User talk:DovicKnoble

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pandaleaks: The Dark Side of the WWF (November 17)

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

This article has several problems:

(1) No sign that the book meets inclusion criteria (2) Referencing is 1 newspaper article and 2 websites closely related to the book or its subject (3) Tone is not encyclopedic.

Please fix these problems before resubmitting. Note that several INDEPENDENT sources -- such as book reviews in mainstream outlets -- would be required.

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:Pandaleaks: The Dark Side of the WWF 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 get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! DovicKnoble, 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! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Pandaleaks: The Dark Side of the WWF

Hello, DovicKnoble. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Pandaleaks: The Dark Side of the WWF".

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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Hello, I'm Ebyabe. An edit that you recently made to Demagogue seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 17:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Demagogue#RfC_on_Donald_Trump_inclusion for further information. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 18:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, DovicKnoble, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. I noticed that your edit to the page First they came ... didn't conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

That said, I think your contribution could improve the First they came ... article, if you could find a reliable source to support your claim. Perhaps you could search Google Books or Google Scholar to find a relevant source?

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Daask (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: London Real (May 25)

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

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.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

I looked at the references that appeared to be from the best sources. They were all just passing mentions. Please see WP:SIRS and WP:THREE

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:London Real 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:London Real, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, 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.

-- RoySmith (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:London Real

Hello, DovicKnoble. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:London Real, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vaxxed

This article has been subject to lengthy discussion and consensus on Talk. Editors much more experienced than you, and with a much wider range of interests, have arrived at the current wording. Please engage on Talk before changing the article to reflect your reckons. Thanks. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Please stop marking edits as "minor" when they clearly are not minor; doing this repeatedly looks disruptive, especially when you're doing it in an edit war. Jeppiz (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33