Vianovo, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you are a paid editor on an article you need to declare your paid status, and your employer. If you are not paid, but have a COI (which is what you appear to be saying), then please just declare the COI. Smallbones(smalltalk)00:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was:
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:First Fidelity Bank and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Hello!
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First Fidelity Bank, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Russ Ramsey, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Hi again Heatherer, I have some time to work on David Coleman with you now. There are a lot of sources about him. :-) I'm used to the opposite problem, where finding sources is the hard part, and summarizing them is easy. I will be gradually trying to work what I've found into the body of the article, please feel free to make comments/suggestions/etc on the article-talkpage. If I don't respond to you promptly, I may not have noticed what you wrote, so leave a brief message on my user-talk-page and I'll see the orange bar, so I know you are awaiting a reply. Thanks for helping with wikipedia, it's appreciated. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I appreciate you spending time on this. Have you seen the draft I prepared for the Common Core section? It's right here, in case you haven't. I know it's a lot of work pulling sources and writing, so I'm hoping I can save you some time with the work that I've done. I have another section drafted too (for The College Board section), but I haven't posted that yet. Thanks again for looking into it! Heatherer (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Heatherer, your help is much appreciated, as well. Please post away, it will help me to have the second section-rewrite available, even if you are still working on polishing it up, or inline-sourcing, or whatever. Fundamentally, the way I like to do things is with the "beginner's mind" which is to say, I pretend I've never heard of Coleman (true) or of Common Core (not true) or of the SATs (also not true), and hit the search engines with some relevant keywords, then read all the WP:SOURCES that appear, and summarize them neutrally. *Then* I compare and contrast my own attempt, with yours. Problem: there are a lot of sources! :-) But I'm trying to wade through them. Note that my approach is rather unusual. It will dramatically help your success-rate, at getting your edit-requests answered in the affirmative, if you will make things as brief and simple as possible.
some detailed advice on chunking-up your edit-requests into nice bite-size pieces
Your draft version of the common-core section is "pretty okay" to my eyes (it lacks the non-positive assessments for the most part however which needs fixing), and your draft will be valuable to our collaboration on cleaning up the article. But for the most part, people that respond to coi-edit-requests do not want to COLLABORATE on rewriting the article with you from the ground up, they want to make a five-minute-effort to eyeball your suggested change, and then either green-light the change, or decline it with constructive criticism. Make sense? Long drafts, big rewrites, significant overhauls, section-merging... none of that stuff can be green-lighted in five minutes, so you scare away 99% of your likely helpers.
Instead, try to break down your suggestions into five-minute-chunks. You can *write* it as a big-overhaul-draft first, if that is helpful to you. But then instead of saying "replace these fifty sentences with these other fifty sentences" you need to split up your changes into little chunks. In particular, non-controversial stuff should all be in one chunk: spelling fixes, boring factual corrections like city-of-birth, that sort of thing, can be in a relatively-large-size of replacement-request. But make sure you specify that is what you are doing: dear coi-edit-reviewer, please replace these 20 sentences with these other 20 sentences, which said changes COMPLETELY consist of spelling fixes and punctuation fixes and other such boring stuff. That kind of request only takes five minutes to review, and does not even require reading sources usually, so it will likely be approved, fast.
For your *substantive* rewrites, go paragraph by paragraph, usually. If it's a touchy subject or controversial topic, go sentence by sentence, in terms of your coi-edit-requests. Specific example, in your draft you have improved this sentence by rewriting an older one: "In 2008, Coleman and Zimba, together with educational analyst Sue Pimentel, co-founded Student Achievement Partners (SAP), a non-profit organization focused on supporting evidence-based approaches to improve students' academic performance." (which is backed by two sources). That is basically a rewrite-replacement of this existing mainspace sentence: "In 2007 Coleman and Zimba together with educational analyst Sue Pimentel co-founded Student Achievement Partners (SAP), a non-profit organization which researches and develops "achievement based" assessment standards." (which is backed by one pre-existing source). Some of your changes are OBVIOUS improvements: adding commas to improve readability, correcting 2007 to be 2008, and citing more sources.
