| This is RLD360's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: A Celtic Family Christmas (TV Show) (2018) (April 3)
edit
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:A Celtic Family Christmas (TV Show) (2018) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:A Celtic Family Christmas (TV Show) (2018), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello, RLD360!
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! LJF2019 talk 07:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
|
If this was the first article that you 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.
The page Draft:A Celtic Family Christmas (TV Show) (2018) has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appeared to be a direct copy from https://marblemedia.com/portfolio-item/a-celtic-family-christmas/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review — Diannaa (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
If this was the first article that you 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.
The page Draft:All-Round Champion (TV Show) has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appeared to be a direct copy from https://marblemedia.com/portfolio-item/all-round-champion/ and episode descriptions are copied from IMDb. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review — Diannaa (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
If this was the first article that you 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.
The page Draft:A Pairing of Swans (TV Show) (2015) has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appeared to be a direct copy from https://marblemedia.com/portfolio-item/unscripted-1/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review — Diannaa (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
July 2023
edit
Hello RLD360. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:RLD360. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=RLD360|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- Hi there and thank you for all of the above as its both informative and makes sense. Im just looking into why the company page was removed. I work for marblemedia so just trying to figure out why it's gone. I don't know how to use this platform at all but i do want to learn. Truly don't have any ill intentions here, we just looked it up one day and the page was gone. All of the article about our programming is still up which is great and we haven't done any of that, the wiki community has, which we are very thankful for. Any other advice direction would be greatly appreciated. RLD360 (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- The vast majority of businesses do not merit Wikipedia articles. Please review the discussion that was pointed out to you, as well as the definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for the article, i'll review it detail. At a quick glance of everything provided it looks like we didn't have the correct independent coverage used as reference material amongst other things. Based on the archiving I've been doing leading up to this conversation i have found an abundance of independent articles that fall in the approved category of source material, that are not press releases or paid publication. (which seemed to be part of the problem). Is there any way to reinstate the page and then edit it to be compliant with wiki standards? I know of course that even doing that will still require review by the community. Thanks again for your patience as I'm still learning. :) RLD360 (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- You may make a request at WP:REFUND to be given access to the text(probably via email) so you can create a new draft and submit it via WP:AFC. Your best bet is probably to start over. However, to have any chance at success, you will need to specifically address the concerns of the deletion discussion, summarizing what the independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about the company and what makes it important/significant/influential as a company(not what the company sees as important about itself. The following sources aren't acceptable for this purpose
- interviews with staff
- press releases
- brief mentions
- announcements of the routine activities of the company
- This is going to be a lot harder than you probably think, as company representatives are usually too close to their companies to be able to write as Wikipedia requires. You need to set aside everything you know about the company and only summarize the sources. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- Seems like sound realistic advice. I appreciate you taking the time to show me the paths available. RLD360 (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- You may make a request at WP:REFUND to be given access to the text(probably via email) so you can create a new draft and submit it via WP:AFC. Your best bet is probably to start over. However, to have any chance at success, you will need to specifically address the concerns of the deletion discussion, summarizing what the independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about the company and what makes it important/significant/influential as a company(not what the company sees as important about itself. The following sources aren't acceptable for this purpose
- Thank you for the article, i'll review it detail. At a quick glance of everything provided it looks like we didn't have the correct independent coverage used as reference material amongst other things. Based on the archiving I've been doing leading up to this conversation i have found an abundance of independent articles that fall in the approved category of source material, that are not press releases or paid publication. (which seemed to be part of the problem). Is there any way to reinstate the page and then edit it to be compliant with wiki standards? I know of course that even doing that will still require review by the community. Thanks again for your patience as I'm still learning. :) RLD360 (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- The vast majority of businesses do not merit Wikipedia articles. Please review the discussion that was pointed out to you, as well as the definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)