Your submission at Articles for creation: Wikipedia: a surprisingly reliable site (November 29)

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 WikiOriginal-9 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 after they have been resolved.
~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
 
Hello, AriLovesTacos! 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! ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wikipedia: a surprisingly reliable site (November 29)

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 Aviram7 was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 04:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

AfC notification: Draft:Wikipedia: a surprisingly reliable site has a new comment

edit
 
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Wikipedia: a surprisingly reliable site. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

A barnstar for you!

edit
 
Creator's Barnstar

I saw your draft, Draft:Wikipedia: a surprisingly reliable site, and I really think it is a work of art! I love how it addresses the false assumption in schools. It has some studies behind it too. I saw that it was denied to be an article, which is always hard, but it really is great! I looked at the other article, Reliability of Wikipedia, and it doesn't even include the false assumption in schools! Great job. Please continue your work in creating more masterpieces like this. I can't wait to read your next one! BettyBots (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@BettyBots, thank you for your support! I just having to keep trying and see if they will eventually allow me to make my draft into an article. I honestly never see that happening, though, just because of the existence of Reliability of Wikipedia. I don't quite understand why that makes my draft un-publish-able, but I guess it is up to the "professionals." AriLovesTacos (talk) 02:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Draft:Wikipedia: a surprisingly reliable site

edit

@AriLovesTacos I notice that you are a relatively new user so you will not be able to edit the article Reliability of Wikipedia yet as it is semi-protected. But this is where you will want to put such content.

I do think the tone is not right for wikipedia though, and did you perhaps generate it with chatGPT? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 03:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

No. It actually took me a really long time to write this... Do you have any suggestions for my "tone" then? AriLovesTacos (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@AriLovesTacos well the most obvious example is that the title is not encyclopedic. Such a page will likely be hosted here but not in mainspace Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 05:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I did it for you. See it here User:AriLovesTacos/Wikipedia: a surprisingly reliable site it preserves all the history and you can edit it there. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 05:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply