User talk:Morgan USA

Morgan USA, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Morgan USA! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Richard Yelland (May 25)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gbawden was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Richard Yelland and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Gbawden (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Declare any connection[edit]

Hello, Morgan USA. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Draft:Richard Yelland, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must 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 WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Richard Yelland (June 2)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by John from Idegon was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please read WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE and WP:My first article. You appear to be suffering from a common confusion. We have a requirement of verifiability for all facts in articles and that requires sourcing. However, to have an article, the requirement is notability. Notability requires multiple reliable sources, completely independent of the subject of the article that discuss that subject primarily and in detail. None of your sources even mention the subject of this article.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Richard Yelland and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

John from Idegon (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at Draft:Richard Yelland while the reviewer above was doing a review, having seen the mention on the Teahouse. I put one of the sources cited into a proper footnote, as an example, and added another. All other cites should be made into footnotes using <ref>...</ref> tags. (The use of citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional, but a good idea in my view). I think it has been much improved. However, John from Idegon is correct that you need more sources that discuss Yelland (or his work) in some detail. If you can find several extensive reviews, you could group discussion of them into a "Critical response" section. This is often a good way to handle an article about a creative professional such as an author, a musician, or a filmmaker. Please do not say something that the source does not support. For example http://emmyonline.com/public_0607_nominations says that Life Rolls On was nominated, not that Yelland was. Note that the IMDB is regarded with some suspicion as a source on Wikipedia, because some parts of its listings can be posted or altered by anyone, and other parts by anyone with a "Pro" subscription. I hope these comments are helpful to you. DES ^(talk) 03:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, in Wikipedia articles we refer to article subjects by their last names after the initial use of the full name, and as per WP:DOB exact dates of birth are not given for living people unless they have already been widely published elsewhere, or have been published by the subject him- or herself. These are relatively minor details. DES ^(talk) 03:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not resubmit your draft for review until you address the issues noted in previous reviews. I've reverted your re submission. The alternative would be declining it again. We are all unpaid volunteers here. Wasting people's time is generally frowned upon. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I see that you resubmitted Draft:Richard Yelland for review. That is in my view unwise. Resubmitting a draft without trying to deal with the issues identified by the previous reviewer, or even saying why you think they are mistaken on the draft talk page, looks as if you paid no attention to the previous reviewer, and is not likely to cause another reviewer to accept the draft. In fact, it tends to produce a negative reaction. DES ^(talk) 03:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]