This question is in regard to the page containing my recent submission for review, Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/EXIT_(Art_Magazine)

At the top of the page is a box with the statement, "Draft article not currently submitted for review." However, at the bottom of the page is a box with the statement "Review waiting.

This may take over 3 weeks. The Articles for creation process is very highly backlogged. Please be patient. There are 1944 submissions waiting for review." Could you please tell me whether this submission is in line to be reviewed.

Thank you, George Petros GPetros1955 (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The yellow "Waiting" box takes precedence, it's just we have coding issues that unfortunately allow multiple contradictory boxes to appear. But if you have a Yellow, you are indeed submitted. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Jon Younger Please help me understand how to best modify the second edited submission for the article. The first was rejected for lack of independent sources. The second submission included several independent sources but was rejected for CITEKILL. Can you please suggest a better format for the submission that will result in a better outcome?

Hudsonscg (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Hudsonscg[reply]

how can i submit my biography? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinellie (talk • contribs) 04:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did correctly submit it, but you did not provide any outside sourcing showing that Vintelli is WP:Notable. We need not her own site, etc. but instead a significant body of media or academic coverage of her and her career.

Also, if this is a biography of yourself, I strongly suggest you read our guideline WP:Autobiography which explains why this is a very bad idea. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Am I able to continue editing my article while I wait for the review? Since it could take three weeks, which I completely understand, I would like to use that time to make improvements.

Thanks!

Flossysummer (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 08:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am currently still waiting for information on my Shout Out UK article. Someone reviewed it and yet it is still waiting for 'review'.

I was wondering if you could assist in letting me know what will happen next?

Best,

Helloskiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helloskiable (talk • contribs) 10:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "has been reviewed" message refers to a different process, and can be ignored. Your article submission is still waiting to be reviewed. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello reviewers - I found this old submission about a Malaysian company. It was decline as an advertisement, but appears to have a number of good news reports, so I thought that I would just edit it for tone and resubmit. However, the only text I could find that was in any way promotional was the sentences about awards, and they are all cited. Can anyone suggest what should be changed? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello help desk. I submitted two articles for review last week: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Green Champion and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Green Warrior and they were both rejected because they're neologisms. I have to disagree- both phrases are used within the "green" community, however I'd like for them to become more well-known and used more frequently. My idea was to use Wikipedia to help spread these terms and raise overall awareness about "green". I'm a passionate advocate of all things "green" and I'm disappointed and frustrated these terms can't get approved. They're not silly or offensive or frivolous. In fact, I think they're terms people need to get more familiar with. Heres why I submitted them- I'm currently out of work and I'm not having much success finding a "green" job so I thought I'd get creative. My idea was to send emails to prospective employers while using "Green Champion" to describe myself and by using "Green Warrior" to describe my long-term ambition and goals. Because the terms may not be familiar with the folks I'm contacting I wanted to create links for both terms to a Wikipedia page that describes them. I thought this was a great idea because I wouldn't have to lengthen my messages with their definitions. I also thought this would show my initiative and passion by creating these articles and set me apart. I am upset these terms are labeled neologisms. What's the downside for creating these pages? I even emailed the author of the book I referenced (Jason F. McLennan, The Philosophy Of Sustainable Design) just to make sure he was aware I wanted to create these articles and reference his book (In the articles I also wanted to link to his page) and to see if he had any objections or thoughts. He got back to me right away and gave me the go-ahead. Wouldn't a neologism not have published sources? Please reconsider accepting these terms. Let me know if you need any other info or if more sources or anything would help my cause. Again, I'm frustrated Wikipedia would reject such noble, thought-provoking articles. Thank you for your time. I'll be eagerly awaiting your response.

Eric0034 (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Eric Mount, CSBA Green Champion "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead[reply]

Wikipedia is not here for you to spread the word about anything. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy was short and to the point. I'll just reiterate, Wikipedia is deliberately designed as a tertiary reference. It is the goal of Wikipedia to document notable items covered by reliable sources, but it deliberately does not want to be in the business of promoting or spreading the word. If reliable sources spread the word, then we want to report on it, but we do not want to be part of the promotional effort.

While I agree Wikipedia should not be in the business of advocacy or promotion, my articles do neither. I AM the advocate, who merely wants to use an article to promote myself within the green community. The articles themselves are neutral and solely informative. I do not accept your decision. I would understand better if the articles were trying to sway folks or force an ideology on the reader. Quite frankly, maybe Wikipedia should make exceptions when it comes to such a serious global issue as global warming (without which the green industry wouldn't have such a large market share). What better cause to get behind than "green"? Whats stopping Wikipedia from becoming a green advocate? In all seriousness, don't be so rigid! The vision I get of some editors is of an old, grumpy fart with a power trip they didn't earn. Eric0034 (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Eric0034[reply]

And your response is still unacceptable. We're not here to promote anything - not you, not a neologism, not the green movement. It flies right in the face of the Wikimedia Foundation's neutrality policies, which are not negotiable and apply here (WP:Neutral point of view explains how it applies on this project). Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, not a propaganda platform or ad board. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Good day,

I am trying to figure out how to Change the article name, and am not seeing anything on the site. Can you please let me know the process in the changing the name? or guide me to the online instructions.

Thank you,

Randi Ward (Article creator - Crossbarinc) RWTanis (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you were trying to do. What you would have needed to do is to move the article to the correct name. I have resolved this for you, given it a disambiguation, and linked back from the disambiguation. Hasteur (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Wisconsin_Center_for_Film_and_Theater_Research

My article was just declined by Aggie80.

For the life of me I cannot find his comments explaining why. Where do I see "the comments left by the reviewer"?

Many thanks, Dan Bioscopic (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it appears that your article hasn't been reviewed, just moved to the prefered location for AfC submissions. It appears to be a bug and I will notify the developers. Hasteur (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I spent some time compiling the entry Joseph Anton Hodel, as complete as I could. However I am a new Wikipedia user and no doubt made some errors. I was surprised today to find that one of your administrators had deleted the page. (I had previously made a page with the wrong, misspelled title Josehp ... and requested deletion. I wonder if that is the problem?)

I have remade the entry in hope(!) but I would like to know why it isn't acceptable.

Regards

Ken Fackrell

Kenchf (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Checking... Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kenchf: According to the logs no page or edit you made using this account has ever been deleted (Well, now they have - please read on). Also, based on your contributions it would seem that you made a total of three pages for the same subject:

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jospeh Anton Hodel - The first page that has a typo.
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joseph Anton Hodel - A page you made on the 9th, and last edited on the 11th.
• User:Kenchf/Joseph Anton Hodel - A page you made on the 16th.

To make things a tad simpler to track i've just histmerged these three pages into a single page that can now be found at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joseph Anton Hodel. Have a look at the page history of this page - every edit you ever made to any of these three pages can be found it the history. Using the history you can easily restore your preferred revision from any of the pages you created. (So if you preferred the second page over the remade page on the 16th, you can revert to that one). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for that reply - and thanks for sorting out the posts. The odd thing is that clicking the Google link gets a page that says 01:47, 16 December 2013 Ronhjones (talk | contribs) deleted page Joseph Anton Hodel (R2: Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace) - and still does. Hence my confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenchf (talk • contribs)

That's because Google caches its search results. Wait a bit for their cache to clear. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page name for my submission should end up being "Mal Bellairs" rather than Malcolm Bellairs, just like Bill Clinton he is professionally known as Mal. So before the article is published the page name and url need to be changed. How do I do that?

KeithBellairs (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found the move button and moved the article to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mal Bellairs. Hope I didn't break anything. KeithBellairs (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]