Sajidrhm (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation text removed -- do not restore. Pol430 talk to me 20:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I just hav a couple of doubts, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Green Valley Public School ..one,, the article I wrote is about a school in my locality and I cant find any good source about it on the net, i wrote about it on personal knowledge and from a brochure about the school; but i promise there is no 'plagiarism' nor copyrighted material in it, so what shud i do for references?? ..second,, when i try to save my draft, it directs me to a box with ... {{AFC submission}}....in it, what am i supposed to do in this ..?? thanks, Andrew o---Andrew--o (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)o---Andrew--oo---Andrew--o (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I share your doubts about the sources. Unfortunately Wikipedia cannot accept personal knowledge; Wikipedia content should be based on reliable third-party sources.

Regarding the submission, you are supposed to read and follow the instructions: [...] please don't change anything in this text box and press "Save page". Huon (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked for newspaper articles about the school?

Thanks Huon for your feedback re my recent update of Charlie Woods and editing my submission. Taking your advice I have done yet another update with some new references and also added the page number you suggested. I am still unclear how to "submit" such additions and edits etc. Anyway the latest version is in my Contributions. As an aside this guy is a great uncle of mine whose career I have followed for many years so I hope the references are satisfactory. He gets many mentions in the books and biographies of the late & great football player and manager Bobby Robson. (Gairderek (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Hello! The article Charlie Woods is live in WIkipedia and by extension of that fact, the edits you have made are live also. There is no need to submit anything. On the other hand, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Northeast of England Process Industry Cluster is not live and is still waiting to be reviewed, and it will be in due course. Pol430 talk to me 20:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have made some changes to the above submission, as suggested by the reviewer. How do I resubmit it now? I can't seem to find the right button for "submit". Sorry for this basic question, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. Timothyweber (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Timothy, unfortunately the 'resubmit' button had been hidden away buy some technical glitch. I've resubmitted the article in your name. It will be re-reviewed in due course. Thanks Pol430 talk to me 20:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, you can re-submit a draft manually by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top. Huon (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the bug getting the required attention - this has been happening quite a bit lately. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need more guidance as to the problem with my sources in this article. Are they written wrongly, or are there not enough? They seem very detailed. Have they been found to be inaccurate in any way? Searching&Finding (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems with the references. Firstly, the second source is a paper by Stanford himself; Wikipedia content should be based on third-party sources. Secondly, you should use footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the draft's claims. See WP:Referencing for beginners on how to easily do so. For example, which source says Standford held the post of Head of Music at the Leeds University College Bretton Hall from 1980-1993? What is Larner's 1973 article used for? Huon (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

Today, my article on Darden Smith was rejected a second time. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Darden Smith

After the first rejection, before resubmitting the article, I completely revised it in order to respond to all the first reviewer's criticisms. Then the second reviewer gave this reason for rejection: "Please refrain from/try not to use his website as a source." I had already taken out all references to Darden Smith's website except for two, notes #11 and #13, which supply direct quotations of the subject's own words about his programs. In other words, not facts, not information. Just something to help readers understand the work Smith is doing.

Also the first reviewer did not clarify that an article MAY NOT under any circumstances use the subject as a source. That's why I didn't delete the quotations from Darden Smith.

• First Reviewer: "should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed." In other words, some material from the "creator of the subject" is acceptable, but "not just" those materials alone.
• Second Reviewer: "Please refrain from/try not to use his website as a source." "Try not to" still allows wiggle-room for some use of the creator as source.

I will certainly eliminate the two quotations, if that's a problem. In fact, I will do that right now to simplify matters. Done. But I profoundly and sincerely hope I don't have to go the end of the line again. Would you consider accepting the article not that quotations are removed?

With apologies for a bit of venting and with thanks, Sabrina Barton (Sabrina Barton (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Quite a few of your sources beyond his own website are primary sources. You cite his record label's press release, the ASCAP about a new program of theirs, interviews with Smith, his HuffPo author profile and one of his blog posts - those aren't the independent sources Wikipedia content should be based on, and quite a few of them wouldn't be considered reliable either. Primary sources are acceptable sources in some very limited contexts only, for uncontroversial details such as, say, his birthdate, but not as the sole basis of significant amounts of content. I hope that clarifies Wikipedia's position towards primary sources. Huon (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]