• Jeffy7Jeffy (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:SuperMarioLogan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Asking for help. Jeffy7Jeffy (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Dliccardo (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Catapult Ventures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Improvements made based on feedback.

Dliccardo (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dliccardo: - hi there. If you've improved your article based on the feedback, then you'll need to resubmit it and it will be re-reviewed in time. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per this Tech Crunch article, this new venture firm is one of the most notable new firms of 2019:

https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/02/2019-us-vc-funds-take-a-more-boutique-approach/

Dliccardo (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure. See User talk:Dliccardo#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dliccardo: TechCrunch has a poor reputation among Wikipedians. One described it as a PR mill that "reprints every tech press release that comes across the transom". Their contributors' opinions don't make the company meet the encyclopedia's corporate notability guideline.

The guidelines were toughened last year, greatly expanding the types of coverage that are considered trivial, and thus do not help establish notability. They include standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage of capital transactions, such as raised capital, which is what a number of the draft's sources are.

The VentureBeat article is a start, but it may be unrealistic of you to think that a private company formed last year would have garnered the significant attention from the world at large over a period of time necessary to be a suitable topic for an encyclopedia. I recommend reexamining the topic in a few years, by which time substantive pieces may have been written showing what significant or demonstrable effects the company has had on culture, society, economies, history, science, or anything, really. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Mountain Child (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Silverback Bikes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Wiki Team I have been tasked to create a Wikipedia page for our business but have been unsuccessful and I am not sure why. I have kept the articles short, factual and submitted a link which supports each fact to avoid being seen as marketing. All our competitors have pages and I have kept to their format. What am I doing wrong? Are there any suggestions to getting this right. Mountain Child (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure. See User talk:Mountain Child#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Dancesnitch (talk · contribs)

Hello, I would like to know more about why my recent article post has been rejected. Furthermore how can I edit the article correctly enough to have it published.

Kind Regards.

Dancesnitch (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dancesnitch. The draft has been rejected because the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). No amount of editing could make a draft on the topic acceptable for publication. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Daniyaleroor (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Erfan khaki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Daniyaleroor (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 202.88.244.213 (talk · contribs)
  • V C Abhilash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:V C Abhilash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

202.88.244.213 (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, @202.88.244.213: - you've made alterations and reuploaded, so it will be re-reviewed in the fullness of time. A NOTE - you can't use Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia. I'd suggest going to the article and finding the original source and using that instead. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Suzannekelder (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Claudio Bergamin (director) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I was told last year my article was rejected due to lack notability, per https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Pornographic_actors_and_models Since then, the subject, Maestro Claudio, has been inducted into the AVN hall of fame which is mentioned as a requirement in https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Pornographic_actors_and_models I have also provided many sources and information, following the format of many other pornographic directors and actors. Is there something that I am missing? Thank you.

Suzannekelder (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• IanOverington (talk · contribs)
  • User:IanOverington/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Having had an original attempt at an article for Wikipedia rejected, I re-read lots of policies of Wikipedia and could see that there were several places where my original article could be deemed unacceptable. Hence I tried to re-write the whole article, using as many earlier citations as possible to avoid excess reference to my own published work (primarily a book published over 25 years ago through Elsevier, North Holland, which I have always assumed to be a reputable publisher!). Instead I have gone back to first publishing of several of the items which are relevant to the whole topic. But my own research (originally carried out whilst employed by BAe in the UK) was really only primarily putting together a number of individually published items by several other researchers, where the final result was (is) that a claim made in Wikipedia under the main heading Hyperacuity has been proved completely out of date (by about 30 years!). So instead of the human visual system's use of Hyperacuity waiting for discovery it has been shown to be well understood (and has been for over 30 years!). My whole aim is to demonstrate that this capability is now perfectly viable and understood - but has only been demonstrated in my own publications (the book and a number of open publications primarily in the 1980's) and also in a software simulation. I did not set out to be at the forefront of the field, but that seems to be how things now stand and I feel, before I die (I am now 88 years old), that it is important to correct the long out-of-date statement. Also a long standing claim in Mathematics is that the best edge detector is the Canny Operator (nearest pixel) - as also claimed in Wikipedia. But by copying human vision, the best edge detection can also be improved by at least a factor of X10, as well as being as individual local vectors instead of scalars. Hence this also needs seriously updating! To deal with all the foregoing I have re-written my original article to include as far as possible all the original sources of various components of the whole. But this cannot be sorted out simply by small edits of the existing Wikipedia documentation. Rather, it needs quite a re-write - which is what I have now attempted to do. Also, because I seem to have become the leader in at least part of this, there are a few items which I have had to develop for myself which therefore seem to be what is classed original research in Wikipedia - despite them having been published (by me) as part of my book! But how do I now get all this even offered for publication in Wikipedia? IanOverington (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IanOverington (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff you published is not a good source. You have a WP:COI here. Legacypac (talk) 06:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand how you can claim that the stuff I published (more than 25 years ago) is not a good source. Also I can find nothing therein or in my original request for help which should trigger a WP:COI. IanOverington (talk) 12:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IanOverington: Computer Vision: A Unified, Biologically-Inspired Approach is a good source, and you may cite it. The relevant behavioral guideline is WP:SELFCITE. What makes the citations problematic is that 80-90% of the draft's inline citations are to your work. That will be seen as excessive. Whether it places undue emphasis on your work or not is a matter of opinion, but it's a call you shouldn't be making. (You have a conflict of interest when it comes to evaluating how important your work is.)

The larger problems are that the draft is written in the tone and style of a textbook rather than an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is never going to accept an article X that says its article Y is incorrect. If Y is incorrect, the solution is always to edit and correct it, not to create another article. You are free to improve Hyperacuity (scientific term), but unlearning the scholarly writing habits of a lifetime may not be something you want to embark upon at 88.

I strongly suggest that, instead, you add a short new section on Talk:Hyperacuity (scientific term) to the effect of: "Attention editors: Ian Overington (1992). Computer vision: a unified, biologically-inspired approach. Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-444-88972-0. could be used to improve section A (in particular pages j-k) and to add a new section B (in particular pages m-n). Full disclosure, I'm the author Ian Overington." Experienced volunteer editors will eventually take note of your message, go read your book, and update the article accordingly. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Robert Beckham Mugimba (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Robert Mugimba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Robert Beckham Mugimba (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly request for assistance after submitting my draft anumber of times and its always turned down and rejected for almost a year now. its a biography of a living person and everything needed is available including my pictures. i really need help so that my biography draft gets into articles space.

Sending to deletion discussion Legacypac (talk)