Your submission at Articles for creation edit

 
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Triple Pop concern edit

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Triple Pop, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Triple Pop concern edit

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Triple Pop, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Triple Pop edit

 

Hello Morobison. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Triple Pop".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Triple Pop}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: Triple Pop (May 1) 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 Robert McClenon was:  The comment the reviewer left 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.
Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
 
Hello, Morobison! 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: Triple Pop (May 30) 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 Legacypac was:  The comment the reviewer left 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.
Legacypac (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

August 2018 edit

  Hello, I'm Modulus12. Your recent edit to the page Kacey Musgraves discography appears to have added incorrect information, so it has been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Modulus12 (talk) 06:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Kacey Musgraves' "Apologize" song streamed 31,000,000 times - the link external reference was included in the original post to PR Web yet you said there was no reliable source? I've further added RIAA Billboard article reference showing how certifications are calculated, thus the sales certification was referenced and cited: 31,000,000 / 150 = 210,000.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2018/03/prweb15317151.htm

https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/6859551/riaa-streaming-gold-platinum-certification-methodology

Further, on this particular artist's discography for certification ref links for all of her tracks within this section, there are no third party link sources and the only citation is an internal Wikipedia link back to Wikipedia which I believe is prohibited?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kacey_Musgraves_discography#cite_note-United_StatesKacey_MusgravesMerry_Go_'RoundsingleCertRef-38

If you're going to challenge reference links (or hold it or a higher standard) then you need to uphold that criteria for all of her discography and remove all of her certification claims, correct?

So much of music business sales are never made public, so when there is a reference to what sources that do exist, I think it's important.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Morobison (talkcontribs) 15:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

That does seem like a reasonable argument for track sales. I'm not an expert on music or music articles here, and can't find any rule against it, so I'll drop my objection. I've re-added the content, and I think I fixed your problem with the other citation, but I'm not really sure what you're complaining about there. In the future, it would probably be helpful if you didn't undo my edit with no explanation, but instead provided a brief statement of why you're correct in the edit summary. Also, the reason your links above don't work is because external links work differently from internal Wikipedia links. You want to type [http://www.prweb.com/releases/2018/03/prweb15317151.htm PR Web Sales Kacey Musgraves] to get PR Web Sales Kacey Musgraves. And remember to sign your posts with four tildes, ~~~~. Modulus12 (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (October 24) edit

 
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Eagleash were: 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.
Eagleash (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: Donald Gould (October 27) edit

 
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work. Snowycats (talk) 07:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: Donald Gould (October 28) edit

 
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work. Snowycats (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: Donald Gould (October 28) edit

 
Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Snowycats was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Please reach out to the help desk. As minimal editing has been done to fix the copyright issues, I advise you to seek help.


Copyvio links include:

https://donaldgouldmusic.com/bio https://open.spotify.com/artist/4MdL5JIgyDCQzhAxk9lqNi http://www.thepeopleoftheinter.net/stories.html https://www.amazon.com/Walk-Water-Digipak-Donald-Gould/dp/B07YRTPRHS

Snowycats (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia and copyright edit

  Hello Morobison, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Cabayi (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply