(NOTE: I also pasted this inquiry on the Talk wall shadowowl (I am not sure if I should only interact with shadowowl or others. )

Dear Shadowowl,

First, thank you for reviewing the entry for Analytic Theology and for the service you provide to the Wikipedia community. Seriously; thanks. Second, I see the reasons given for the rejection but I could really use a few specifics because I can't tell which features of the article correspond to the problems listed in the response. The reject notice says ---->

"This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner."

Ok, so the article has 28 references from almost exclusively academic journals/books so I'm guessing citations are not the issue?? Is there a section of the article that seems overly opinionated? I'm not trying to quibble; I genuinely need input here. Is it the diagrams? Is it that I discuss opinions on what AT is? What are your thoughts on the following ---> If an article did not list out opinions on what AT is, and instead just listed one view then _that_ would certainly be a biased article. I try to list out three views. By way of example an article on Quantum Mechanics would certainly discuss the various "opinions" of physicists as to which model of interpretation is best (e.g. Heisenberg, Bohm, etc..). Likewise an article on Analytic Theology would list out some opinions of what AT is... because....currently in the academic literature that .. just is... part of the going discussion (i.e. "What is Analytic Theology - merely a method of doing theology in a philosophical style OR an attempt by theologians with philosophical training to defend orthodox Christianity). If an article says AT is just one or the other, it is not objectively reporting the state of scholarship on AT.

Regarding writing the article less like an essay, I attempted to write it based around un-connected thematic sections (rather than) like an essay with a thesis, sections defending the thesis, smooth transitions and a conclusion. I organized it around definition, history, geography, example literature, criticisms. What do I need to be more encyclopedia like? So again, I can't tell what is essay-like about the article that needs eliminating. Your help is requested in seeing more specifically what needs to be changed. Again, thanks. . Jesse (jmg5041)

User:jmg5041 (talk) Draft:Analytic_Theology —Preceding undated comment added 05:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jmg5041 (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• MagsCroom (talk · contribs)

See Draft:EWomenNetwork and Draft:Sandra Yancey Legacypac (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason left was: My article submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. But all of the information given in it in my opinion is neutral and does not rely on materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. Sourcing is right and got from publishing journals. Please assist.

MagsCroom (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crap like "has a dynamic and diversified culture that celebrates the brilliance of women entrepreneurs, business owners and corporate professionals. It is an award-winning, multimillion-dollar success story" has no business in an encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has a clear conflict of interest as a paid editor, as becomes clear when substituting 'Margaret' instead of 'Mags' when doing a Google search. The editor will need to properly disclose their affiliation before we help them further. Wikipedia has strict rules on use for promotion. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged G11 SPAM. If the organization is notable someone will need to start over completely. It's over the top promotional not even suitable for the orgs own website. Legacypac (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sara3501 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Sara3501/GlassQube Coworking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not sure which online reference to use that would be accepted on to Wikipedia. I'm starting with only one line which is "GlassQube Coworking is a coworking and private office provider in the United Arab Emirates." however I can't seem to find references that can be accepted by Wikipedia.

Sara3501 (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I partifipated in deleting another draft of this topic recently. There is no way such a local business is going to justify a wikipedia page. My real esate business is much more substantive than this one and I would never think it needed a wikipedia page. Legacypac (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of other reviewers Draft:GlassQube Coworking has been locked which is why she is starting in userspace. Legacypac (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Bhaskar Kosuri1992 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:AVERA Electric Vehicles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Bhaskar Kosuri1992 (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• VickyStarship (talk · contribs)
  • VTime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • VTime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! I'm having trouble with the title of the page vTime. I've tried {{DISPLAYTITLE:vTime}} and {{lowercase title}} but keep getting this error Warning: Display title "VTime" overrides earlier display title "vTime".

What am I doing wrong? VickyStarship (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VickyStarship (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to Request a technical move, which I have done on your behalf Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Brusselslive (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Brussel Danst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I MADE AN INFOBOX, FOR THE PAGE "BRUSSEL DANST". IT DOES NOT SHOW UP, ON THE PAGE. THE MAP OF BRUSSELS DOES. CAN ANYBODY RECTIFY THIS? Brusselslive (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't how you make an infobox; fields are predefined and can't just be made up. You need to fill in the preprescribed template at Template:Infobox recurring event and use only the fields given to you. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Angadjjm (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Pratik Uppal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear sir/ma'am. This article means a lot to me and my family. I seek your help /advice in this case. I have submitted the article firstly when it was rejected and the reviewer said that i should remove youtube as a reference as it is a unreliable source and re submit it. I did so and waited for a long time for it to be published in the main space. But today it was rejected saying the reference were not verifiable. I just wanted to inform all the references i listed are a big deal in India. Please help me because i am waiting for this from 3 months. Regards Angadjjm (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angadjjm Quick Comment - One reviewer left you a message stating - "The subject is incorrectly identified as the author of all the cited sources". If you look at the "References" section, it states that he wrote all of these articles, which is clearly wrong. I will clean this up for you, as it may help the next reviewer. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See next post which I've answered. Subject is not notable. Legacypac (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Angadjjm - Is the subject of the draft related to you? Read the conflict of interest policy and make the required declaration. You have already been advised that multiple reviewers do not think that the subject is notable. Continuing to ask how to get the draft accepted is tiresome. If you are having difficulty understanding this in English, what is your first language, so that maybe we can find someone to explain to you in your first language. Stop asking over and over again. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Angadjjm (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Pratik Uppal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Sir since you said you will clean it for me. Can you please let me know what is the part i have to do to get the page in the main space Angadjjm (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Angadjjm - I see nowhere that User:Legacypac agreed to "clean" your draft for you. Are you having difficulty reading these comments in English? Neither User:Legacypac nor I think that the subject is notable. If you continue asking the same questions, it may be necessary to hat your questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on the draft page. Legacypac (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sent to deletion. Wasting our time. Legacypac (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Brosnier (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:World Gastronomy Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good afternoon Twice I have asked for a revision of my draft, but they tell me about copyright issues. I have sent the text that exists on the web, but I still have the same problem. What is my mistake? How can I correct it? Can you help me? Thanks for your time

Brosnier (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

STOP submitting material you find on the web. It is copyright infringement a form of stealing. You must write in your own words. Legacypac (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Legacypac (talk)

But there is this text on the web, footnote

is not sufficient?

© 2017 World Gastronomy Institute. The texts of this website are under public domain CCO License and their reproduction is universally authorized.

The WGI is grateful that the source is cited. --Brosnier (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brosnier - Your mistake is in thinking that you are allowed to copy copyrighted text to Wikipedia. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Copyright violation may result in being blocked from editing. Don't violate copyright. Do you need this explained to you in another language? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Robert is incorrect. Because the World Gastronomy Institute page is CC0, it may be copied to Wikipedia without violating copyright. To avoid plagiarism, be sure to cite the source. You may add {{PD-notice}} to indicate that the source is public domain. By the way, there is a separate issue about whether it is appropriate from an encyclopedic perspective to copy from that website. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. If there really is a compatible copyleft, then the only issues are proper citation, and whether the language is neutral or promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Robert McClenon and Calliopejen1

I have added the comments, with more time, I can create a new text, but because of the international relevance of the WGI, I would like to be able to publish it and little by little do more.

Would it be nice to have another review?

Thanks for your time

--Brosnier (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Truthmatters17 (talk · contribs)

BEcause she needs a wiki page since she has IMDb page now Truthmatters17 (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Truthmatters17 - IMDB is not considered a reliable source. IMDB is not an indication of entertainment notability. She may need a Wikipedia page, but does Wikipedia need a Kristine Bunch page? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Adamsirius (talk · contribs)
  • Bloody Margaret (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Bloody Margaret (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Adamsirius (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am bamboozled by wikipedia and even reading the info on how to create a page is bewildering to someone who has ASD and little IT know how I was only trying to make the existence of the drink more widely known, not create a kerfuffle on wikipedia, I apologise to David Moreno who seems most put out by my lack of knowledge or experience and would like to thank tazerdog who assisted so brilliantly in trying to create a viable entry from my initial attempt.

Creating a new page is one of the harder parts of Wikipedia and NOT where I suggest people start. Glad you got it done. Legacypac (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]