User talk:Charlesrocky68: Difference between revisions

Line 78: Line 78:

Please see more information at [[Help:Unreviewed new page]].

When the article is ready for publication, please click on the “Submit the draft for review!” button at the top of the page OR move the page back. [[User:onel5969|”'Onel5969”’]] [[User talk:Onel5969|TT me]] 12:48, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

== Your submission at [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|Articles for creation]]: [[Draft:Rebecca Rosenblat|Rebecca Rosenblat]] (September 27) ==

<div style=”border: solid 1px #FCC; background-color: var(–background-color-warning-subtle, #fdf2d5); color: inherit; padding: 0.5em 1em; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;”> [[File:AFC-Logo_Decline.svg|50px|left]]Your recent article submission to [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|Articles for Creation]] has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.<nowiki> </nowiki>The reason left by Thilsebatti was:

{{divbox|gray|3=This submission’s references do not show that the subject [[Wikipedia:Notability|qualifies for a Wikipedia article]]—that is, they do not show ”significant” coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in ”published”, [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|”reliable”]], [[Wikipedia:No_original_research#Secondary|”secondary”]] sources that are ”[[Wikipedia:Independent sources|independent]]” of the subject (see the [[Wikipedia:Notability (people)|guidelines on the notability of people]]). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see [[Help:Referencing_for_beginners#Inserting_a_reference|technical help]] and learn about [[Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability)|mistakes to avoid]] when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.|}}<!–

—

–> 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:Rebecca Rosenblat]] 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 [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13. Abandoned drafts and Articles for creation submissions|may be deleted]].

* If you need any assistance, or have experienced any [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning|untoward behavior]] associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Rebecca_Rosenblat ”’Articles for creation help desk”’], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thilsebatti&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Rebecca_Rosenblat ”’reviewer’s talk page”’] or use [[Wikipedia:IRC help disclaimer|Wikipedia’s real-time chat help from experienced editors]].

[[User:Thilsebatti|Thilsebatti]] ([[User talk:Thilsebatti|talk]]) 06:08, 27 September 2025 (UTC)</div><!–Template:AfC decline–>

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

Well done on creating the draft, and it may potentially meet the relevant requirements (including WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO) but presently it is not clear that it does.

As you may know, Wikipedia’s basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. To properly create such a draft page, please see the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’.
Also, if you have any connection to the subject, including being the subject (see WP:AUTOBIO) or being paid, you have a conflict of interest that you must declare on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link).
Please familiarise yourself with these pages before amending the draft. If you feel you can meet these requirements, then please make the necessary amendments before resubmitting the page. It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft’s talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject.
It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg “I think the page now meets WP:ANYBIO criteria #3, because XXXXX”).

Once you have implemented these suggestions, you may also wish to leave a note for me on my talk page and I would be happy to reassess. As I said, I do think this draft has potential so please do persevere.

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.

Cabrils (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Charlesrocky68!
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! Cabrils (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Linda J.M. Holloway, but you didn’t provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate the clarification, but I would like to understand why the “Publications” section could not be included, as it was properly sourced and lists academic work authored by Dr. Linda Holloway. Additionally, aside from the “Early Life” section, the other sections were carefully sourced from reliable and independent references. I would be grateful for your guidance on how best to address these concerns and ensure the content meets Wikipedia’s standards. Charlesrocky68 (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Daniel L. Bowling. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and with a relative low citation record and no major awards as yet notability is dubious. .
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 the draft for review!” button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Rebecca Rosenblat. 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.

Hey, I noticed you’re creating a lot of articles directly in mainspace of non-notable people and your userpage appears to be written by an LLM. his makes you look like a bit like an undeclared paid editor. Do you have any explanation for the odd behaviour? — NotCharizard ^🗨 15:19, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message. I understand your concerns. My goal is to make helpful contributions that follow Wikipedia’s guidelines. If any of my edits seem odd, I welcome feedback and am willing to change them. I’m still learning and may not be an expert yet, but I will remain aware of neutrality and sourcing as I move forward, and I will keep trying to improve. Charlesrocky68 (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will be more direct: Do you have an undeclared conflict of interest with any of the articles that you have created? Why does your userpage state things that are untrue, such as that you once created a featured article? — NotCharizard ^🗨 20:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t have any undeclared COI. The user page line was just light-hearted wording, but I’ll adjust it to avoid confusion. Charlesrocky68 (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Colleen Shannon (novelist). 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.

Thanks for your contributions to Linda J.M. Holloway. 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.

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

Thilsebatti (talk) 06:08, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply