Swbraithwaite

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gravitational torsion field (October 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Dan arndt were:  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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gravitational torsion field and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

Dan arndt (talk) 05:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Swbraithwaite! 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! Dan arndt (talk) 05:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know which article. However, humans can't read that fast. Swbraithwaite (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Invention of Artificial Gravity Fields (October 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic 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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Invention of Artificial Gravity Fields and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

KylieTastic (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I truly don't think my article needs to be:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject

I didn't choose the subject, I did my research, submitted it to be patented and one day found out I had to reference my work on other researchers anytime I need to publish contents of the work. That is why I had originally submitted my patent with References Cited. I had to remove the References Cited after my parent application ended up being >200 pages long. I had submitted references of capacitors, resistors and every tiny reference I can find. There is simply no references on my work.

Who else invented that or any working form of that?

We don't have to submit References Cited in submitting a patent application. The USPTO does it for us and it's meaningless. It simply means that the patent submission was compared in the patent search process with anything they deemed fit. Imagine this. When two people invent a propulsion system, the USPTO won't compare the two things. Instead, they will choose whatever. For instance, the Ion Truster could have been reviewed with a chemical rocket submission of their own design, because the search for other inventions show that those two things are propulsion systems. The thing is, it's claimed that both inventions fly. Why would they compare any of the inventions with anything that won't fly or two dissimilar things?

I think I will try the biography submission. Heavens know I need to make the world know what I invented. If you publish my article, maybe NASA will finally give me the grant I need to safely R&D my project. I don't think I want to go build it in my garage. Swbraithwaite (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Invention of Artificial Gravity Fields (October 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Utopes were:  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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Invention of Artificial Gravity Fields and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Invention of Artificial Gravity Fields (October 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Numberguy6 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Invention of Artificial Gravity Fields and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

Numberguy6 (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

"Zero sources cited.". I cited nearly 17 sources. I know what cited sources are. Swbraithwaite (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Invention of Artificial Gravity Fields (October 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Dan arndt were:  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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Invention of Artificial Gravity Fields and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

Dan arndt (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Artificial gravity fields (October 6)

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 Qcne was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Please see WP:MADEUP.

Qcne (talk) 08:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

How are you people reviewing articles so fast? It's been less than 5 minutes since I submitted the article. Swbraithwaite (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Swbraithwaite. It was a very easy rejection. The article is clearly your own WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH / invention, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. WP:MADEUP explains this policy in detail.

Wikipedia is not the place for you to publish your theories or discoveries on artificial gravity. Qcne (talk) 08:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

OK. Then why doesn't Wikipedia remove all articles about famous people who are still alive? It's very obvious no matter who writes their biographies, they personally did it. Am I supposed to believe that all it takes is an independent manager to create an article and it is absolutely posted on Wikipedia? OK. If I ever get funding for my project and anything about me gets on Wikipedia, I will get it removed. At this time, it's obvious that I am publishing my own work because I invented something. You publish a lot of invented apparatuses that were researched, and they do not function, and I am trying to publish an idea that functions. So far, did I submit a link to my website on my article? Weird. There is no logic in the rejections. I will try contacting a Wikipedia manager directly. Swbraithwaite (talk) 09:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Swbraithwaite Wikipedia has no managers. We are all volunteer editors. If you feel I have made a gross error of judgement in my rejection you can appeal at WP:AFCHELP and another experienced editor will come along and have a look. Please state you are making an appeal if you do post on that help desk.

Wikipedia also has millions of articles, many of which are of poor quality and should be cleaned up or deleted. I don't understand your reference to biographies, though, as your draft is not a biography.

It is very simple: Wikipedia does not allow original research. If your invention gets published by reputable, reliable, independent journals/papers/media websites then we can consider an article to be written about it. For now though your new invention has no place on Wikipedia, and my rejection still stands.

Hope that helps, but let me know if you have any specific questions. Qcne (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, most rejections from places that publish scientific information is a front for plagiarism run by envious people. It's so bad that some publishers choose to keep the articles public after the contest. Like the two Climate CoLab articles I referenced in the article. I thought I needed reliable sources. Those are 2. Swbraithwaite (talk) 09:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The two Climate CoLab articles had nothing to do with your invention.

Wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed journal or research depository. We are an encyclopaedia, which means we only have articles on topics that are 'notable'.

As suggested previously, if you feel I have made a gross error of judgement in my rejection you can appeal at WP:AFCHELP. Qcne (talk) 09:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes they do. My invention is a propulsion system. The two articles are clearly about propulsion systems. Swbraithwaite (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I have nothing more to explain to you, as you do not seem to understand the purpose of Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

No I don't. While looking at Batman and listen to the Joker talk about "why" he suffers I realized that why is just another why. I got to get some sleep. I get what Wikipedia is about now. Don't worry about it. Articles need to mature;  Swbraithwaite (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Gravitational torsion field

Hello, Swbraithwaite. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Gravitational torsion field, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Artificial Gravity Fields

Hello, Swbraithwaite. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Artificial Gravity Fields".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 01:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Gravitational torsion field

Hello, Swbraithwaite. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Gravitational torsion field".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! ji11720 (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Artificial gravity fields

Hello, Swbraithwaite. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Artificial gravity fields, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Artificial gravity fields

Hello, Swbraithwaite. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Artificial gravity fields".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)