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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Unreferenced first paragraph.

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 Rocks Report (Sir Michael Rocks Mixtape) 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.

Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NoEndingFilms! 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! Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @NoEndingFilms: I see your adding unsourced content to article. Every sentence needs a references. Take a look at WP:REFB. If you continue to do you will likely get blocked. scope_creep^Talk 01:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the article is it unsourced? happy to add what's necessary NoEndingFilms (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm That Tired Tarantula. I noticed that you recently removed content from Special Edition Grand Master Deluxe without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 02:18, 28 January 2024 (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 Qcne was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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:Before Shit Got Weird (The Cool Kids Album) 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.

Qcne (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2024 (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 TheBritinator was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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 Rocks Report (Sir Michael Rocks Mixtape) 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.

TheBritinator (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which particular pieces require citation? I'm happy to substantiate whatever is necessary NoEndingFilms (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 20:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've created 3 pages entirely void of citations. Lap Of Lux, Premier Politics, and The Rocks Report. Please cite your added material and add information to the project with the idea of 'quality over quantity. Thanks, microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 20:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at While You Wait. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 20:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Creation of articles without sources, not acknowledging user talk page discussions Shazback (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NoEndingFilms: Please go to the noticeboard discussion and respond. Here's the link again.

Dustfreeworld has given you a "welcome" template below, with links to pages that explain our main policies and guidelines. I'm sorry nobody thought to do this before. I've looked at Draft:The Rocks Report (Sir Michael Rocks Mixtape) and at Lap Of Lux and I'd like to try to explain the referencing issue that people have brought up concerning your work; I see you have responded a couple of times on this page that you would be happy to fix it but don't understand what the problem is.

One of our basic principles is verifiability; we try to indicate where we got all the information in the article, so that the reader can check it (and find out more if they want to). We do this by making footnotes/references (basic how-to guide). We don't use inline links to the source (hyperlinks) (policy section). This is for two reasons: (a) the link is just a link, so if the URL changes or the page goes offline, both of which happen quite often, neither readers nor other editors have a good way to figure out that it's gone, or what it was; (b) in most browsers, it will look very like an internal wikilink except for a little symbol at the end, so it's easy to miss that it's in fact a reference. Judging by those 2 examples, you've been creating articles with hyperlinks to a couple of reviews; and the reviewers and other Wikipedians have completely missed those and consider your articles to be completely unreferenced. Compare Lap Of Lux now, after work by MicrobiologyMarcus, to how it was when you created it. See the "References" section at the bottom, with both of the links now made into footnotes? (In Draft:The Rocks Report (Sir Michael Rocks Mixtape), you instead have the heading "References" on the first paragraph, which is actually the introduction to the article.)

Verifiability also requires referencing much more—pretty much everything in the article needs to have a reference, though the same reference can be used more than once—and everything must be in the reference that's given for it. In Draft: The Rocks Report (Sir Michael Rocks Mixtape), I can't see where the linked sentence "The mixtape is notable for its lyrical prowess, showcasing Rocks' unique style and versatility across 15 tracks" is supported by the source, which doesn't mention either "lyrical" or "versatility" and states that there are 25 tracks, not 15 (as does the other source). The point about personal growth and complex relationships needs to be credited to that second source, as does your "effortless flow" point, and where does "witty insights" come from? Points without a reference note skirt the edge of plagiarism/copyvio, even when you've rephrased them as you have there. (And the sentence "You can read the full review on SF Station here." suggests you pasted text from the second source into your draft and then edited it on the page; that's extremely risky because it's tempting not to rewrite it fully in your own words.)

There's also an issue with notability: whether all albums (let alone mixtapes) should have independent articles. It's not enough that they are by a notable artist. Have a look at the specific criteria for recordings, and at this overview page on how to create a new article that won't be challenged. Two reviews is very much borderline; can you find a third extended discussion of all of these to cite?

While I'm here, wording like "the project leveraged the fan bases of these collaborators, expanding its reach." and "Collaborative singles were released ahead of the mixtape ... further amplifying its visibility." in Lap Of Lux is biz-speak. My first reaction was to suspect copyvio. Wikipedia is not promotion; it's an encycopedia, so neutral, factual presentation is another basic rule here. If you have any connection to Sir Michael Rocks other than being a fan, please read this page on conflict-of-interest editing and note that you are obligated to disclose it if you are being paid for your edits. If you don't have a conflict of interest, note that that kind of wording raises the suspicion, because it's not encyclopedic style; writing in a plainer, "just the facts" way will help make your articles more acceptable to the Wikipedians who review new articles.

Sorry about length; I hope I've helped you understand. Thank you for helping grow the project, and welcome aboard! Yngvadottir (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. We hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Our five pillars Introduction to Wikipedia How to edit a page (editing policy) Help pages index (glossary) Article development Wikitext cheatsheet While editing Wikipedia: Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies. Be bold, but do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing. Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites. No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts. Provide reliable sources to the content you add. If you are adding biomedical information, please follow this guideline. Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources. Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum. If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so. If you have any questions, check out the Teahouse or ask me on my talk page. Please sign your messages on discussion pages, which is done by entering four tildes (~~~~) at the very end of it; this will automatically insert your username and the date. Again, welcome! ----Dustfreeworld (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have not responded at the noticeboard, and instead created another new article with hyperlinks instead of footnotes, The Cool Kids Before Shit Got Weird. I now also see that you've been uploading album and mixtape covers to Commons as your own work, and they are rightly being speedy deleted as copyright violations. To use the covers in an article, you would need to upload them to Wikipedia, not Commons, with a claim of fair use: see Wikipedia:Non-free content. I also see that you added to Sir Michael Rocks the sentence "Michael is currently represented via consulting agency HillTop Ave and Propelr Music." This is promotional. Once more, I draw your attention to WP:COI. The noticeboard section is here. Please go there and respond. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Premier Politics. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. TarnishedPath^talk 23:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Lap of Lux. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. TarnishedPath^talk 23:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to While You Wait.... Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. TarnishedPath^talk 23:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Populair. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. TarnishedPath^talk 23:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Populair Pt.2. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. TarnishedPath^talk 23:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to The Cool Kids Before Shit Got Weird. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. TarnishedPath^talk 23:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]