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

Okay, this is getting pretty close, but you have two major issues to fix before this can publish:

• You have a lot of promotional language; please read through your draft and remove anything that smacks of praise or hype. Note it's fine to quote other people praising or denigrating the book, since we're reporting "the fact that someone said this". But for speaking in Wikipedia's own voice, you need to phrase everything neutrally.

• You have the right format for footnotes, but you need to place the footnotes next to the specific facts they prove. See WP:REFB for how footnotes work here. Especially, whenever you have a direct quote from someone, you should have a clear footnote immediately after the quote to show where it came from.

Please make these changes, then click Resubmit for next review. Do not be discouraged, AFC is an iterative process, and Declines are normal. Keep up the improvements!

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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Complete History of The Howling 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:The Complete History of The Howling, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the .
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LisaHadley2018! 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! MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Complete History of The Howling, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the .
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from The Howling (franchise) into The Complete History of The Howling. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the tips much appreciated LisaHadley2018 (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can add one image of the cover, even though it's copyrighted, under Fair Use. To see how to do it, it's basically the same process explained at WP:Logo except check the box for "book cover art" instead of logo when you get to that option. You need to make sure the image you upload isn't a huge high-res one, since for Fair Use it's required that it be no larger nor clearer than it has to be to look fine on the page, so shrink it down to 300px or so before you upload it. Just a suggestion! MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry dude, "it's on the internet and they said to spread it around" is not the same as Public Domain or Creative Commons; the book cover is copyright unless explicitly released, and people usually don't just give away the copyright to their book covers.

Your upload to Wikimedia Commons is going to be deleted, since you're incorrectly claiming it's Creative Commons, but you don't have the jurisdiction to claim CC just because it's posted on Twitter.

If you want to have a book cover, and have it not get deleted, again just follow the steps I explained above, and it'll post no problem. Let me know if you have any questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions at WP:Logo are kind of busy, so the simpler explanation is just to use the "Upload file" link that's right now on the left hand side of your screen (below the Wikipedia globe and like 15 links down). Once you go into that, you must click the option for "Copyright but posting under Fair Use", then select "Book cover" and the rest of the form is reasonably intuitive. Again, let me know if you get stuck uploading the cover. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I’ll try again to do it when I’m home. Thank you so much thou for your help your amazing LisaHadley2018 (talk) 10:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bryn Curt James Hammond is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryn Curt James Hammond until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Complete History of The Howling has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is WP:ADMASQ lacking independent, reliable sources

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. wikitigresito (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Complete History of The Howling is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Complete History of The Howling until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. wikitigresito (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A Case for Murder: Brittany Murphy Files is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Case for Murder: Brittany Murphy Files until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Randykitty (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions are appreciated, but, in this edit to A Case for Murder: Brittany Murphy Files, you removed Articles for deletion notices from articles or removed other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates. This makes it difficult to establish consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Tillerh11 (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tillerh11 thank you for your comments I have approached ABC for advice on my articles as I believe I am being victimised by two members. ABC is the media industry’s stamp of trust.

They deliver industry-agreed standards for media brand measurement across print, digital and events. They also verify data, processes and good practice to industry-agreed standards. I have supplied endless evidence to my cases and the same two people even with pages already approved by Editors still place my articles for deletion. LisaHadley2018 (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Case for Murder: Brittany Murphy Files. LisaHadley2018, a number of editors have cut you a lot of slack because the situation seems to be so upsetting for you, but I think it would be unfair to you to allow you to continue with the AGF violations. Do not claim that other editors are "attacking" or "vandalising" your articles. Vandalism is an act of intentionally trying to deface Wikipedia by adding graffiti, false information, random jokes or profanity, or by continuing to e.g. remove or add content against policy. None of this applies here, and it is not accpetable to discuss other editors or their presumed motivations for arguing against the inclusion of articles in Wikipedia. Article deletion discussions are not a vote and not a battle. bonadea contributions talk 13:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