The main SUBSTANTIVE change, which needs a five-minute-coi-review from an uninvolved editor, is where you change the summarization of what the corporation does, from "researches and develops 'achievement based' assessment standards" to your new suggested phrasing of "supporting evidence-based approaches to improve students' academic performance". That bit, and pretty much ONLY that bit, is where your COI could be biasing the phrasing. You need some uninvolved eyeballs to skim the three sources cited (two by you and one already in the article), and then decide whether that sentence-fragment-rewrite is WP:NPOV, or not. That is a five-minute-job, right? Right. But it is *only* a five-minute job, if you chunkify your edit-requests. In this case, you've got a draft with that sentence-rewrite, but your same edit-request has almost a dozen other sentences, and almost a dozen other sources, which the poor coi-edit-reviewer would also have to mess with. Plus a bunch of seemingly-innocuous copyedits... which get in the way of the substantive changes. So what happens, is that they just bypass your request, and move on to lower-hanging-fruit. Unless you get lucky, and the editor who comes along is already (like me) interested in education-articles, or political-articles, or biographies, or whatever.
So here is what I suggest. Start chunking up your draft, right now, into a series of edit-requests, each of which is either (1) non-contentious spelling and punctuation and boring-factoid corrections, or (2) should take five minutes for an uninvolved pair of eyeballs to review. With the sentence above, you want two edit-requests. First, an edit request like this. Dear coi-edit-reviewer, please change this sentence in mainspace:
* In 2007 Coleman and Zimba together with educational analyst Sue Pimentel co-founded Student Achievement Partners (SAP), a non-profit organization which researches and develops "achievement based" assessment standards.
To the following corrected sentence:
* In 2008, Coleman and Zimba, together with educational analyst Sue Pimentel, co-founded Student Achievement Partners (SAP), a non-profit organization focused on developing "achievement based" assessment standards.
Which will involve the following adjustments:
* In 20072008, Coleman and Zimba, together with educational analyst Sue Pimentel, co-founded Student Achievement Partners (SAP), a non-profit organization which researches andfocused on developsing "achievement based" assessment standards.
That will be (or ought to be) approved lightning-quick, as long as the existing source in the article says "2008". Make sense? Now, if the source in the article says 2007, and you have another source that says 2008, the 'obvious' but non-recommended approach is to suggest a replacement of the existing source with your more-correct-in-reality source, explaining that you *know* 2008 is in reality correct per WP:THETRUTH since you work in Coleman's office, or you can alternatively follow the recommended pathway, and suggest that the text be changed to read 'In 2008[trueRefA] (or in 2007[buggyRefB])...' which is the officially pedantically-wiki-policy-correct way to do it when the sources give conflicting info.
That stuff above, is your no-brainer-request, and you want to keep the no-brainer very much *separate* from the potentially-biased-by-COI requests. Your very next edit-request, can say, dear coi-edit-reviewer, please change this sentence-fragment:
* ...non-profit organization focused on developing "achievement based" assessment standards.
To the following sentence-fragment:
* ...non-profit organization focused on supporting evidence-based approaches to improve students' academic performance.
Because this is just an end-of-sentence change, you can skip the strike-and-insert work if you wish, but since it's so easy to do, might as well go ahead and say, the following change is involved:
* ...non-profit organization focused on developing "achievement based" assessment standards.supporting evidence-based approaches to improve students' academic performance.
For this change to be reviewed-and-approved, the person will have to read (or at least skim) the sources. With that in mind, you will also want to have your suggested sources (additions of course but *especially* replacements the latter of which I seriously do not recommend attempting) readily visible to the coi-edit-reviewer, so include {{reflist-talk}} immediately following your edit-request, and use the <ref>...</ref> tags right smack in the please-change-it-to-this sentence, so that if the edit-request is green-lighted, the reviewer can just cut and paste your change without any fuss.
