D5:7D31:AB4B:22A8:BE4A
What does "Auto create article" mean? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP user, if you are asking how to create an article yourself without needing to submit it as a draft for approval, you can't. IP users and new accounts cannot directly create articles. Even if you could, unless you are experienced in having articles successfully created and retained, you really should submit them first. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
16:40, 21 July 2023 review of submission by Medesima1
@Medesima1: in the text editor window, under the 'Cite' menu, one of the options is 'Cite book', which effectively implements the template which you can find detailed and documented at Template:Cite book. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
July 22
01:25, 22 July 2023 review of submission by Rohmoh
Rohmoh The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Writing about yourself is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
06:18, 22 July 2023 review of submission by Sampierce98
to be able to resubmit it after more articles from independent sources wrote info on it. Sampierce98 (talk) 06:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further at this time. If something has fundamentally changed since the rejection(such as the film being released to the public) you should first appeal to the reviewer that rejected the draft. If you receive no reply, then you may return here for a discussion to request reconsideration. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
08:57, 22 July 2023 review of submission by Ahnaf shwapneel
