User talk:Plant Stress Doctor

I guess this means that the article was deleted and can not be recovered? I guess I have to start from scratch?

AfC notification: Draft:Chloroplast migration has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Chloroplast migration. Thanks! Revent^talk 23:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: [[Draft:Chloroplast migration|Chloroplast Plant Stress Doctor (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)migration]] (September 23)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! The submission has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

The existing submission may be deleted at any time. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.

If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Revent^talk 02:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Plant Stress Doctor, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! Revent^talk 02:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Opti-Sciences Inc (March 1)[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 Robert McClenon was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment they left was:

While there are many references, some of them are to the company's own web site, and some of them appear merely to substantiate statements made in the article rather than commenting on the company. Add independent reliable sources not associated with the company that comment on the company. Although this is unusual advice from a reviewer, remove those references that do not establish notability for the company and only verify statements made in the draft.

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:Opti-Sciences Inc and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Opti-Sciences Inc has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Opti-Sciences Inc. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Opti-Sciences Inc (March 14)[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 SwisterTwister was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment they left was:

Frankly, this seems promotional to where it's unacceptable to move to mainspace at this time. See WP:Your first article and WP:Tone. Please add any further available in-depth third-party sources such as news, magazines and journals for solidity.

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:Opti-Sciences Inc and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Opti-Sciences Inc has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Opti-Sciences Inc. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Opti-Sciences Inc (March 28)[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 DGG was:

This is not an article about the company. It's an article about the general rationale for use of the type of instruments the company makes.

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:Opti-Sciences Inc and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chloroplast migration (March 28)[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 DGG was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

The comment they left was:

This is an over-detailed essay or term paper, not an encyclopedia article.

The subject, however, is notable and the article could be improved sufficiently. Please do the following:

The first section alone,with a small amount of additional detail from the later sections, would probably make a more satisfactory start at an article. The details of experimental measurements is not appropriate here.

But in any case it needs an introductory paragraph telling the reader what chloroplast migration is. The current version assumes that the reader knows what it is, and then goes into the question of what causes it.

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:Chloroplast migration and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 28 March[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Draft:Chloroplast migration page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your help desk questions[edit]

You have responses to both of them.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chloroplast migration (April 24)[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 SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

As I still confirm with DGG's comment, this could be imaginably acceptable but this looks like a journal report instead of a formal encyclopedia article. For example, this would need a better WP:LEAD and better and easier context for viewers unfamiliar with this.

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:Chloroplast migration and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Chloroplast migration has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Chloroplast migration. Thanks! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chloroplast migration (May 17)[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 Omni Flames was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This reads more like an essay than an article. The page is also difficult to read, please further split it into sections.

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:Chloroplast migration and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 07:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chloroplast migration (July 9)[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 Tseung Kwan O was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

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:Chloroplast migration and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 18:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Plant Stress Doctor. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit....[edit]

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Optisci_and_ADC_Bioscientific. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also please carefully read WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTJOURNAL. The vast majority of readers visiting photosynthesis are interested in why photosynthetic efficiency is important, not how to measure it. Boghog (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Steveadcuk, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

KATMAKROFAN (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Opti-Sciences Inc[edit]

Hello, Plant Stress Doctor. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Opti-Sciences Inc".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation 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 edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Chloroplast migration[edit]

Hello, Plant Stress Doctor. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Chloroplast migration".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation 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 edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]