If all this makes sense, then if you like, go ahead and chunk up your edit-requests, and make them on the talkpage. I will continue working along "in the background", writing my own independent-draft-version of the biographical article, which I will then compare and contrast to the state of mainspace at that time, and to your earlier full-rewrite-draft. Sound like a good plan? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Thanks for the feedback. I wanted to let you know that my contract for working on this article has ended and unfortunately I don't have the time available to focus on this on my own. I've left a final note on the article Talk page with the rest of the work I was able to complete. I hope that it might be some help to you if you continue to work on the entry. I think you have the right idea about how to make the article better and I'm excited to see any improvements you're able to make. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Heather, yes, I'm still working on it. Came to let you know I hadn't forgotten, actually. ;-) Like yourself, often other on-wiki tasks (not to mention off-wiki priorities) call me away. One of the downsides to being a paid editor, as you are finding, is that sometimes the wheels of wikipedia turn too slowly, to keep up with financial ROI of the paid-editor-jobs. Instead of having a fixed-term-contract (aka service provided for 2 months at fee $ZZ), I would suggest instead you explore some kind of pay-by-the-hour-contract (aka service provided for flat fee of $XX covering up to NN hours of work plus $YY dollars-per-hour-of-work thereafter with ~~monthly approval&billing), which would allow you to continue gradually improving articles that you spent the time to reference and read up about. I've never done paid-wikipedia-stuff, but that's how consulting contracts work in the software world, including techwriting: up front agreement to cover the initial investment and the bulk of the work, then a maintenance contract to cover any loose ends... which in some cases becomes a long-term relatively-low-but-non-zero-hours-per-month working relationship. In fact, I suggest you consider doing so now, if you're willing; send Coleman an email, suggesting that he pay you $YY dollars-per-hour-of-work, for additional time spent on the BLP article, explaining that some neutral wikipedian has expressed willingness to work with you on finishing up, but that you don't have spare time for the effort. He might say yes. Either way, the article will probably eventually get fixed, with or without your continued help, but it seems a shame to lose your potential contributions to the BLP-page, simply because your paperwork-deadline has passed. Anyways, appreciate your improvements to wikipedia, and it was nice working with you for the brief time we did manage, I look forward to seeing you again someday perhaps, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thanks
Just wanted to say: I think it's awesome how open you have been with making clear your conflict of interests, and for going through the proper avenues to make COI edits and articles. With so many editors hiding their COI and making promotional edits, it's always refreshing to see editors taking the right steps, and it's much appreciated. Thanks! ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs17:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
XenMobile, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
XenDesktop, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 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:Citrix Receiver and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Citrix Receiver, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
It's not clear to me which articles you've created above are paid, WP:COI, both or none. You (and your colleagues) must familiarise yourselves and fully disclose per instructions at WP:PAID. To be explicit, this includes the talk pages of all your paid drafts. Regards Widefox; talk01:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Widefox: It should be clear. There was a connected contributor template on the Talk pages of each of the articles above with links to the messages/comments where I disclose my "financial conflict of interest" in that exact language. The {{Connected contributor (paid)}} template is a very recent addition to the guidelines, which is why my older articles used the basic connected contributor template, although they always linked to my full disclosure where I made my financial interest clear. I just updated them all with new template, though. I realize I overlooked adding a connected contributor template to the Uproxx article, but that was an honest mistake—I had added it to the Jarret Myer entry—and have been very explicit in my Talk page messages on both entries (and when reaching out to you) about my COI. I also have a full disclosure on my userpage, which I just updated with another statement to be as clear as possible. The ToU say I need to disclose in *at least one* of the following ways:
a statement on my user page,
a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.
