User talk:Monwiki1001
October 2020[edit]
Hello, I'm JalenFolf. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Mau5trap, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Soul Button[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Draft:Soul Button, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Celestina007 (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Soul Button (October 4)[edit]
|
Hello, Monwiki1001!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Celestina007 (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
|
Soul Button[edit]
It looks like the draft you wrote was simply too promotional and it would be better to blow it up and start over. As an AFC reviewer, the thing I'm looking for first is obvious notability backed by a few reliable, independent sources which, taken together, demonstrate that the subject has received significant coverage from those sources. Second, I am looking for a submission written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. WP:Writing better articles has some helpful advice in this area.
What I am NOT looking for/what is likely to get your page rejected:
- So many references that it's not clear which ones provide significant coverage. Sometimes dozens of references ARE required to verify anything that a reader might say "oh really? is that so?" to. If you have more than a handful of references, put a note on the talk page pointing out a small set that, if I look at them, I will think to myself "This topic should have its own Wikipedia article, it has clearly received significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. I'm so glad someone took the time to draft one."
- Anything that hints at a promotional purpose or tone. If it's minor I can edit it out, but if it will require a wholesale rewrite I'll decline it and insist on a rewrite or, as another reviewer did with the Soul Button draft, nominate it for deletion even if the topic itself is notable.
- Any copyright violations. If it fails a copyright-violation check I will redact the major violations, rewrite the minor ones, and evaluate what is left after I've removed them. Then I will ask an administrator to revision-delete the versions that aren't "clean." If it's severe, I won't waste my time on it, I will just ask that the page be deleted as a copyright violation.
- Anything that suggests an undeclared conflict of interest or undeclared paid editing. In these cases I will "go with my gut" when it comes to assuming good faith or not. If I sense an inexperienced editor with a conflict of interest, I will work with them a little to make sure they understand Wikipedia's policies in this area. If I sense that the editor doesn't care about Wikipedia nearly as much as "pushing his agenda" then that editor may find himself unable to edit on the grounds that he is not here to build an encyclopedia.
Of course, any topic which is either obviously not notable or which I've never heard of and which has no obvious suitable references in the first 20 search-engine results is likely to be rejected outright, as a topic not suitable for Wikipedia. Two examples of drafts that would get a summary "rejected topic, no not resubmit:
- "John Doe, state-ranked under-14 football player" with no coverage beyond being in a list of state-ranked players and/or purely local coverage, like "local TV station middle school athlete of the week."
- "The John Doe Band," a local band in Los Angeles with one EP with insignificant sales to their credit, where the closest thing to "independent, reliable source" coverage is a single feature item in a local, non-major newspaper
I hope this helps.
By the way, it's probably gone by the time you read this, but that draft did say that Soul Button charted several times. What it did NOT say is whether the charts were the ones described in WP:Record charts. In the case of "Soul Button" I didn't bother to check any except Beatport, which is not an acceptable chart. I encourage you to check before you rewrite the draft. Why? Because if the music didn't chart on a chart that counts, it is unlikely that this band qualifies for an article unless it qualifies under one of the other applicable notability criteria. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Deb. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.
Hello, Monwiki1001. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
- avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
- disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
- avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
- do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.Deb (talk) 09:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived[edit]
|
Hi Monwiki1001! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse,
|