![]() |
Thanks for the new article on the 2002 Diaz pipeline incident; interesting to see how long these events have an impact. Klbrain ( talk) 12:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
![]() |
Hello, Ksenjamajanov!
Having an article draft 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!
Theroadislong (
talk)
09:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
|
Hi Ksenjamajanov, previously you have removed some templates from
Draft:Whistlegraph (for instance
here). Please do not do that. The comment "Do not remove this line!" doesn't refer only to that comment, but to the entire line that starts with {{AFC submission
or {{AFC comment
. If the draft should be accepted by a reviewer, these templates will be removed automatically, but until then they need to stay. Thanks! --
bonadea
contributions
talk
09:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Rel8ivity — Alternate account of Relativity ( talk) 10:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I've been watching the draft and it keeps drifting towards worse rather than better. If you want to get the draft accepted, it may be time to go the "less is more" route since your ideas about how to make the draft "better" are quite clearly at odds with what reviewers are asking to see by way of improvement.
I'm also in doubt about the ability of your references to establish notability, but if they can, then you need to eliminate everything else that can't.
Do not try to use their website, or social media posts (including Soundcloud, Spotify, or YouTube) as references. I doubt that Rhizome can be used, particularly not for the artist bios, since those do not represent independent reporting about them, and Rhizome itself, while it has a Wikipedia article, is more of an art promoter than a news organization.
I'm afraid that doesn't leave very much out of which you can build a draft, but if there is to be an accepted draft somewhere in what you've presented it will be based on this residue. — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 05:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Pahunkat. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions to
Musical.ly have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use
your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Teahouse or the
Help desk. Thanks.
Pahunkat (
talk)
00:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for the new article on the 2002 Diaz pipeline incident; interesting to see how long these events have an impact. Klbrain ( talk) 12:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
![]() |
Hello, Ksenjamajanov!
Having an article draft 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!
Theroadislong (
talk)
09:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
|
Hi Ksenjamajanov, previously you have removed some templates from
Draft:Whistlegraph (for instance
here). Please do not do that. The comment "Do not remove this line!" doesn't refer only to that comment, but to the entire line that starts with {{AFC submission
or {{AFC comment
. If the draft should be accepted by a reviewer, these templates will be removed automatically, but until then they need to stay. Thanks! --
bonadea
contributions
talk
09:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Rel8ivity — Alternate account of Relativity ( talk) 10:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I've been watching the draft and it keeps drifting towards worse rather than better. If you want to get the draft accepted, it may be time to go the "less is more" route since your ideas about how to make the draft "better" are quite clearly at odds with what reviewers are asking to see by way of improvement.
I'm also in doubt about the ability of your references to establish notability, but if they can, then you need to eliminate everything else that can't.
Do not try to use their website, or social media posts (including Soundcloud, Spotify, or YouTube) as references. I doubt that Rhizome can be used, particularly not for the artist bios, since those do not represent independent reporting about them, and Rhizome itself, while it has a Wikipedia article, is more of an art promoter than a news organization.
I'm afraid that doesn't leave very much out of which you can build a draft, but if there is to be an accepted draft somewhere in what you've presented it will be based on this residue. — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 05:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Pahunkat. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions to
Musical.ly have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use
your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Teahouse or the
Help desk. Thanks.
Pahunkat (
talk)
00:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)