I have always followed this guideline—even in instances where I initially overlooked placing a connected contributor template on the Talk page, there was still disclosure in my messages and on my userpage—and I aim to abide by any policy changes (like the paid template) as quickly as possible. Let me know if you have further questions. Heatherer (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Heatherer, I appreciate you've disclosed some articles. I don't have a question, it was a statement that you haven't disclosed on drafts such as User:Heatherer/Ogilvy & Mather History, Draft:Citrix Receiver (moot now it has moved) - they have no disclosure. I put a noindex on it for now. Just to correct your statement and assertion, the ToU policy says for "any contribution" (and it is not a guideline - they are different things here). To be clear, that includes everything, this conversation and drafts or anything here. There is also more than just the ToU, PAID and links from there, COI all apply. Widefox; talk20:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
XenApp, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
@009o9: I read through the draft and spot-checked some of the sources. Having worked on an entry about an author who is often quoted as an expert in articles, I understand how tricky it can be to incorporate that press coverage—Newman is featured in the media frequently, but few of the articles are really about her. Right now, the draft does read a bit promotional. However, I think just changing some of the phrasing and leaning more on a few of the sources you already have will help. Here are my suggestions:
Take another pass at the writing to make sure it's encyclopedic. For instance, "successfully" is unnecessary in the phrase "successfully sold" (if she sold it, success is implied) and "freshman novel" should simply be "first novel". "Her relationship advice, often with other experts in the field, is regularly requested in publications" is better as "Her relationship advice has appeared in [insert publications here]."
Thank you for having a look, since the interviews are about her autobiography, I find it hard to understand how editors would consider those sources to not be about her -- but this often happens. Additionally, the GNG does not say "the subject of the article," it says, "If a topic has received significant coverage..." It is unfortunate that the project specific notability guidance uses the word "subject" which is confusing and does not conform to the GNG.
There is contention within the community that interviews are primary, some reviewers simply discount/discard them as primary sources, however I contend that the cited author's lede and questions are secondary sources. (As primary, the answers can be used if not self serving or extraordinary.) I separated the interviews where she is consulted for expert advice (with other peers) from interviews about the book for just this reason. I'll have a look the verbiage.
I used freshman simply because the word "first" is in the title of the book, which reads better? Her freshman novel, 121 First Dates... or Her first novel, 121 First Dates... 009o9 (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The writing in the first paragraph of the Background section is very good, but much of it is unsourced. The Press Democratarticle you found would be a good source to use here, though it doesn't cover all of the specific details. I wonder if any of those are supported in the other references you have?
Thanks, I'll have a look to see if I can provide more inline, I am however hesitant to use too many local publications (she also has tons of regional press). I've found that throwing too many references at AfC reviewers can be problematic -- best for non-connected editors to add some details after the article is published.009o9 (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the second paragraph of the Background section, I'd focus less on the fact that Newman was featured on the Hourglass Brides podcast and more on the information in that article. In my opinion, the key facts there are: she has led over 100 workshops; she attended Vista College in Berkeley and has a certificate in American Sign Language and Deaf Culture Studies.
How do you feel about including details about Newman's personal life? The sources say that she began dating after she divorced at age 35 after 12 years of marriage. That seems like it could be helpful under Background or even in the Books section.
Again, for AfC, I'm trying to establish notability in a forum (AfC) where a few editors routinely clean up the backlog with canned declines -- the paid editing disclosure makes a decline even more likely. I do mention that she found herself single at 35. These are also the kind of details that drive-by editors insert and I try to find a reference to support if possible.009o9 (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reformat the review section into prose and include a summary of the information. For example: "Reviews of 121 First Dates have generally been favorable" or "The book has been reviewed positively by Publisher's Weekly..." From there, you can add in a few quotes, though I'd avoid any that simply summarize the book. I also recommend including any alternate views, if they exist. The section in its current form appears more sales-y than informative.
