Hi, I cannot understand what I need to do with References: Check|url|=sceme; Missing or empty|title=; Wikilink embedded in URL title? Please give me example by References #5. Шуйская (talk) 04:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be because when you are suppose to insert the URL of your webpage, you inserted a wikilink instead. Wikipedia cannot be a source of reference in Wikipedia articles. Delete the link and either provide a different reference, or find a reliable and notable source to replace said reference. It does tell you what the errors are, please read the error messages and correct the article correspondingly. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 10:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have updated the Clicktopurchase article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Clicktopurchase, adding links to more resources as requested. I'd now like to resubmit. Can you please tell me how to do this?

Many thanks, Neil.

Neil Singer (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the previous review template and comments, please don't do that. Firstly it contains the link for resubmission and it also serves as a record of the review history, reviewers and you can see what issues have previously been raised. I have recovered the template, the resubmit link is in the template. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Neil Singer (talk) 11:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My submission has been rejected three times; in the first two submissions, I made and corrected rookie formatting mistakes. In the second submission, I addressed the issues of verifiable citation, but was rejected because the references I cited (Youtube videos containing proof of claim) are unacceptable by Wikipedia standards -- "banned" from Wikipedia, as I learned after the fact. In the third submission, I removed the references to Youtube videos, keeping only the CNN link, which I'm assuming is a credible source, and the submission has still been rejected. This process (however frustrating!) has served to increase my respect for Wikipedia's credibility; but the subject at hand is a real person with actual accomplishments which, as he proceeds, will receive more (and more credible) acknowledgement. I've seen stubs with much less information than I'm offering here, so I'm puzzled. Please tell me specifically what is standing in the way of his Wiki page being published. Thank you for your assistance. Respectfully, Mizzan Mizzan (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately quite a few articles exist that shouldn't; each submission must stand on its own merits. The CNN source looks like Kinney talking about himself to me; we'd need others talking (or writing) about Kinney. I don't doubt Kinney exists, but so far no reliable sources seem to cover him in any detail. Significant coverage in reliable third-party sources is required by Wikipedia to establish that he's notable (I expect you and I also are real persons with actual accomplishments, but that doesn't mean we are appropriate topics for encyclopedia articles). Huon (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I recently submitted an article for creation/review, titled Badlands Unlimited. It was reviewed and subsequently declined by an editor, TheOneSean.

I would like some ideas as to why the subject may not meet the notability requirements for new article creation, and any advice as to how to improve upon the article would be very welcome. I understand that the contemporary conceptual art scene may be a bit insular and unfamiliar to many, but I truly feel a profile of Badlands Unlimited is warranted, considering its recent press by notable sources, which I've included references for. If there are any editors that are more familiar with the art publishing, contemporary digital art scene, could they vouch for Badlands Unlimited? With respect to TheOneSean for his time and efforts in reviewing the article, I think the article deserves another look.

Please excuse me if my format for soliciting additional review is off; it's my first time submitting an article.

Matthewyso (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think QuantifiedElf's comment on his July 3 decline should answer your questions. Most of the book reviews mention the publisher only in passing, if at all. Huon (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]