User talk:Scholarinchief

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Fuortu 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.
Fuortu (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Teahouse logo
Hello! Scholarinchief, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Fuortu (talk) 20:04, 12 October 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 Innisfree987 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.
Innisfree987 (talk) 04:13, 14 November 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 Innisfree987 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.
Innisfree987 (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2017 (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:  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.
SwisterTwister talk 20:31, 6 March 2017 (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 Winged Blades of Godric 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.
Winged Blades Godric 14:30, 5 April 2017 (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 Yashovardhan Dhanania 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.
Yashovardhan (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2017 (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 TheSandDoctor 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.
TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Submission accepted: The Man Who Knew[edit]

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I went ahead and moved your draft to article space. As previous reviewers indicated, it did have some information that was not clearly sourced, but rather than keep going endlessly through the AfC process, I've simply removed that information for now and published the article. Please feel free to add details back in--it'd be very welcome--but please just make sure everything is clearly cited to a source and that it avoids promotional language. A central pillar of WP is the neutral point of view, which means that we strive to accurately describe how a topic (in this case, whether Greenspan, the author or the book) is described in reliable secondary sources, without being overlaid with an individual WP editor's opinion. This is part of why good sourcing is necessary: if reliable sources give a qualitative judgment, it's fine to be quite blunt about what that opinion is--in fact NPOV requires us to reflect that accurately--but you must indicate that it's coming from a reliable source rather than personal opinion. Hope that helps! Happy editing. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I have done nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.30.242.184 (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]