Dear Ms. Delong,

Thank you for taking the time to review our article in less time than it was originally anticipated. We appreciate your feedback, though we are naturally disappointed to hear that you declined to post our article. Your only feedback appeared to be to combine it, or the salient points of it, with the current post entitled "Shepherd's Rod."

The primary purpose of the article was to clarify the fact Branch Davidians and Davidian Seventh-day Adventists are different movements.

It is well known that the vast amount of focus is placed upon the Branch Davidians, giving the appearance that the movement Victor Houteff founded simply evolved into the Branch movement. This is not only untrue, but a misrepresentation of history. The Branch Davidians started from a split within the original movement of Victor Houteff. While this is acknowledged in some articles, this fact is presented in such a passing manner that it appears that non-Branch Davidians either barely exist or don't exist at all. This article makes the clearest distinction we have seen between the two groups.

Also, the term "Shepherd's Rod" is an incorrect term to describe the people that believe in Victor Houteff's message.The "Shepherd's Rod" is not a group of people, but is the title of a series of books and tracts. The believers of those contents are termed "Davidian Seventh-day Adventists." Therefore, while much of the material could be combined with the "Shepherd's Rod" article, it would still fail to adequately make the distinction between the two groups. Only an article with the title that we have chosen could correctly inform the researcher of this fact.

As many are well aware Wikipedia stands for clarifying such mis-understandings, and we're sure that once this article is allowed to post, many will gain a clearer and more factual basis on the true distinction between "Branch" Davidians and the original Davidians.

Additionally, this is important from a historical/theological standpoint as well as a policy standpoint. Many among those whom Davidian Seventh-day Adventists try to reach with their "message of reformation" are confused by and take advantage of the blurred lines of distinction between the Davidian S.D.A.'s and the Branch Davidians. They use Koresh's questionalble actions to discredit Davidian S.D.A.'s.

From a policy standpoint, government officials should clearly know the difference so that they do not mistakenly attribute some questionable or illegal activity committed by Branch Davidians to the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists as a whole.

We are resubmitting the article with a minor addition to the introduction. We hope that you will reconsider and publish the article. If there are further content suggestions that you have please feel free contact us at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely, Erik and Robert, "present truth" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Present truth (talk • contribs) 03:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not repost the draft here, it already exists in the correct place, work on it there. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote. "As many are well aware Wikipedia stands for clarifying such mis-understandings." This is factually wrong. Wikipedia stands for reporting the world's knowledge as reported by other people. It does not takes sides on any debate, does not tell the reader which belief is "right" and which is "wrong", and reports all points of view. This is our neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, and is one of the most important facets of what we deal with here.

In general, for an article like this to satisfy the NPOV policy, we need to know that the sources come from organisations known to report on things in a partisan manner, such as major national newspapers. I don't particularly have confidence that any of the references you've supplied fit this criteria. You should generally avoid writing about any organisation you are personally involved with, as it can be considered a conflict of interest, which makes writing in a neutral manner impossible.

As a procedural point, our general policy about sock puppetry states "one member, one account". If you are known to share an account between two people, it may be blocked per this policy. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there,

Article in question is Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Car Loan 4U

I have created an article draft for National car finance leader Car Loan 4U. I am an official media representative of the company. I am currently unsure of how to format 2 sections of the article and want to ensure that everything within the article is correct inline with your guidelines.

How do I format the company summary section correctly? (1st sentence of the article)

How to I format the sources correctly? At the moment I have just put the article links but am aware that you require correct citationc

Thankyou kindly,

Danielle Mannus Car Loan 4U Social Media Manager Car Loan 4U (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before we look at that, there are more severe problems. Firstly, the sources are only trivial mentions on the company, so cannot be included as significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, which we require for an article to pass. As it stands, I would expect your article as it stands to be declined with the rationale "written like an advertisement", irrespective of the formatting.

Secondly, your username implies you are editing on behalf of a company or organisation, which is not allowed. Please change your username immediately (see Wikipedia:Changing username) otherwise you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hi wikipedia team, this is Rami Kazli from Saudi Ground Services Company. It is a ground handling company that is registered at the chamber of commerce. we would like to creat an article for our company. i have tried to make and submitted it but i got a response to get a reliable refrence. i do not know exactly how to make this article and it's becoming more confusing for me. what info do you need to get this article going. i have a word file of the content set exactly like the website article, if i could attach it to you and send you what you need will i be able to post the article. thank you very much, great day Rami Kazli

• Articles on Wikipedia are written reactively and in response to what the world at large has already written about. Therefore, if your company has not had substantial coverage in the news on a regular basis, it probably isn't suitable for Wikipedia. Ask yourself this question - "if my company is so notable, how come nobody else has started an article on it?" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how do I add a Photo to — Preceding unsigned comment added by REVGBBloomfield (talk • contribs) 14:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be an autoconfirmed user ie: one whose account is more than 4 days old and has more than 10 edits. You should also thoroughly familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's copyright policies before uploading anything. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Draft removed.]

Your draft is currently submitted for review, but the sources aren't the best. While Harris apparently given multiple interviews, those are basically Harris talking about Harris and don't contribute much towards notability. YouTube and iTunes are not considered reliable sources at all. Also, several of the interwiki links point to foreign-language articles that don't actually exist. Huon (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide examples of how to improve this? These are very credible, non-partisan sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.30.241 (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What we're after are articles about Harris written by third parties, published in newspapers or reputable music magazines - the Wall Street Journal article would be an example of a good source. YouTube accepts user-submitted content without any editorial oversight, however, and iTunes is more interested in selling music than in being non-partisan. When Harris is interviewed, we effectively cite Harris himself, who obviously isn't non-partisan either. In short, if no third parties report on Harris' number of YouTube views, they probably aren't that impressive anyway. Huon (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

xsafertsgf4

He Pooped In 1874 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.86.34 (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source, please? Huon (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flushhhhh!!!! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]