I've already danced with a few editors from WikiProject books, I've been informed that even Publisher's Weekly is considered a weak source in local consensus. For inclusion in a biography (as opposed to a book article) the cite should be okay, but as a COI editor I'm hesitant to add anything that might seem promotional or POV. At this point, I haven't noticed any critical reviews. Hoping for some higher level reviews and breaking that section into its own article, but again, book articles are almost impossible to get published. (BTW: I have not read the book yet, so that I don't inadvertently inject POV or unsourced content.) 009o9 (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your input, I will be revisiting directly, but the exercise here is to establish notability, in a format that is outwardly prejudiced against paid editing. 009o9 (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think there should be no doubt that the subject is notable and worthy of an article. I'm also glad that you've gotten opinions from folks working in WikiProject books. They certainly know better than I what should be included there. Let me know if you need more from me. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based upon your input, I've made some minor changes and added inline to Draft:Wendy Newman, still very cautious about changing too much. I was hoping that if you found the subject notable and the article reasonably complete, you'd consider moving the draft to article space, before the "decline squad" goes in and cleans out the backlog. It doesn't appear that you have the required 500 edits to participate in AfC -- that threshold used to be much lower as I recall. Thanks! 009o9 (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@009o9: Sorry I missed this. As a rule, I don't edit live articles on Wikipedia from this account—even when I don't have a direct COI—which is most likely why I do not meet the 500 edits threshold for AfC. I'm happy to give feedback, but I'm not able to make changes. Heatherer (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Heatherer: I was unable to justify having multiple account under WP:VALIDALT. I was concerned about the paid prejudice bleeding over onto my voluntary articles and this was justified. You are probably running afoul of WP:SOCK without disclosure. 009o9 (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I see how my last message implied I'm editing with other accounts. I'm not. I registered a username nearly 10 years ago that I used to make a handful of edits, but I haven't used it in a long time. I definitely would list any other active accounts on my userpage. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister 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:
Still questionable for solid independent notability and may at best be too soon for now. He may simply be best known for the company and there's nothing suggesting convincing enough for his own article yet. Sincerely,
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:Kirill Tatarinov and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
I just saw this, and I appreciate the gesture, 009o9. I was actually in the midst of finding some additional sources to show notability. I'd be happy to discuss further with you and SwisterTwister if needed. The two main sources I drew on for this article were written prior to Kirill’s appointment as Citrix CEO—there are a couple more as well, but they didn't offer any additional information so I did not include them. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The GNG states: "If a topic has received significant coverage..." and "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
The subject of a Wikipedia article need not be the headline topic of a news article. In fact, only persons interviewed can be the "subject" of an article, many of the project notability guidelines mistakenly use the term "subject" instead of "a topic." The true test for notability is if the notability is connected to a single event, or if it is sustained over a period of time. Kirill has established sustained coverage. 009o9 (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:GoToMyPC mobile screenshot.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:GoToMyPC mobile screenshot.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:GoToMyPC screenshot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Replaceable fair use File:GoToMyPC mobile screenshot.png
Thanks for uploading File:GoToMyPC mobile screenshot.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, and thanks for the help. I've received a lot of good ideas so far, and everyone's has been very different, so any extra set of eyes helps greatly. Tonystewart14 (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister 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:
Simply because he founded 2 companies with their own article is not automatically basing his own independent notability, and the current sources, as it is, are either published or republished PR and also interviews, none of that establishes notability. Therefore focus with only in-depth third-party news overall; keep to mind, no press releases, trivial passing mentions, interviews or news about funding, partnerships or financing.
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:Jesse Lipson and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister 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 websites 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:
Still needs to focus with actual reviews as these will help.
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:Citrix Cloud and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Jesse Lipson, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Citrix Cloud, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Winged Blades of Godric 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 general guideline on notability 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.
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:NetScaler and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Thanks for uploading File:Steelcase Inc logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:First Fidelity Bank logo.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:First Fidelity Bank logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
