Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 October 3 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_October_3
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.
@Basava Vinay Vp Writer: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. If you want to tell the world about yourself, open up a blog or join some social media platform. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
06:30, 3 October 2023 review of submission by Origagari
@Origagari: there is nothing of encyclopaedic value in this draft, and it all seems to come from you or the subject or some other non-independent party, as opposed to being a summary of reliable published sources. Therefore, I'd say it very much is WP:YESPROMO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
06:31, 3 October 2023 review of submission by Nook768
A ton of other people using wikipedia made SCP things but mine was deleted? I just dont get it. It was also considered Vandilisim. It was a fictionol SCP character. Please tell me and explain why it was deleted and none other SCP things were deleted Nook768 (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer left you a message on the draft as to why it was declined(not only the box at the top, but a message directly underneath it). Please review it carefully. Do you have more specfic questions about it?
EditCloud23 You may make revisions, but the draft will not be considered again until you first appeal to rejecting reviewer, or failing that, convince the community here to allow you to resubmit it(but you would need to demonstrate that the rejecting reviewer made a gross error in policy or judgement). 331dot (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot, I have received no appeal. However I take this discussion as an appeal. Since EditCloud123 has been deceived into believing I have solicited money I do not believe it to be appropriate for me to respond, and recuse myself. May I ask you to act as if the appeal were made to you, please?
Sorry, "we" refers to the company, i have declared a conflict of interest. The moderator who rejected it was someone who was asking for money to publish it and going back and forth publishing it to show that he could and then deleting it to demand the money, then put a stop on it when we refused. - i do have emails to show this, but its evidenced where you can see the amount of edits "timtrent" has on it EditCloud123 (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Impersonation doesn't check out here. The moves to mainspace were not done by Timtrent, as EditCloud123 suggested, and they never said the UPE identified as Timtrent in the emails. They have just referred to the amounts of edits by Timtrent. And somehow they make no comment of the confirmed accounts who _are_ the UPE in contact with EditCloud123. If they think they fell for a scam, they should submit evidence about the confirmed UPE accounts. Anything else suggests bad faith. MarioGom (talk) 07:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TBF, the OP did say explicitly that "The moderator who rejected it was someone who was asking for money", which seems to me like a direct accusation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was a direct accusation. My point is that nothing suggests there is evidence backing this accusation, not even off-wiki impersonation, because the UPE this user is in contact with are using other accounts that are not mentioned here. So my claim is that this accusation was not made in good faith or not with enough transparency. MarioGom (talk) 09:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My question about "we" wasn't querying your COI, which I could see duly disclosed on your user page, but rather whether there is more than one user accessing that user account? Wikipedia accounts are for use by a single individual only. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Email your evidence of payment demands to the investigations team, as already instructed. It is in everyone's interests, not least @Timtrent's, that this issue is looked into without delay.
Respond to the query on your talk page, which asks you not to edit until you have acknowledged and answered it.
Regarding editing the draft, as 331dot correctly points out you are able to do this, but for now you are unable to resubmit. (We can cross that bridge when we get to it.)
EditCloud123 Did you personally create and own the copyright to the company logo, and do you really want to make it available to anyone to use for any purpose with attribution? 331dot (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@EditCloud123 That is an extraordinary charge you are making against me. I refute it totally. Please your send evidence to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org as detailed in WP:SCAM.
Speaking as an admin who handles a lot of paid editing cases: whoever is claiming to be Timtrent is almost certainly a scammer and not actually Timtrent. We've seen a major uptick in cases of this sort of impersonation lately, primarily targeting Wikipedians who use real (or real-sounding) names as their usernames. Unless there is extremely convincing evidence submitted by the accuser here, I see no reason to hold Timtrent under any sort of suspicion. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GeneralNotability Impersonation is part of the lot of a reviewer. This is the first time that I know of that it has happened to me, and I suppose that I should wear the badge with pride. However, being accused in public forum is not something I am enjoying.
I don't think that's actionable. There's the good faith interpretation that the editor just got confused about who's who. Or the more likely explanation that they decided to go after the editor who pushed back against their spam, rather than against the supposed scammer. Either way, I think EditCloud123 should have been blocked since the beginning as a spammer. They used their own account to spam, and also hired others to amplify that spam. We should not allow a spammer to drag us into more complex discussions that just distract us from the fact that there's no place on this project for spammers. MarioGom (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioGom I am content, as the falsely accused party, that this rests here. I doubt EditCloud123 is more than a disposable account. A sense of "vengeance" suggest to me that an admin viewing this might block them, but reality suggests that they might appear again and lead us to more UPE accounts.
@Promnewyork: what assistance do you need? FWIW, I fully concur that this does look, both in terms of structure and content, very much like an essay, dissertation, or scientific paper of some sort, rather than an encyclopaedia article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Promnewyork: with respect, you haven't; you may have edited the draft, but you haven't fundamentally changed the nature of it.
As this has been rejected, you cannot resubmit it; your only way forward is to appeal directly to the rejecting reviewer, but this would be rather pointless at this time, as the rejection reason still stands. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing this message to express my disappointment over Wikipedia approval process. Most editors have negative image on Africa and considers everything from there as inferior. This is deeply unfair as our nations also want to be connected.
The article African Centre of Excellence in Data Science is all about a non profit, public university. Why would you mark it as advertising or unreliable references? Hirwa94 (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hirwa94: it's interesting that straight off the bat you go for some anti-African sentiment and assert that "Most editors have negative image on Africa " etc. – is it not possible that this draft was declined simply because it doesn't meet the relevant standards? In any case, this has been resubmitted and is awaiting review; what, therefore, is your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been reviewed and reviewed to the point one editor told me that it is okay. As for Geographical biases, it exists. You guys put your kindergartens on Wikipedia but you can't stand our universities being on it. And then you call yourselves GLOBAL, DEMOCRATIC. The deserved name is HYPOCRITES.
@Hirwa94 Sorry you have had a negative experience with the AfC process. As one of the reviewers who declined the article, I want you to understand my reasons for it: at the time of your submission nearly every source was WP:PRIMARY , which meant the centre did not pass the WP:NSCHOOL criteria. This has nothing to do with any kind of geographic bias. I agree that most of the existing school and kindergarten articles on Wikipedia don't meet that criteria and should be removed- we have millions of articles and it is simply that no one has gotten around to nominating them for deletion yet. We're all volunteers. I will note I regularly decline drafts that do not pass WP:NSCHOOL , which are based all across the globe.
We have no certainty about the race of any user. Your race or nationality is not relevant. I don't see where someone said that articles about topics in Africa are "inferior". That isn't true, if it was said to you. 331dot (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
17:54, 3 October 2023 review of submission by Hockima
IP editor, the draft was rejected in August and you should not have re-submitted it. It has now been rejected again. This is the end of the road, find something else to write about. This will not become an article. Qcne(talk)18:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
18:50, 3 October 2023 review of submission by Shahin hossain007
I'm not really familiar with how to get the Wikipedia page approved and I have provided sources for everything but it still gets declined. Jordandl18 (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The preferred term is Wikipedia article, not "page" which has a broader meaning. Most of your sources are affiliated with the team- an article about this team should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the team, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. You haven't provided sources for everything- the Legacy section is entirely unsourced. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
21:30, 3 October 2023 review of submission by 2607:FB91:320:725:B9A8:C6BD:CF57:5185
Yes, you are citing your sources more or less correctly, but you are just not citing good enough sources to have shown that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]