bonadea is this the same respect showed to matthewvanitas who approved my first articles topic now put forward for deletion? My work as I highlighted began as one topic The Complete History of The Howling I enjoyed writing it and noticed two specific items I’d listed didn’t have there own pages, so I built pages for A Case for Murder: Brittany Murphy Files & its author Bryn Curt James Hammond. I have been given constructive criticism by other editors and received help from them and I was hugely great full. Yes I’m upset and yes I feel victimised and its from the same few people over and over. Had they came to me and gave me direct advise how to tidy the article like other editors have I’d be working on the topics instead of defending myself and my hard work. LisaHadley2018 (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time: please do not ping me. Experienced editors in good standing may occasionally disagree with each other about the interpretation of Wikipedia policy, and that does not in any way imply disrespect. Somebody who works very hard and reviews a lot of articles is bound to occasionally accept an article that, in hindsight, does not meet Wikipedia's policies, but so what? That won't make anyone respect the editor less - that is also part of assuming good faith. There are dozens of deletion discussions going on at any given moment about whether specific articles meet notability policies or not. And finally, as already mentioned, lack of notability cannot be solved by "tidying" an article. --bonadea contributions talk 15:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No one here has any kind of an "agenda" against you, LisaHadley2018. It is obvious that while you have plenty of enthusiasm in your approach to Wikipedia, you are seriously lacking in familiarization with its policies and guidelines. I'd suggest your try and set your emotions aside before your hasty actions here have repercussions. Then try to familiarize yourself with the policies; instead of seeking assistance about Wikipedia editing elsewhere, such as from ABC, start hitting those introductory links to policies and guidelines, e.g. WP:V. This is one totally honest and constructive suggestion, so please treat it as such. -The Gnome (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have The Gnome and sincerely spent hours reviewing the links editors have claimed my article falls into. I asked for secondary opinions on my topic and its citations based on the claims made. ABC & PPA have confirmed that my sources & secondary sources are from reliable and reputable print & online media outlets. I have asked both recognised agencies to confirm this by email which I will post here as soon as the emails arrive. I am like everyone else simply standing my ground on my opinion which I had reviewed against Wikipedia’s terms of inclusion and the allegations the topic The Complete History of The Howling is not notable and that the sources and secondary sources are unreliable. LisaHadley2018 (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the first things an editor should learn to do is check ("preview") their edits. Your links to "ABC" and "PPA" are links to disambiguation pages; you keep positing up those links without once checking them. As I said, lots of enthusiasm (which is great!), lack of knowledge about editing (which can be quite an obstacle). ABC or PPA or anyone else are not the right "guides" for Wikipedia; only Wikipedia itself is, through a few quite simple and straightforward rules. (By the way, if you have any kind of professional connection to entities such as ABC, try to learn about conflict-of-interest editing.) Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Might it be the case that you are a young editor, Lisa? If this is the case, I think WP:YOUNG would be a great guide for you. Also, The Gnome gave you very good advise, you should try to follow it. wikitigresito (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

wikitigresito are you saying that PPA & ABC who I got secondary opinion’s from have no idea what a reliable source and secondary sources are? And that they would have no idea what a notable book would be? Additionally, are you saying matthewvanitas who approved my original article The Complete History of The Howling doesn’t no the difference between a notable source and a reliable source? LisaHadley2018 (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome when I reference ABC I’m referring to two citations within my article. Two magazine which are ABC certified. LisaHadley2018 (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. But you still have not understood what a disambiguation link is. Perhaps you did not follow the link I provided in which you could've found an explanation. Also, you have been advised to stop pinging others in a discussion; we already follow it by default. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Last warning, LisaHadley2018. For some unknown reason, you seem to ignore any and all suggestions that were made to you, even though you admit to being a new contributor to Wikipedia. You were asked not to ping; you kept pinging. You were told not to repeat the same arguments in the AfD because it clutters space and makes the dialogue difficult; you still keep repeating the same arguments over and over. You were advised that the opinions of outside entities, such as ABC, about the articles is irrelevant; you keep on mentioning them as if they have some value. You were told that if other, more experienced, editors were positive about those articles in the process of creating them, this does not guarantee permanent inclusion in the main space; yet, you keep invoking those editors' opinion. It was pointed out to you that no one "owns" articles in Wikipedia, no matter how long and hard they might've worked on them; nonetheless, you keep referring to those articles as your own. You even ask for help from other editors to "save" them. And, worst of all, you were warned not to engage in sockpuppetry, but you still engage in the practice. Before you even begun your Wikipedia presence you are in danger of being blocked. I have to give up on you. I hope you do not give up on Wikipedia. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]